It is so good to hear someone with a similar view. I label myself as an Antidelusionist Humanist. I believe Canadians (humans) are conditioned to percieve themselves as inteligent when they realy are not. Democracy is problematic as the leaders of a country are representitive of the mental health of the nation. A true humanist party would (should) have only those whom have spent their lives pursuing an issue deal with that issue. Rather what I see in the world is people wanting to make their opinions heard on all subjects while they can not self-actualize and recognize their ignorance of all subjects.
The nation should be governed by those who specialize and politicians should only be the voice of the rational decisions made behind open door meetings using the scientific method.

To me, achieving maximum potential works best in an environment of virtually unlimited opportunity, to both succeed and fail. In my view, broadly free market economies with low tax rates, such as Hong Kong, offer such an environment, but I can see how some may have a different opinion.

We are all “cogs in an economic wheel,” whatever the model.

If we take a quick look at the most livable cities (which roughly correlates to standards of living), we see only welfare states in the top 10-20 of two separate rankings.

My arguments in my post are also not about Socialism being economically better than capitalism, but about it aligning more with Secular Humanistic values. When I claim we can reach our maximum potential I mean just that – although I mean potential more as individual human beings than as cogs in an economic wheel. Supporting this claim I offer this paper with the conclusion:

Considering national rates of satisfaction in the industrial democracies from the 1970s to the present, we find that citizens find life more rewarding as the generosity of the welfare state increases, net of economic or cultural conditions. The implications for social policy are discussed.

I will also quote this:

Social democracy, whatever its failings, does appear to increase mean levels of subjective well-being.

from: Benjamin Radcliff, “Politics, Markets, and Life Satisfaction: The Political Economy of Human Happiness”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, No. 4 (Dec., 2001), pp. 939-952.

He also argues that France and Japan slip from the trend a bit due to a loss of individualism in those countries.

To make a claim like yours, you would need to back it up with some evidence. Instead there is evidence to the contrary when you look to the socialist democracies of Europe which having flourishing economies and minimum standards of living.

I’m afraid the evidence is not quite what you think. Economists have known for a long time how welfare benefits negatively impact incentives to find a job. Take the conclusion of this study, for example:

The results that emerge from the empirical analysis suggest that social benefits per man may indeed adversely influence the rate of unemployment in EU-15…This finding, in conjunction with the evi-dence that the unemployment rate is invariant with respect to social benefits in USA and Canada, leads us to the conclusion that some EU countries may have to restructure their welfare systems, so as to reduce welfare benefits in favour of greater labour market flexibility and self-reliance on the part of workers.

Indeed, a country like France, which has a chronic unemployment rate of 10%, should at least give pause to your prescription.

Can you offer evidence that “our maximum potential” is achieved through the guarantee of some minimum standard of living? Or is this a belief that is, dare I say, grounded more on faith than fact?

Wouldn’t guaranteeing some minimum standard of living simply encourage people to never rise above that level and take responsibility for their lives?

Absolutely NOT!

The point of my politics I outline is not to endorse socialism but to promote scepticism of claims first! To make a claim like yours, you would need to back it up with some evidence. Instead there is evidence to the contrary when you look to the socialist democracies of Europe which having flourishing economies and minimum standards of living.

I’m an atheist, but also a libertarian, so in the spirit of rational debate, allow me to comment on a couple statements.

You wrote,

Consider a multi-national monopoly which has the ability to gouge customers in areas with no competition and undercut the competition where it exists. This company then has the ability to prevent start-ups and entrepreneurs by removing access to resources, and selling products undervalued. This limits the individuals freedom in ways that a government typically wouldn’t. (Note this is one example of a corporation limiting individual liberties among many others that could be conjured up.)

I understand this is merely an example, but I think it reflects some misconceptions about freedom.

Freedom is not the ability to do anything one wants; that would be license. Rather, freedom is the ability to do what one wants, absent the use of force.

You’ve given a highly theoretical example of something that could happen, but which in fact almost never happens without the connivance of the state (which is legalized force). Even then, however, no one’s freedom is actually violated. Merely because you find a product you want too expensive does not mean your freedom is violated in not being able to purchase said item. What it merely means is that the seller and buyer could not agree on a price, which happens quite frequently in the market, and no one is claiming a violation of their freedoms as a result. And even if somehow a company was able to prevent other companies from making the same product, you forget about substitution products that other companies could make. In practice, it is nearly impossible for a company to arrive to a position used in your example.

Personally, I feel the only way we can all be free to achieve our maximum potential is if we are all guaranteed some minimum standard of living. When one is living in poverty there exists many quick and easy escape vices (drugs, alcohol, gambling, and other addictions).

The problem with your view here is that there is really no hard correlation between such vices and poverty. They are afflictions of the rich just as much as the poor.

Wouldn’t guaranteeing some minimum standard of living simply encourage people to never rise above that level and take responsibility for their lives?