Prevent or delay the welfare state in your birth country

[RogueBeaver]

As long as possible. For me it's easy: King gets beaten at the 1919 Liberal leadership convention.

[DirtyCommie]

For me it's easy as well: Just keep everything as per OTL, and voila, America is definitely not a welfare state.

[RogueBeaver]

You know what I mean: no Social Security, Medicaid/are, or any state expansion beyond what was present in WWI. Bonus if you prevent the pre-WWI things as well, namely the Liberal reforms in the UK and TR's in the US respectively.

[Jello_Biafra]

RogueBeaver, there's a certain award named after a certain Transylvanian tyrant with your name on it. It will arrive in the mail in 7-10 business days. Enjoy

[wolf_brother]

Fascism comes to power... oh wait, no, because the welfare state still expanded dramatically under Mussolini & Hitler's Fascist/Nazi states.

Even under monarchies, either absolute or constitutional, welfare states flourished.

Honestly, the only way to prevent the welfare state, AFAIK, would be to prevent the Industrial Revolution. The social strain caused by industrialization is too much; either the state gives in and offers some protections (welfare state), or some sort of revolution takes places and new protections are put into place (welfare state).

Delay though, well, that's another story.. but certainly not prevent.

[Gridley]

For me it's easy as well: Just keep everything as per OTL, and voila, America is definitely not a welfare state.

So you live in an ATL? What's it like there?

Seriously, look at the back of the manual explaining how to fill out your 1040. It typically shows a pie chart of what government expenditures go to. Social Security, by itself, costs nearly as much as the DoD. Add in Medicare and such and it is far more. That doesn't count food stamps, unemployment... we're talking roughly 40% of ALL Federal expenditures.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Harding doesn't die, but then the Teapot Dome scandal comes out earlier. People like the Republicans' policies just like OTL, but they see Harding as corrupt. He narrowly loses to a progressive Democrat in 1924. Probably Al Smith. Smith begins gradually implementing some of OTL FDR's New Deal programs. He gets re-elected over Hoover in 1928. When the Depression hits in 1929, the Dems are caught holding the bag instead of Republicans. The whole thing is blamed on Smith's policies, which are labelled as big government socialism. A conservative Republican wins a landslide in 1932 and starts repealing most of Smith's programs. For the next several decades, Republicans counter every single liberal economic argument by pointing at Al Smith and blaming his policies for the depression, much like Democrats did with Hoover in OTL. I'm sure the pendulum would eventually swing back and we'd get a liberal resurgence sometime between the 60s and the 80s, much like Reagan's conservative revolution in OTL. However when that does occur the welfare state would be much less extensive than OTL. So there, I delayed it and shrunk it.

[Dr. Nodelescu]

Impossible. You'd have to stop Bismarck from being Bismarck. Germany was the first country IN THE WORLD to institute a system of social security, it was done under Bismarck, he hoped to combat Socialism (or rather Social Democracy) by reconciling the working class with the monarchist state by instituting just that.

Even alternate German unifications hardly work. Hell, Karl Marx was from Germany, damnit. It's almost a natural law that we came up with that stuff in the first place.

[Spengler]

get rid of the industrial revolution or insure every industrical baron ever had a heart of gold both of which are asb.

You do understand that there was a reason for the reforms right? That they didn't come about because of some grand conspiracy but because of inequalities that existed at the time that outstripped the abilities of private charities to compensate for the poverty and misery.

Seven legged the united states wouldn't last through 1938 in such a situation.

Oh I forgot make it so people are able to just not have a drive to improve their economic livelihood.

[Lemon flavoured]

Somehow butterflying away the NHS would be a start. Where to go from there is a different question, because it's a pretty big change.

[RJ TAYLER]

I'd go as far as saying that you'd have to butterfly away religion as well as 'being kinder to your fellow man' forms a large part of their teachings as well. In fact in the UK it was the church caring for the poor and 'dole-ing' out the money to them in times of need that inspired a lot of what the welfare state does today.

