How do you explain prosperous nations that are built on socialism?

[Brian4Liberty]

I'll go ahead and re-post from a different thread, as this conversation has occurred several times...

I have my own theories on socialism in Scandinavia. As a gross generalization, I would say that the form of "government" (whether it be any one or mix of democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy, capitalism, socialism, communism, anarchism, theocracy, etc.) is less important than the morals and standards of the people as a whole. Certainly the political and economic systems have some effect, but "bad" people will ruin any system, and "bad" people exist in every system. When they reach a critical mass, it brings down everyone.

A society of self-sufficient and honest people will tend to have a "better" society, no matter what the system.

In most cases, we do not have enough self-sufficient and honest people. And because of this, the system which intrudes least (with the least power) is best, if for no other reason than political systems are so easily corrupted for the advantage of a corrupt few.

I had a couple of posts related to this:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=173180

Quote:
We have had two threads going that are related: the role of "greed" in society and "standard of living" (in Denmark).

First, let's make a distinction between "greed" and "self-interest". For this theory, I will use the Wikipedia definition of greed: "Greed is the selfish desire for the pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others. It is generally considered a vice, and is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholicism."

Let's just assume that healthy "self-interest" is universal. It's not good or bad, it just is.

It seems that lack of "greed" is what defines the "better standard of living" societies like Denmark, while excess "greed" defines the worst "standard of living" societies such as Zimbabwe.

Socialism combined with greed never works. Socialism on a large scale never works. Socialism is collectivism, with the people who propose or control it looking to take advantage of others.

In cases like Denmark, it may work to a certain extent because the culture generally dislikes greed, and will naturally limit the amount of greed wherever it occurs in their society.

On the other hand, the United Stated has gone a long way in the past 50 years in moving from "self-interest" to a "greed" oriented culture. Thus we are moving from the type of society of Denmark, towards the type of Zimbabwe.

And our socialism will continue to grow, as socialism is generally a device used by the greedy. The poor are like the suckers of a ponzi scheme who believe that they will gain from socialism, and the elite plutocracy are the greedy ones who know that they will benefit. And both of those groups feel justified in their opinions by the greed of overpaid hedge fund managers, CEO's and Wall St...

Bottom line: Greed and the perception of excess greed are a good counter-indicator of a society's standard of living (and happiness if you like). And the US is going in the wrong direction. Greed is destroying us.

Another thought on greed in a society:

Would anyone in Denmark put poison in baby formula and pet food?

The fact that Socialism/Communism and Capitalism work together so well in China is interesting...they can easily embrace both, yet China is never on the top of a list of countries with a great standard of living...but they might be rated high on the "greed" factor.

 

[rational thinker]

"Rational Thinker" you need to respond to some of these rebuttals or stop creating new threads.

I never really had a defense of socialism. I just had a burning question on this and it seems as if you can't ask a simple question without being flamed for it. In my opinon, Paulitician had the best answer.

 

[Varin]

Brian4Liberty

I agree with the post but I would also say that an immoral government in the long run will create an immoral people. I can see it happening in Sweden just comparing my grandfathers my fathers and my generation. A once proud nation is slowly turning in to a nation of beggars.

 

[Original_Intent]

Brian4Liberty

I agree with the post but I would also say that an immoral government in the long run will create an immoral people. I can see it happening in Sweden just comparing my grandfathers my fathers and my generation. A once proud nation is slowly turning in to a nation of beggars.

And vice-versa.

An immoral people will demand an immoral government.

 

[matterweisen]

reasons for socialism in sweden:

No military spending
Population size of NYC
Sterilization of undesirables in 30's-70's
Crap ton of Oil and Natural Gas in the North Sea and Baltic Sea
Homogenous population

 

[Varin]

reasons for socialism in sweden:

No military spending
Population size of NYC
Sterilization of undesirables in 30's-70's
Crap ton of Oil and Natural Gas in the North Sea and Baltic Sea
Homogenous population

Wrong on 1,4 and 5

Yes we have a military.
Oil, natural gas is Norway, England and Holland Sweden got non.
The population is no longer homogenus see for example

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/13/europe/sweden.php

1,4 million out of 9 million are immigrants/refugees or both there parents are.

3 is a bit unfair many countries had those kind of programs. They are however a consequence of authoritarian ideology.

As many people have pointed out Sweden is not a totlay socialist state and the USA is hardly a totaly capitalist one so a comparison is not all that meaningful.

