NationStates Jolt Archive

Here are two issues: drugs and immigration

Drugs - many libertarian socialists are in favour of legalising all drugs. I am also in favour of this, but surely widely available drugs would result in larger amounts of people requiring the socialist public health services. Would this not put an unmanageable drain on the service? If health services were privatised this would not be a problem. For this issue, the only compatible economic system appears to be capitalism.

Immigration - many libertarian socialists are in favour of open borders. I have traditionally been in favour of liberal immigration also, but recent events in my country have got me reconsidering this position. Ideologically, I agree that people have the natural right to move to any country they like. But I don't think this is practical. I am not in favour of getting rid of government education and healthcare services. But also don't want them to be unnecessarily drained, which would increase taxes. I think that the solution here must be either to tighten immigration policies, or to privatise education and health services. What is the workable socialist solution?

come on bastards, get your asses out of those worthless Terri Schiavo threads and answer my posts

too tired :headbang:


edit: would do otherwise... threads on socialism are my thing :)

Well
#1 Drugs. Why would this not work? As a socialist I think they should be legal. Getting a joint would just like getting a beer. You would still have to pay for it, the drugs would be grown and processed by state run enterprises but the government wouldn't be giving you wheelbarrows of coke. I think marijuana (or anyother drug) bars or other like in Amerstam should be privately run though, along with other bars, music, clubs etc along with other small mom and pop businesses .

#2 Immigration- Most immgriants are a plus to the economy. They are typically young in the prime of their life and ussually work hard. For example you don't get 80 year old mexicans swimming the San Antonio river, you get 20 year olds. With most industrialized countries having birth rates well below the replacement rates, immigration is necessary anyway to support swelling elderly populations. This is the same in capitalist or socialist societies.

Drugs - many libertarian socialists are in favour of legalising all drugs. I am also in favour of this, but surely widely available drugs would result in larger amounts of people requiring the socialist public health services. Would this not put an unmanageable drain on the service? If health services were privatised this would not be a problem. For this issue, the only compatible economic system appears to be capitalism.

You can make legal drugs pay for themselves by placing heavy duties on them. This would pay for the increased burden on a public health system. (Targetted taxation is always a better idea anyway, for me.) Secondly, why the assumption that legal drugs would increase the demand on health care. Those that would abuse the drugs are likely to be those that will use them illegally to start with. (Not a 100% fit, but significant anyway.) Additionally you would eliminate those that are abusing the drugs just because they are illegal and it is a form of rebellion. I do not think that legalising all drugs is a financial problem for an economically socialist state.


Immigration - many libertarian socialists are in favour of open borders. I have traditionally been in favour of liberal immigration also, but recent events in my country have got me reconsidering this position. Ideologically, I agree that people have the natural right to move to any country they like. But I don't think this is practical. I am not in favour of getting rid of government education and healthcare services. But also don't want them to be unnecessarily drained, which would increase taxes. I think that the solution here must be either to tighten immigration policies, or to privatise education and health services. What is the workable socialist solution?

Who is to receive the state benefits? Anyone or the citizens of the nation? If it is anyone, then the state has to have very rigid immigration controls or it goes bankrupt overnight. However I do not think that even the most socialist of economies would hand out benefitts to just anyone who happens to be within the physical boundaries of the country. Benefits would have to go to citizens only. Now education and healthcare can be provided by the state, free of charge, to the decendents of citizens, but charged at the current normal rate for private health care for adult immigrants for the first five years of their residence (a probationary period wherein if they break a law or otherwise transgress, such as remaining unemployed voluntairily, they can be expelled from the state). Education for adults could follow the same pattern, if you are proposing free adult education to start with. It is discrimination against immigrants, yes, but it represents that those people have not contributed to the state in any meaningful way, but allows them to obtain these benefits eventually upon the proof of good faith.
What you would do about handicapped immigrants is a more difficult problem. You would probably have to limit their citizenship so that the country would not become the nation of choice for all people with handicaps.

many libertarian socialists are in favour of legalising all drugs. I am also in favour of this, but surely widely available drugs would result in larger amounts of people requiring the socialist public health services. Would this not put an unmanageable drain on the service? If health services were privatised this would not be a problem. For this issue, the only compatible economic system appears to be capitalism.The counter-argument which springs to mind is that legalisation and controlled distribution of drugs would put a colossal dent in criminal activity, from petty theft and muggings to organised trafficking. How many more people do you think would take drugs to a problematic degree if they were legalised? I don't have any numbers, but I would hazard a guess that the healthcare costs would be greatly surpassed by the benefits (financial and societal) of lower crime.