[KyleB]

get rid of the industrial revolution or insure every industrical baron ever had a heart of gold both of which are asb.

You do understand that there was a reason for the reforms right? That they didn't come about because of some grand conspiracy but because of inequalities that existed at the time that outstripped the abilities of private charities to compensate for the poverty and misery.

Seven legged the united states wouldn't last through 1938 in such a situation.

Oh I forgot make it so people are able to just not have a drive to improve their economic livelihood.

In case you weren't paying attention the point of the thread is to speculate about a different course of history and not to rant about the evils of socialism.

Moving right along...

What about no Great Depression? Wouldn't that forestall it until post-war?

[KyleB]

I'd go as far as saying that you'd have to butterfly away religion as well as 'being kinder to your fellow man' forms a large part of their teachings as well. In fact in the UK it was the church caring for the poor and 'dole-ing' out the money to them in times of need that inspired a lot of what the welfare state does today.

Nah, if there was no religion then welfare would come sooner because without religious charity, people would be even more dependent on government help.

[John Fredrick Parker]

Keeping the US from adopting the Welfare State may be as easy as keeping FDR from doing it; if so, just make sure he doesn't get polio...

[Meadow]

In Britain, a 1945 Conservative victory would certainly set back the NHS and many of the other pillars of the Welfare State, but they would probably arrive eventually, perhaps in the early 1950s after Labour win a landslide in 1950 instead or something. I think you'd need ASBs (or just a succession of scummy, David Owen-standard Labour leading figures) to keep anything like the Welfare State emerging until Thatcher comes along and shifts the consensus away from it.

That being said, having no welfare state would probably butterfly Thatcher and Thatcherism beyond recognition.

[Blue Max]

Best way to do this would probably to just get big business into government and have it refuse to make any concessions to anyone.

Blaine becomes President instead of Grover Cleveland; he is deeply in the pocket of major corporations. Big Business has simple ideas for what they want: No Unions, no wasteful taxes on helping the less fortunately, no government aid for disasters, High Tariffs and nearly total isolation from the world at large.

Government takes a turn away from popular rule towards oligophy. Hired Guns, like the Pinkertons, simply have open license to gun down strikers in the streets. This arrangement is unstable, and so corporations simply co-operate to ensure that they will hang together, or they will surely hang apart.

There's no reason to ensure that people hurt on the job get any kind of medical care. Screw them. No reason that factories can't hire "jolly elves" to work in their factories--can't their parent's have more children?

After Blaine, people like Roscoe Conkling and perhaps even CEOs themselves can take up the mantle. President J.P. Morgan, President Henry Ford. Each one more of the same, as democracy dies to the face of endless money and control.

The Proletariat would be impoverished, hungry, and left entirely powerless. The US Chamber of Commerce, the true nexus of American Power for well over a century, cares nothing for human rights abuses or environmental destruction. Why worry that Baltimore or Detroit is an unlivable hell-hole? Most of the important people of the United States live far away from those places where those simian workers live, therefore its cheaper not to care.

The idea of even providing basic aid to the needy falls to equally hard hearted religious institutions, which stress the Gospel of Wealth as a founding credo. Giving people access to basic medicine and sanitation would probably increase their lifespans and quality of life, but that would cost precious tax dollars that would reduce profits.

Banning Child Labor, Abortion and Infanticide, and proposing basic education for men (not for women) is beyond the scope of this one party system. The idea that the less fortunate might actually need help as opposed to conveniently dying and being replaced by someone cheaper is taboo in Washington, itself free of the intense smog, acid rain and trash that wreck much of the country. Social Security? This USA has privatized the post office...

[Dan1988]

Best way to do this would probably to just get big business into government and have it refuse to make any concessions to anyone.

Blaine becomes President instead of Grover Cleveland; he is deeply in the pocket of major corporations. Big Business has simple ideas for what they want: No Unions, no wasteful taxes on helping the less fortunately, no government aid for disasters, High Tariffs and nearly total isolation from the world at large.