 

[mconder]

Ya, but lifestyle under socialism sucks, they just don't know it...neither do we anymore.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[paulitics]

I'm not sure if I accept the premise of the question "prosperous nations" "built on socialism".

 

[akihabro]

If you are an infant you are more likely to die in the US than in Cuba.

But their right to life? What is that?

Fiat currencies are bound to fail, but semi-socialistic countries are not bound to fail. They may not do as well but I think that it is a big stretch to say that any country not already in anarchy is bound to fall into anarchy.

Ya by like .01% I forgot where I read that. It was some less than 1% difference. Also Cuba has a lot less people than the U.S. I can't say I'd want to live in a country that is stuck in the 1950's with a dictator's son.

 

[akihabro]

Sweden is neutral and not an allied, we are not a NATO member.

We have an army I served in it for over a year. We have troops in both Afghanistan, Kosovo and probably still some in diffrent African countries.

But otherwise I think you are almost right our dystopia not utopia will come to an end. There will bee an ever increasing parasitic population living of the work of an ever decreasing productive population.

There is a military in Sverige. Saab makes jets and cars! Except Saab cars has a lot of GM crap inside. I guess I support a socialist country by buying Ikea stuff.

 

[rp08orbust]

1,4 million out of 9 million are immigrants/refugees or both there parents are.

I would say that more important than *whether* a country has immigration is *what kind* of immigration it has.

The US borders a third world country that is all too eager to get rid of its poorest classes over the US-Mexican border. Compared to the living standard they come from, the US welfare system would appear to be the life of a king to those immigrants.

Sweden and Denmark, on the other hand, border countries that are very similar to themselves, and they are among the most isolated from world poverty. Thus they can easily hand-pick the kind of immigrants they want. Australia is very similar--it's hard to walk down a street of Melbourne without seeing as many Indian or Chinese people as white, but most of those immigrants are from wealthy backgrounds. There are of course the token Sudanese refugee communities, but they too were hand-picked.

As a libertarian, I would prefer a government that doesn't provide the welfare system that attracts the undesirable kind of immigration in the first place. Such a libertarian government wouldn't need to hand-pick its immigrants--all would be welcome, as the Statue of Liberty states, and as was once the case (more or less) in the US.

 

[rp08orbust]

To add to what I just said, I challenge anyone to try immigrating to Sweden on your own merits (i.e., without refugee status or family connections): It isn't easy! Since Sweden is such a tiny country compared to the number of people who wish to live there, they can be very picky. It's migrational mercantilism.

 

[bunklocoempire]

It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier. (NY Times)

In Denmark health care is free, education is free, the government will even pay students around $600 a month to go to school, and if you lose your job you get full unemployment for around 4 years before it goes to 80% of your pay. (this may have changed, but was true a few years ago at least). They also get at least a month of paid vacation a year (I think it's actually 5 weeks). Just try taking 5 weeks of vacation in America, much less get paid vacation.

So if socialist nations are bound to fail then why do they succeed?

Ain’t this interesting on the RON PAUL forums?!

I’ll just be a dope and say:

Succeed means MYSELF being free, NOT “free” education, health care etc..

Who exactly pays for the “free” condiments? Ain’t nothing physical to be got that’s free.

I’d love to be able to foot the TOTAL bill for my nephews charter school tuition, a school leaps and bounds better than his “free” public school –but alas there’s a man with a gun

and a pokey to throw me in if I don’t “support” the crappy “free” school, so my nephew has to make do for now with the crappy “free” school. And per student, the better charter

school costs less than a “free” public school. Go figure.

Do folks appreciate and use to the fullest ability “free” stuff? The people I can actually GIVE gifts to do appreciate it (people I know).

Same goes with health care and every other “free” crappy sub par product I am FORCED to pay for.

What is equally a crime that goes along with taking the fruits of MY labor, is the taking of MY responsibility of using MY fruits to their FULLEST POTENTIAL.

Now everyone doesn’t handle responsibility the same do they? Socialism shifts responsibility.

Individual Liberty 1st, and the rest will follow.

Now if our Country doesn’t appear to be prosperous, it stands to reason we ain’t got as much Liberty as we should have.

I do like your sig line.

Bunkloco

 

[Brassmouth]

There are currently no socialist nations, per se. As far as I know, all nations are fundamentally market-based economies. Now, places like Scandinavia and Germany have huge welfare states, and are commonly called "democratic socialist," but that is a misnomer.

Mises said that the separation between capitalism and socialism is the existence of a stock market.