Caius
Posts: 175
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: thornhappy
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I do ask what kind of society that I want, and I want one in which there is the maximum amount of individual freedom, and individual responsibility, where morality and sympathy for those less fortunate lead to direct charity, channelled through small personal organizations who have direct contact and understanding of those that they help, and where political and business leaders are shamed when their organizations display acts of impersonal cruelty and greed.
I believe that the history of mankind shows that "more government" leads to the antithesis of this sort of society.
Firm
Like Somalia? Nigeria?
BTW, what do you think of Norway, Sweden, etc.?
Ok, good point.
Let me qualify that by saying "excessive government".
I've never claimed, nor ever will claim that government is unnecessary, or that some taxes are not appropriate.
That takes care of your first set of examples, so lets move on to your next set: the Nordic countries.
First, an article:
What’s going on up North?: Scandinavia Dominates Global Prosperity Index
Tuesday 26th October 2010
Free Markets the key to Nordic nations’ strong performances
The four major Nordic countries of Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden are among the most prosperous in the world, according to Legatum Institute’s comprehensive 2010 Prosperity Index, published today.
...
However, the Legatum Prosperity Index finds that the reasons for the Scandinavians’ success are more complex than the usual argument focusing on the region’s large welfare states. Recent research has shown that far from being highly regulated and dominated by the public sector, the Nordic economies were among the most aggressive reformers in the 1980s and 1990s.
After the economic crisis of the early 1990s, Scandinavian countries underwent “neoliberal” reforms – freer trade, deregulation, and cutting back on welfare state expenditure. In the mid-90s, Denmark liberalised the labour market and now the World Bank considers it the most flexible labour market in Europe. Sweden also lowered many of its trade barriers in the mid-90s, and since then, all Nordic countries have followed relatively free trade policies.
At the same time, the Nordic states have high tax rates, and large welfare states. The Index finds that Denmark, Finland, and Sweden have the highest rates of social trust in the world, evident in the strong social bond between citizens and which allows the fair provision of high unemployment benefits partnered with a liberal, flexible labour market with a low level of job protection.
Although the Nordic economies feature large public sectors, the four countries scored highly in the Entrepreneurship and Opportunity sub-index because ‘an overwhelming majority of citizens in each country have confidence that they can climb life’s ladder regardless of socio-economic status’.
High taxation does not stifle growth in these because citizens believe that individuals can set up their own businesses and succeed in the market. The Nordic countries top the Index on public perceptions that working hard will get them ahead financially, irrespective of their social background.
...
Dr. Lenihan continued, “The 2010 Prosperity Index, shows that a high level of public spiritedness allows states such as Norway, Denmark and Sweden, to foster high levels of economic and social wellbeing.”
Another:
Political Earthquake Shakes Up Sweden
By STEPHEN CASTLE
Published: September 20, 2010
STOCKHOLM — Worthy, high-minded and often utterly predictable, Swedish politics has rarely offered much by way of excitement. Now an electoral earthquake seems to have changed all that.
Elections on Sunday gave an anti-immigration party its first parliamentary seats and deprived the governing coalition of its majority, plunging the country into rare political instability.
Meanwhile the Social Democrats, architects of the modern Swedish state and one of Europe’s most successful political parties, recorded their worst performance since World War I.
Behind the upheaval lie structural changes in Swedish politics and a battle over how to preserve the cradle-to-grave welfare system.
Though the success of the center-right suggests a long-term shift in politics, analysts say Swedes remain deeply attached to their welfare system and want change to be gradual, not radical.
These articles are representative samples of things I'll discuss.
First, do not confuse, necessarily a "welfare state" with "more government". One of the reasons for the success of the Nordic model in the last few decades has been an increasing emphasis on the capitalist system, and a freeing of government restrictions on business.
This has been particularly successful in those countries because of a high level of social trust, due to a generally homogeneous society.
This social trust allows a societal agreement on many things, including large labor unions, and extensive social benefits paid by high taxes, because of the reduced level of conflict, and the reduced perception of "freeloaders" in their system.
Absent that societal trust, then the system would likely break down, or become much less successful.
It seems with increasing immigration, that that trust is indeed breaking down, and people are starting to be less and less enchanted with the system as it is.
In short, the Nordic countries are outliers, and have been successful due to the very thing that is seen as a great evil in the US by some: a racially and ethnically homogeneous population, where there was strong agreement on the morality and methods of government, and the majority of the people acted and performed as expected. Entrepreneurship was encouraged, and capitalism was generally seen as a positive, and business are generally trusted by their employees due to a common morality that such a homogeneous population allows.
As this breaks down, I suspect that this will change, and there are now indications of such a possible breakdown in social trust in all of the Nordic countries. It will be a shame if such a cycle continues, but unless they change their immigration polices (and maybe not even then, due to the already existing large cultural minorities), then they may see repressive (or at least much less liberal) governments in the near future.
So, yes, "excessive government" is always bad in the long run.
