I seme to hear this Euro-centric version over and over again and I would reiterate that people in general would still rather be HERE than THERE. I am not sure how to prove this statement without research which I do not have time for right now. If people like the Europeans' way of doing things to avidly, then simply pack up and go there. Contribute to the Great Society over there.
Love it or leave it?
People would rather be here than there? What people? Your statement is far too broad to possibly prove in any meaningful way.
And I'm not being Euro-centric. I'm giving very specific nations along with specific data. I am then asking a simple question: why can the Swedes and Danes develop such a society, and we cannot? Clearly it is not that the economics don't work - because they do. Denmark is in fine economic shape. So, you can take care of your people, without sacrificing your economy.
The only argument I've heard is that we are obligated to invade other nations or destroy them by subjecting them to tyranny as has been our history. That is a possibility. My counter argument is that our government should take care of her people and not destroy the lives of other peoples.
The other argument I hear is: love it or leave it. Classic Cold War crap.
I remain unconvinced that this country cannot remove poverty from its shores, but for some reason that is viewed as a bad idea. That nations like those of Scandinavia can do a good job as welfare states must be some anomaly that cannot be reproduced anywhere else. Apparently they are just that much more brilliant than we are.