Government takes a turn away from popular rule towards oligophy. Hired Guns, like the Pinkertons, simply have open license to gun down strikers in the streets. This arrangement is unstable, and so corporations simply co-operate to ensure that they will hang together, or they will surely hang apart.

There's no reason to ensure that people hurt on the job get any kind of medical care. Screw them. No reason that factories can't hire "jolly elves" to work in their factories--can't their parent's have more children?

After Blaine, people like Roscoe Conkling and perhaps even CEOs themselves can take up the mantle. President J.P. Morgan, President Henry Ford. Each one more of the same, as democracy dies to the face of endless money and control.

The Proletariat would be impoverished, hungry, and left entirely powerless. The US Chamber of Commerce, the true nexus of American Power for well over a century, cares nothing for human rights abuses or environmental destruction. Why worry that Baltimore or Detroit is an unlivable hell-hole? Most of the important people of the United States live far away from those places where those simian workers live, therefore its cheaper not to care.

The idea of even providing basic aid to the needy falls to equally hard hearted religious institutions, which stress the Gospel of Wealth as a founding credo. Giving people access to basic medicine and sanitation would probably increase their lifespans and quality of life, but that would cost precious tax dollars that would reduce profits.

Banning Child Labor, Abortion and Infanticide, and proposing basic education for men (not for women) is beyond the scope of this one party system. The idea that the less fortunate might actually need help as opposed to conveniently dying and being replaced by someone cheaper is taboo in Washington, itself free of the intense smog, acid rain and trash that wreck much of the country. Social Security? This USA has privatized the post office...

You do realize that eventually Americans are going to revolt over that? Eventually, things will probably change in the direction towards a social safety net.

[archaeogeek]

snip

And by 1930, you can say hi to the United Socialist States of America.

[KyleB]

Best way to do this would probably to just get big business into government and have it refuse to make any concessions to anyone.

Blaine becomes President instead of Grover Cleveland; he is deeply in the pocket of major corporations. Big Business has simple ideas for what they want: No Unions, no wasteful taxes on helping the less fortunately, no government aid for disasters, High Tariffs and nearly total isolation from the world at large.

Government takes a turn away from popular rule towards oligophy. Hired Guns, like the Pinkertons, simply have open license to gun down strikers in the streets. This arrangement is unstable, and so corporations simply co-operate to ensure that they will hang together, or they will surely hang apart.

There's no reason to ensure that people hurt on the job get any kind of medical care. Screw them. No reason that factories can't hire "jolly elves" to work in their factories--can't their parent's have more children?

After Blaine, people like Roscoe Conkling and perhaps even CEOs themselves can take up the mantle. President J.P. Morgan, President Henry Ford. Each one more of the same, as democracy dies to the face of endless money and control.

The Proletariat would be impoverished, hungry, and left entirely powerless. The US Chamber of Commerce, the true nexus of American Power for well over a century, cares nothing for human rights abuses or environmental destruction. Why worry that Baltimore or Detroit is an unlivable hell-hole? Most of the important people of the United States live far away from those places where those simian workers live, therefore its cheaper not to care.

The idea of even providing basic aid to the needy falls to equally hard hearted religious institutions, which stress the Gospel of Wealth as a founding credo. Giving people access to basic medicine and sanitation would probably increase their lifespans and quality of life, but that would cost precious tax dollars that would reduce profits.

Banning Child Labor, Abortion and Infanticide, and proposing basic education for men (not for women) is beyond the scope of this one party system. The idea that the less fortunate might actually need help as opposed to conveniently dying and being replaced by someone cheaper is taboo in Washington, itself free of the intense smog, acid rain and trash that wreck much of the country. Social Security? This USA has privatized the post office...

That can't last forever, there would be virtual armed revolution and the US would end up becoming the forefront of progressive ideals in the West.

[juanml82]

Isn't that exactly what Marx "predicted"? Increased inequality and social unrest turns the class struggle into a civil war (aka revolution and counter revolution) and once the proletariat wins, they impose the "proletariat" dictatorship.
Social reforms diluted the conflict and avoided said civil wars.

[Hendryk]

One should keep in mind that the "welfare state" by whatever definition was not implemented because of any one person. It's silly to claim that "if so-and-so had/hadn't come to power, my country wouldn't have a welfare state". The extension of social rights, which is what the "welfare state" really is about, is a natural development in advanced industrial societies, especially if they're democratic. The US is somewhat of an exception, and a partial one at that, but the trend in all other developed countries for more than a century is obvious enough.

You can have social rights, or you can have an authoritarian government that spends all its time putting down popular uprisings. It's your call. Even Bismarck figured out that a clever authoritarian government might just as well implement social rights so it wouldn't have to deal with popular uprisings.

[Megaman03]

Best chance of that happening is big business taking over as the government.

Probably a massive oligarchy between the CEO's of the major corporations. There will be healthcare, postal services, fire protection and the police. However, they would be terribly ineffective (Why give more than what they need? That would reduce profits!) and very expensive, such that only the privileged minority can afford such services. No-one would have the right to vote (Save for the oligarchs), child labor, racketeering, prostitution and crime would be widespread among the proletariat and lower classes (Who would make up a vast majority) as people struggle to get by. Workers would be worthless as any number can be replaced at a moments notice. Hardly anyone would be educated, which leads to the elite telling outright lies to justify this horror.

Propaganda would keep the masses down (Uneducated, remember?) Secret police would "re-educate" any who even looked like a dissident. The cities would be dirty, grimy and crime-infested rat holes with barely any sanitation or running water. Buildings would be under-maintained and crumbling while the everyday person is often ill, malnourished and weaker (physically and mentally). Only the rich neighborhoods would have well built housing and "privileges" we see as the norm today. Food would be bland and deficient of nutrients for everyone but the rich (Who will have huge varieties of food to choose from).

The blatant disrespect of human rights, the totalitarian oligarchy and the poverty of much of its populace alone would make North Korea look like a blushing 3 year old.

So, congrats, you have created Oceania from 1984 :rolleyes:

[Riain]

May I ask why one would want the welfare state prevented or delayed?

[Advernt]

Best way to do this would probably to just get big business into government and have it refuse to make any concessions to anyone.

Blaine becomes President instead of Grover Cleveland; he is deeply in the pocket of major corporations. Big Business has simple ideas for what they want: No Unions, no wasteful taxes on helping the less fortunately, no government aid for disasters, High Tariffs and nearly total isolation from the world at large.

Government takes a turn away from popular rule towards oligophy. Hired Guns, like the Pinkertons, simply have open license to gun down strikers in the streets. This arrangement is unstable, and so corporations simply co-operate to ensure that they will hang together, or they will surely hang apart.

There's no reason to ensure that people hurt on the job get any kind of medical care. Screw them. No reason that factories can't hire "jolly elves" to work in their factories--can't their parent's have more children?

After Blaine, people like Roscoe Conkling and perhaps even CEOs themselves can take up the mantle. President J.P. Morgan, President Henry Ford. Each one more of the same, as democracy dies to the face of endless money and control.

The Proletariat would be impoverished, hungry, and left entirely powerless. The US Chamber of Commerce, the true nexus of American Power for well over a century, cares nothing for human rights abuses or environmental destruction. Why worry that Baltimore or Detroit is an unlivable hell-hole? Most of the important people of the United States live far away from those places where those simian workers live, therefore its cheaper not to care.

The idea of even providing basic aid to the needy falls to equally hard hearted religious institutions, which stress the Gospel of Wealth as a founding credo. Giving people access to basic medicine and sanitation would probably increase their lifespans and quality of life, but that would cost precious tax dollars that would reduce profits.

Banning Child Labor, Abortion and Infanticide, and proposing basic education for men (not for women) is beyond the scope of this one party system. The idea that the less fortunate might actually need help as opposed to conveniently dying and being replaced by someone cheaper is taboo in Washington, itself free of the intense smog, acid rain and trash that wreck much of the country. Social Security? This USA has privatized the post office...