Firm
I don't know, Firm, I don't want to phrase this too harshly, because it's obvious you are making an effort to bridge a philosophical divide here, but I have to say that theory seems a little half-baked, or at least not terribly empirical. For one thing, I've spent some time in Scandinavia over the years and I've always observed a certain intolerance of the poor and the programs most directly geared towards them from amongst large portions of both the middle and upper class there, in Norway in particular. Yes, it's true that the influx of immigration in the last decade has heightened discord a little -- making even some of the more level-headed Sweedes and Norwegians act like....well, the way some otherwise level-headed American's act when race comes into the picture -- but with regard to the perception of 'parasites of the system' I wouldn't say that has altered much -- again, from what I've seen. From what I've observed, even the more paranoid or hateful types are inclined to equate immigrants with crime and illicit substances more quickly than they are to complain of them soaking up welfare money.
But let's assume for a minute there was some significant causal link "homogeneous populations" and general support for social programs. What do you mean to imply about how this should influence policy? Do we only apply the otherwise most ideal system only when populations can be deemed composed of people similar accept one-another? Who could ever deduce where that line exists in any nation? More importantly, if you make that the standard, you're certainly setting yourself up in that you've gotten out of the way of your population's more xenophobic tendencies which will only cause more problems down the road when (inevitably) diversification occurs.
In any account, even if we do continue to accept this premise that homogeneity directly corresponds to general confidence in a welfare state, I still don't see how that correlates with your initial statement that these nations actually owe a lot more to free enterprise and less to their social programs in terms of their quality of living. You seem to be implying that homogeneous populations are perceived as a 'conservative' thing, but outside the most extreme conservative views, I don't see how that is so; plenty of mixed-race states are liberal and plenty of highly homogeneous ones conservative. It's true that the stereotype is that conservative people tend to be more on-guard around foreigners are those of other races, but, even if this were to be provable, I doubt you'd be making the argument that racial purity is a healthy motivating factor in conservative philosophy. In any account, I can assure you that both Sweden and Norway -- at least by comparison to the States, where the recent meager regulatory and healthcare reform of the last year seems to have half the population describing it as a 'socialist takeover' -- remain strong holdouts for Social Democracy and, at least with regard to fiscal policy, they are not in any immediate danger of moving too far to the right. Even in the scenario you put forth, they will certainly certainly clamp down on immigration long before they begin to dissemble their domestic social policies -- I feel confident in saying that much for sure.
What it all seems to come down to for me is that you've picked some loaded terminology. I think we'd all agree that 'excessive' government is a negative thing, by definition. The question is, where do you draw that line? That's not a simple question wholly accounted for by any political theory or affiliation I've ever come across, which is, as we all know, exactly why the liberal/conservative paradigm is so asinine and counter-intuitive. You really have to speak to the cost-benefit of each policy individually. And not just individually but with regard to the exact particular context of the nation and time it is to be implemented. Those incredibly vague generalities being made...with specific regard to Scandinavia, I'm going to have to disagree that the success of it governments in pleasing its citizenry and providing for their needs is very much connected with their support and development of a system with significant social programs and relatively "big" government. When I hear Scandinavians complain about the nature of these programs, it's not to say that they distrust the system in general, but rather to make the usual complaints you get with the give-and-take you have to accept in this kind of arrangement. They would never give up their state-supported health care, but they hate how long you sometimes have to wait to complete treatment for 'non-critical' issues.
So the question is not so much, "should we be on guard against excessive government?" as it is, "where does the U.S. (or any nation) sit on the divide of excessive/insufficient government?" Even then, we don't even necessarily have to accept that question; we might say, "it has a fair-sized government and its citizens are all putting a fair amount in to its various programs, but the priorities are screwed." The problem is, the people who sit on the most extreme ends of this debate are often the most hypocritical. Some will shout until blue in the face about the need to cut spending but look at you like you sprouted an arm out of the middle of your forehead while fucking their wife right in front of them if you suggest touching the military. Which is fine, if that's where you think the nation's priorities can be, I just don't understand how the situation came about that people are considered fiscal conservatives when universally aligned for promoting immunity for funding cuts to the one segment of the government that, in nearly the entirety of that nation's history, has always been growing and always at an increasing rate. It just seems like people put a whole lot of energy into willfully ignoring where the social, the philosophical, and the fiscal converge to shape their standings on government and make them act in an almost identical fashion to their counterparts on the 'other side'.
Anyway, hope you don't take that as too strident; as I said at the outset, seems to me you are trying bridge concepts rather drawing a line in the sand, and that's what I'd just as soon do as well, disagreement with the particulars or no. Doing my part to uphold the spirit of today's Rally to Restore Sanity. ;) On that note, let me ask you, sincerely and without baiting, why is it that you believe history has proven larger government inevitably leads to a society in which charity is scarce, greed the norm and corruption rampant?
< Message edited by Caius -- 10/30/2010 7:40:50 AM >
|
RE: Is all American conservatism based upon fear? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread