- This topic has 5 voices and 19 replies.
-
Posts
-
Let's discuss him.At first glance, I would say the guy was a loon. BUT, upon further review, he must have rolled over in his grave when the Nazis came into power.
I don't recall much about him at all, except that he is supposedly responsible as the “father” of the modern welfare state.
Wally, I like how you said “engineered”. He was excellent at diplomacy to achieve his objectives. Would you say the Franco-Prussian War was to surround (intimidate, weaken) France on all borders (or least the east and west)? After Spain's Queen Isabella was deposed, the throne was offered to Leopold, a relative of a Prussian monarch.Also, in the Danish and Austro-Prussian Wars, he isolated Austria diplomatically. That was kind of masterful on his part, because it did eventually led to a new balance of power in Europe with a dominant Germany.(whether or not that was good is another topic)
Far too late to work on this but I'll give it some thought; my first approximation is that the war was not to surround France but to insure that the catholics were loyal germans and wouldn't back Catholic France.As I remember the Prussian prince wasn't really thrilled about ruling Spa
nin anyways... 8)One word…realpolitick….Bismarck was a master. Had he been the one in charge of Germany's world wars, he probably would have made alliances that could have won the war for the Germans. If I recall correctly, he was a product of the Junkers — the aristocratic warrior class that ruled Prussia. It's not my area of expertise, but at least I got some SEO content in here for Phid. 🙂
I don't recall much about him at all, except that he is supposedly responsible as the "father" of the modern welfare state.
What do you mean by that? It didn't seem like he was for a free-for-all welfare state, but he did desire things like sick/disability pay, retirement pay, etc for those who actually did work. Even though paid for by the state and mandatory for workers to contribute to it, I don't think it was necessarily all that bad a thing. What I find funny or ironic, is Germany's Socialist government didn't go for it.My my how times have changed. Now you don't even have to work to get things for free. ::)
First, check out the May Laws of 1874 and tell me what you think (based on our previous conversations regarding church/state interaction). Second, Bismark has a page in our own government's social security web site:http://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.htmlThird, I think by "father of the modern welfare state" it's in regard to his being a pioneer in this area of the government providing for structured care of certain large groups of citizens...at least in terms of a wide-spread policy. Now we have Hillary (and Barack as well?) talking again about universal health care...so you can see that A leads to B.
First, check out the May Laws of 1874 and tell me what you think (based on our previous conversations regarding church/state interaction).
Not good. Just as a church not interfering with state (or at least one denomination), a state should not interfere with church.
Second, Bismark has a page in our own government's social security web site:http://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.htmlThird, I think by "father of the modern welfare state" it's in regard to his being a pioneer in this area of the government providing for structured care of certain large groups of citizens...at least in terms of a wide-spread policy. Now we have Hillary (and Barack as well?) talking again about universal health care...so you can see that A leads to B.
I do agree it sets a precedence for Socialist...I mean socialized health care and other programs, but I kind of look at it as Bismarck trying to improve conditions for the working class. Am I not looking at it correctly? Interesting that he's profiled on the SSA website.
I do agree it sets a precedence for Socialist...I mean socialized health care and other programs, but I kind of look at it as Bismarck trying to improve conditions for the working class. Am I not looking at it correctly?
Making the volk have expectations of the gov't providing will (and did) also increase their willingness to follow whatever line the gov't promoted.Now when our gov't gives us (back our) money on many programs and then forces compliance to their rules because (in bill Clinton's words)... "it isn't their i]our[/i money!"Thanks Otto. Again the ritualistic redistribution of wealth to protect the leadership and their tenure.
I do agree it sets a precedence for Socialist…I mean socialized health care and other programs, but I kind of look at it as Bismarck trying to improve conditions for the working class. Am I not looking at it correctly?
I agree with Wally. What you said here, Ski, is likely Hillary's rationale (or that of anyone who advocates this kind of thing nowadays). It's a "good" intent, and obviously helping those who cannot help themselves, or who have difficulty in doing so, is good. The problem is that when the government enters this arena it opens up another can of worms that can be extremely problematic on its own.There is not only one way of helping the poor in terms of policy....and what may have been necessary from a practical standpoint in Bismark's day isn't necessarily the way to do it in our day.
and what may have been necessary from a practical standpoint in Bismark's day isn't necessarily the way to do it in our day.
Before anyone thinks I'm going all modern day, big government Liberal here, that's how I'm looking at this. He and others did pass laws to improve working conditions, which IMO was absolutely necessary back then (along with public health laws and suffrage acts). From what I've learned, the governments did nothing for a couple of hundred years except take taxes and build multi-acre palaces or whatever with the money, so it was good to see the governments starting to actually work for the people. In that respect, it wasn't a bad thing.