Basically , this is an Industrial Age variant of Serfdom , with a so called "Capitalist" Aristocracy. I wouldn't even call it Laissez Faire - a Big Business Government of this fashion would probably strongly resemble the Command Economy of the USSR eventually in many ways , where a coalition of senior Capitalist Oligarchs cum Appartchniks dictate every form of production and business transactions , where monopolies dominate every single market .

The proletrait , highly uneducated , highly malnourished , and highly unmotivated would also be far more unproductive . Why bother working your ass off or giving your all if there's no prospect of social advancement or betterment ? Why Educate the proles ? Keep them in ignorance , doing menial tasks .

But eventually , such an economy would be highly unproductive . Indeed , I suspect we'll see a USA suffering 70's and 80's USSR Style social , and also some economic problems . Firstly , alcoholism and drug abuse rates would be through the roof. Crime would be extremely rife. Life Expectancy would be low . Productivity about as much as you might expect from a society virtually based on Slavery by another name. An uneducated population would also mean a extremely uncreative population . There will eventually be huge shortages of the necessary skilled workers needed to run an advance industrial economy, unless the US Oligarchy decides to implement a Federal Education Policy and system - in which case we would have a nascent social welfare state of a sorts. R&D would be rather low in the absence of competition.

Economically , the proliferation of Monopolies , though profit oriented might very well result from very similar inefficiencies that plagued the Command Economy. What's the difference anyway ? A Big Business state economy would likely be a Command Economy all but in name . If Big Business is the government , and an economy where the government dictates production , prices and allocation is a command economy , a Big Business government would essentially be a command economy, albeit one more intent on driving up prices to enrich the elites.

The question is how long this stasis can last ? All it takes are a few sufficiently large nations to realize that , at the very least , the provision of more equal opportunities would give them a significant competitive advantage to break this equilibrium, be it either by forcing every other county to follow suit , or in producing a war that wipes out civilization, Even the introduction of Roman style bread and circuses to keep the population down would be social welfare of a sort , mind you.

In the end though , this thread needs a definition of "Social Security " . The most extreme interpretation , where the government is completely controlled by business and run solely for the benefit of a Bourgeois - Aristocracy basically means we have one Huge Sovietized USA , without any of the pretense of being for the "masses" . This is very much a Vlad Tepes.

P.S By the way , I do think the Pinkertons would eventually evolve into a Secret Police very much in the vein of Gestapo , Kempatai , Stassi or KGB, albeit supposedly "privatized". I wonder what the American version of this "privatized" Secret Police will be called.

P.S.S : What would be a Big Business run USA dictatorship foreign policy would be like I Wonder? Would it be steadfastly isolationist , except when assess to markets are involved ? In that case , they might have a huge issue with any British Blockade on any warring powers in any WWI analogue. Or are they expansionist , seeking the direct annexation of other states , so as to fully secure and capture captive markets ? Without any Social Welfare at all , I foresee many Latin American coups ending with applications by Latin American Elites into the USA as states . And since the peasants of Latin America are considered inconsequential ,we just need to have elites to be seen as sufficiently Americanized to be incorporated into the US System.
Finally , I suspect that Nihilism , Nietzche's Philosophy of the Ubensmech and Atheism be rife among the elites of America .

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Somehow for me this would involve preventing something on the scale of the Great Depression from happening as well as nixing FDR.

[Green Shadow]

Perhaps if the South had successfully seceded, the minor advances present in America would not have occurred. The South would have been in the pocket of the planter elites after all, and lower class whites could have their frustrations channeled towards racism.

Also, the surviving Northern Democratic Party would be weakened in FDR's time without the South, which they had a near total lock on with regards to congressmen.



So you live in an ATL? What's it like there?

Seriously, look at the back of the manual explaining how to fill out your 1040. It typically shows a pie chart of what government expenditures go to. Social Security, by itself, costs nearly as much as the DoD. Add in Medicare and such and it is far more. That doesn't count food stamps, unemployment... we're talking roughly 40% of ALL Federal expenditures.
Well we have a welfare state for the elderly, and some scraps for the very poor. I suppose that might be defined as a welfare state, but I wouldn't.