I am not in favour of getting rid of government education and healthcare services. But also don't want them to be unnecessarily drained, which would increase taxes.Again, you'd surely need some concrete numbers. By what percentage are healthcare, education and other costs increased by immigration, and to what extent is that offset by the benefits of a larger and more diverse workforce? Healthcare is a particularly good example: go into any hospital in the UK and you'll most likely find a whole host of immigrant staff, from surgeons to cleaners, and they're still crying out for more.

To answer your question in the thread title:

Unequivocally yes.

Canada and much of europe are irrefutable proof that social liberalism and socialist economics are not mutually exclusive.

Canada and much of europe are irrefutable proof that social liberalism and socialist economics are not mutually exclusive.
Hope you ain't including France and Germany in that statement. Both of them need a steady influx of new, young, and healthy contributors to stay viable in the long run. It's essentially the same problem with Soc. Sec. and Medicare that is fast approaching in the US. So as long as there is a steady influx of north africans and arabs into France and Germany they'll be fine. Of course, at the current rate in 30-50 years France will have over 50% of it's population be composed of north african/arab muslims who for the most part do not assimilate into the French culture, but that's okay. No big deal. The same is true for Germany, albeit to a lesser extent.

Here are two issues: drugs and immigration

Drugs - many libertarian socialists are in favour of legalising all drugs. I am also in favour of this, but surely widely available drugs would result in larger amounts of people requiring the socialist public health services. Would this not put an unmanageable drain on the service? If health services were privatised this would not be a problem. For this issue, the only compatible economic system appears to be capitalism.
I would argue that higher health costs are definately a problem in a privatized system- not for the state perhaps, but for individuals and the economy generally. People with serious drug-related health needs can't be expected to be capable of funding their own treatment completely. Rehabilitation and withdrawal is a complex, long procces that for serious cases involves housing as supervision.

If health care is privatized, sick drug addicts will have to spend all their money on the minimum care they can afford, and sink below the poverty line, if they aren't there already. This is not an economically, or socially healthy path to take

Legalizing marijuana makes economic sense. Legalizing hard drugs that are addictive and catastophically detrimantal to health is not the right choice for a liberal society. That said, here in Vancouver, Canada, over the last year several progressive initiatives that I support have been taken for drug users: safe injection sites, and a program where drugs are given to patients in a detox program. Though expensive, these initiatives are by far preferable to outright legalization- together with its potential profits, und inevitable increase in drug use.

Immigration - many libertarian socialists are in favour of open borders. I have traditionally been in favour of liberal immigration also, but recent events in my country have got me reconsidering this position. Ideologically, I agree that people have the natural right to move to any country they like. But I don't think this is practical. I am not in favour of getting rid of government education and healthcare services. But also don't want them to be unnecessarily drained, which would increase taxes. I think that the solution here must be either to tighten immigration policies, or to privatise education and health services. What is the workable socialist solution?
Immigration, in western countries with low birthrates (which includes most of those with "liberal" government) is essential in our economy. That is, an economy that relies on constant population growth to (somewhat arificially) stay in the clear. As long as more people work than don't, the economy is in good shape. Thought it may seem that immigration is an initial drain on services, their economic contribution is much bigger. Even filling up the low-end jobs immigrants are often o=hired to do is an economic contribution we depend on. Now go read some Maddox, everyone. (http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=walmart)
Maybe when our economies become more sustainable and small, this won't be the case, but even the most progressive countries are capitalist systems.

"Quick, there's an American, lets take his job!!"-Maddox

Drugs would probably be far less of a problem as many of the conditions that drive people to use drugs (poverty, alienation, etc.) would be gone. There would be much less motivation to use drugs heavily. In addition, the "cool" factor of using drugs that derives from them being forbidden would disappear.

In the case of immigration, the best way to deal with it is to eliminate poverty in other nations (libertarian communism [anarchism] does just that). If the whole world has adopted socialism and poverty is abolished, your nation will not be swamped by so many immigrants that the economy is strained.