> Individual rights are what makes the West successful compared to the rest of the world.
We're talking about Western-style democratic socialism, as found in Sweden, Norway, Germany, England, etc. here. Terrifying totalitarian hellholes they're not.
I agree with what you wrote, but why does the US have be the same as those countries? Why can't there be a variety of implementations of government such that different humans can choose different situations for their own needs? I'd still like to see Cuba change to a fully democratic communist state, for example.
But when you discover that a system has way better objective outcomes, e.g. in the case of drug policy or healthcare policy, it’s a shame not to upgrade to a similar system.
Really, the US has a lot of good systems, but healthcare isn’t one of them.
I wonder if this is not an oxymoron. In my view, democracy means (a lot of) politics, while communism means no or very little politics (in a true sense of the word).
What do you think will happen when these countries massive debts come due? I don't think they'll be peaceful then. They are living on the backs of their unborn children right now.
At the moment the American quality of life is objective worse. The American healthcare system of today is killing people or bankrupting them, but Sweden's quality may one day decline to American levels, so that's a strong enough argument to say it's the worse choice?