[Dunois]

In Britain it is possible to have a very different welfare state if the Conservatives win in 1945 but with radical ideas and a great deal of out of the box thinking. You would still have a welfare state to some degree, but one which might very well be based on different lines, possible like OTL Singapore.

In France the key is to have a very different World War Two, thereby avoiding some of the decisions made by Vichy, such as changing the pension system to the current one. Decisions subsequently kept by post war governments.

[Blue Max]

May I ask why one would want the welfare state prevented or delayed?

Excellent Question.

I suspect the foremost reason is ignorance: People don't intend to create a world that's as profoundly dark or as cruel as what I wrote above. But this thread isn't about discussing the evils of socialism (or the evils of a dispassionate dictatorship).

There are some people who would do better in this sort of situation. The Rich are nearly gods in this kind of arrangement. Granted, technology would be a lot more limited, but the Rich keep all of their money, minus whatever they seek in creature comforts.

A third reason is that those of a misanthropic bent--those who like causing pain and hardship amongst their fellow man--get what they want with usurious interest.

I'm not sure that this is completely Vlad Tepes Territory. Even if the system is monsterous, there will be those (Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc) who feel a need to give something back and will probably find ways to do so on the small scale. Although hard to imagine, small business can probably emerge on the fringes. So it isn't as if the entire USA is left entirely without options or choices, its more like that 95%+ of them will wind up without exploring them.

Hendryrk is right, though. The USA would be in for a constant series of uprisings. But the Monopolists control the media, they have a secret police army, and they can even cut off the supply of food if they so desired. If a revolution is to succeed, it would have to involve part of the Monopolists themselves: "Our system is too evil, we need to show some respect for their basic humanity" or "What would my immigrant grandparents think about this?"

What would probably happen is that the Monopolists split between reformers and unlimited power types, and the reformers probably prevail. But that would dork up RogueBeaver's question, so for now we'll assume they either don't split or don't succeed.

[SlickWilly]

I think in Ireland there was no dole as such until after WW2, though there was a pension system. Quite simply a further delayed social welfare system in Ireland would mean even more emigration and a smaller population.
Today a continuation of it to the same extent as it is will mean disaster - In Ireland a married couple, with 10 children ,yes they do exist get between dole payment and child allowance benefit get over €54k per year absolutely tax free, social housing in a central location for very low rent, free medical care (which workers do not get) free refuse collection and free fuel vouchers. While people who work and pay taxes and choose not to live like animals literally get nothing apart from some child allowance benefit. Some way to run a society- ha?

[archaeogeek]

I think in Ireland there was no dole as such until after WW2, though there was a pension system. Quite simply a further delayed social welfare system in Ireland would mean even more emigration and a smaller population.
Today a continuation of it to the same extent as it is will mean disaster - In Ireland a married couple, with 10 children ,yes they do exist get between dole payment and child allowance benefit get over €54k per year absolutely tax free, social housing in a central location for very low rent, free medical care (which workers do not get) free refuse collection and free fuel vouchers. While people who work and pay taxes and choose not to live like animals literally get nothing apart from some child allowance benefit. Some way to run a society- ha?

Yes because obviously adults who have large families are obviously like animals :rolleyes:

[pipisme]

In Britain there could have been the development of a network of non-state providers of welfare, unemployment, pension benefits and health provision. These would be friendly societies and other not-for-profit organisations, perhaps trade unions. The state would have to enforce minimum standards of provision and protect the savings and benefits of the contributors to these providers if they go bankrupt.

This could be achieved with a POD of before the Liberal reforms of 1906-1914 in OTL if the Liberal Party was more classically liberal. Also the Labour Party was not a statist party but rather a libertarian socialist party which believed in the widest possible distribution of power.

[archaeogeek]

In Britain there could have been the development of a network of non-state providers of welfare, unemployment, pension benefits and health provision. These would be friendly societies and other not-for-profit organisations, perhaps trade unions. The state would have to enforce minimum standards of provision and protect the savings and benefits of the contributors to these providers if they go bankrupt.

This could be achieved with a POD of before the Liberal reforms of 1906-1914 in OTL if the Liberal Party was more classically liberal. Also the Labour Party was not a statist party but rather a libertarian socialist party which believed in the widest possible distribution of power.

By classical liberalism you mean those liberals who advocated progressive taxation, public education, some elements of what RB would call a welfare state, limited corporations and the breakup of monopolies right? Because the other version of classical liberalism was invented by Hayek and is completely divorced from historical liberalism.

Liberalism, period, would ultimately lead to a logic where a degree of welfare state came, they already favoured two elements of it openly and a lot of 18th century liberals saw a degree of public healthcare to be useful; the socialist revolutions, even failing, would do the same; the rise in popularity of anarchism during the 19th century would also do the same, but instead with local government more involved, and cooperatives and the like (and the banks would still dislike the credit unions as much as they did OTL :p ). Even conservatives realized that if they wanted their heads to stay on their necks rather than on pikes realized that a degree of welfare state was essential at this point.

And of course no welfare state means that the next major economic crisis in the 80s will be another 29-style meltdown instead of something merely bad.

Also, King not getting elected will most certainly not be enough to stop the welfare state. Not with the actors involved in the rest of the country.

[pipisme]

By classical liberalism I mean the social and economic policies of the British Liberal Party before 1900.

[archaeogeek]

By classical liberalism I mean the social and economic policies of the British Liberal Party before 1900.

It was already getting there; Labour at the time was a caucus of the liberal party.

[Susano]

By classical liberalism you mean those liberals who advocated progressive taxation, public education, some elements of what RB would call a welfare state, limited corporations and the breakup of monopolies right? Because the other version of classical liberalism was invented by Hayek and is completely divorced from historical liberalism.
Depends. In Germany, before the FRG, there were always two strains of ("classical") liberalism, left liberalism and right liberalism, and geez, the way their parties split and merged and resplit and recreated themselves is a sight to behold on its own - but anyway, the right (national) liberals were always the ones to, ah, not focus on personal liberties that much if they can get economic liberty concessions instead. Which of course also fits right in with their direct modern successors these days...

[archaeogeek]

Depends. In Germany, before the FRG, there were always two strains of ("classical") liberalism, left liberalism and right liberalism, and geez, the way their parties split and merged and resplit and recreated themselves is a sight to behold on its own - but anyway, the right (national) liberals were always the ones to, ah, not focus on personal liberties that much if they can get economic liberty concessions instead. Which of course also fits right in with their direct modern successors these days...

Well okay I overstated my case; a lot of whigs also took a firmer right-liberalism stance, but even then they had a more conflicted view on social policy than today's anarchocapitalists want to pretend.

[thekingsguard]

As far asd the US goes, just keep FDR out of office.

[Spengler]

In case you weren't paying attention the point of the thread is to speculate about a different course of history and not to rant about the evils of socialism.

Moving right along...

What about no Great Depression? Wouldn't that forestall it until post-war?
That could work but than you'd probably have to stop world war one from happening. Or make it alot shorter. (And the victor far less inclined toward Carthaginian peace treatys).

[Ian the Admin]

While people who work and pay taxes and choose not to live like animals literally get nothing apart from some child allowance benefit. Some way to run a society- ha?

Don't troll.

[DuQuense]

1935 -- In a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court Decision, The newly signed Social Security Act is declared Unconstitutional.

Writing for the Majority Justice Greenly* said - While this may be a fine and Noble thing to do - The US Constitution does not give the US Government the Right to run a Welfare Program.
None of the Listed Powers or the limited associated Powers, allow the Government to take one persons Property [ie wages] and turn around and hand it to another.

Several farthur attempts to pass the act as a pension, also are struck down, and attempts to pass a [Social Security] Amendment fail.


*Obviously whe would have to have different Justices than OTL

[SlickWilly]

Archaeogeek,
Believe me such people in ireland today, tend to have Alabama backwoods syndrome - they marry their first cousins who then subsequently repeat the behaviour, while the workers in society have the privilage of paying for them - 1 such couple in 2 generations leads to 50 ofspring who are inbred and will never contribute except grab everything on offer for nothing! In Hiberno English - Knackers!
Mind you in the US backwoods they would not be pampered!

[anon_user]

1935 -- In a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court Decision, The newly signed Social Security Act is declared Unconstitutional.

Writing for the Majority Justice Greenly* said - While this may be a fine and Noble thing to do - The US Constitution does not give the US Government the Right to run a Welfare Program.
None of the Listed Powers or the limited associated Powers, allow the Government to take one persons Property [ie wages] and turn around and hand it to another.

Several farthur attempts to pass the act as a pension, also are struck down, and attempts to pass a [Social Security] Amendment fail.


*Obviously whe would have to have different Justices than OTL

1935 or 1937 sees a successful court-packing, then. And how would an amendment fail during the heart of the New Deal era?

[Ancien Regime]

Let's seeeeeee...

Oh, I have a big one. Hamilton is never born, or is never in a position to influence case law. Basically, things like implied powers, the current definition of the general welfare clause, and the neccesary and proper clause were purely from Hamliton. Without his arguments, you'd either need to have the welfare state operate on a state-by-state level, or you'd need a LOT of constitutional amendments.

It's worth noting that Hamilton essentially stood alone in regards to his views; Jefferson and Madison opposed him.

[Spengler]

Let's seeeeeee...

Oh, I have a big one. Hamilton is never born, or is never in a position to influence case law. Basically, things like implied powers, the current definition of the general welfare clause, and the neccesary and proper clause were purely from Hamliton. Without his arguments, you'd either need to have the welfare state operate on a state-by-state level, or you'd need a LOT of constitutional amendments.

It's worth noting that Hamilton essentially stood alone in regards to his views; Jefferson and Madison opposed him.
Your kidding right? You know that Jefferson used such arguments to do the Louisiana Purchase right? Lets also not forget that he a paine were far more in favor of welfare than Hamilton ever was.

[Ancien Regime]

Your kidding right? You know that Jefferson used such arguments to do the Louisiana Purchase right? Lets also not forget that he a paine were far more in favor of welfare than Hamilton ever was.

Jefferson was a hypocrite in many respects. That doesn't change that without Hamilton, the argumentative basis for the current judicial interpretation simply wouldn't exist, or would come much later. Hamilton's views were VERY uncommon in America (as Hamilton's views could be summed up as "Let's structure our economy and political system to be as much like the UK as possible")

And at what point did Jefferson ever support anything resembling a welfare state? I know Paine started to support it later (after being a borderline anarchist to start with) but not Jefferson.

[Spengler]

Jefferson was a hypocrite in many respects. That doesn't change that without Hamilton, the argumentative basis for the current judicial interpretation simply wouldn't exist, or would come much later. Hamilton's views were VERY uncommon in America (as Hamilton's views could be summed up as "Let's structure our economy and political system to be as much like the UK as possible")

And at what point did Jefferson ever support anything resembling a welfare state? I know Paine started to support it later (after being a borderline anarchist to start with) but not Jefferson.

Well lets look at some quotes that suggest someone who is definitely not a fan of corporations. Also the fact Jefferson did use a liberal interpretation of the constitution suggests that the absence of Hamilton will do nothing. Except maybe stop the bank of the United States.
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

"The poor who have neither property, friends, nor strength to
labor, are boarded in the houses of good farmers, to whom a
stipulated sum is annually paid. To those who are able to help
themselves a little, or have friends from whom they derive some
succor, inadequate however to their full maintenance,
supplementary aids are given which enable them to live
comfortably in their own houses, or in the houses of their friends.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the
people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe
depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be
improved to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on
Virginia, 1782.

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them
to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and
they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of
education to convince them of this. They are the only sure
reliance for the preservation of our liberty." --Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison, 1787.


Also lets not forget that the Supreme court also used a loose interpretation in the Maryland case under John Marshall need to remove him as well.