“The nations with the highest standards of living have strongly entrenched welfare states.”
How should a Libertarian address this statement?
“The states with strongly entrenched welfare systems are as a rule stagnating economically , even when all other conditions such as accumulated capital, skilled workforce and developed infrastructure imply, they are otherwise in the best position to continue advancing rapidly.”
As confusion of cause and effect. Welfare states are entrenched because of high standards of living.
Also, I’d like to ask why places like Singapore and Hong Kong don’t have higher ratings on the UN Human Developement index, despite having such (relative) economic freedom?
There’s your answer.
And there as well. Any attempt at measuring “freedom” is pretty flawed, imo.
While I’m not a fan of the UN by any means, I don’t think just pointing that out will satisfy many in an argument.
But why aren’t those nations that have some of the freest economies lagging behind those that have massive welfare states?
Doesn’t that fact give statists a little bit of ammunition when defending their welfare state?
Why not?
Because statists are thick? [:S]
Besides, just denouncing things as biased or wrong without pointing out specifically how isn’t that great of a tactic in a debate/argument.
Is there a typo in there?
When did the process of capital accumulation begin in Europe / the US, when in Hong Kong and Singapore? Even though technology and know-how can easily be copied from countries with a long history of capital accumulation, the average person in developing territories obviously cannot imitate the bank account of those who have been blessed with the fruits of a multigenerational streak of building up and saving.
However, especially the Chinese are catching up. Their personal savings rate is fairly high. While Americans (and European welfarists, for that matter) are currently destroying the foundation of their prosperity by embracing debt and inflation, the Chinese are always expanding it. It’ll be an interesting development to observe.
So, when welfarists claim that European nations have a high living standard and a large welfare state, point out how long it took to generate all this wealth and how the welfare state, after first halting this process, is now even reversing it in almost no time.
They have pretty low literacy compared to other developed nations (something like 92%).
Yes sorry.
*are
That is a good point. Very well put, sir.
I can smell an argument for public education on the horizon from statists… [:P]
IMO the best argument to be made is one of rapidity of developement. There is not one case of a welfare state that would be experiencing rapid economic growth. Economic growth has always occured in relatively free conditions. That is true wether we are talking about 19th century Western Europe or the Asian Tiger economies of 60s and 70s.
The welfare state does not send the economy into ruin but it does make it stagnant. So it does not spell doom for people in states that are economicaly relatively well developed, but it is a real tragedy in places which are poor, because it cutts every chance of climbing from poverty. Some of the poorest Eastern European states proudly declare they are “social states” and promise unemployement benefits, universal healthcare, forced pension savings and so forth.
Well, I don’t know the specifics of the UN criteria. Nonetheless, it’s completely valid to assume that they would be biased. Moreover, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that they are fair to prove it.
First admit that without The State (or State Government, if he prefers to use the term government, it might help for clarity), & assuming with the free-markets being utilized for functions that used to be monopolized via The State, a standard of living would be A.) Different to attain, maintain, & lose, and B.) Different compared to the standard of living in a state society.
Demonstrate that by no means would a stateless guarantee a high standard of living for everyone (there are always risks in life, & there is further risk in trying to reduce risks via The State, when you ignore unintended consequences, such as a interventionist foreign policy that very easily can bring wars to the doorsteps of the very individuals that said welfare state supposedly “grants” higher standard of livings, of which, a war on home soil easily jeopardizes).
However, on the other hand, the means of which to attain a standard of living would be far more numerous, far more flexible & fluid, & would vary much more from region to region then they already do from state to state. Entirely different communities, even ones nearby, might have slightly adjusted but noticeably different standards of living, depending on circumstances.
While The State attempts a false egalitarianism by trying to ensure a standard of living, it is artifically set & distorted compared to the effects real free-markets would have on the individual’s standard of living.
Frankly, The State government does next to no help in distorting market forces in general, specifically because when the economical shit hits the fan, Joe Six Pack may not know how to deal with such fluctuations at all, with a good outcome of his and/or her response being that of going back to The State like a rich kid asking for a gradually larger allowance from his parents each week.
A libertarian should stress that because in a state society, because we’ve grown up with an expectation that what around is normal or legitmate, that therefore, it is very hard to comprehend the vast distortions of the markets, & ultimatley the individual citizen’s life, caused by The State government.
It is very hard to question what is essentially a vauge, secondardy parental figure for society as a whole, & further difficult to question the majority & pay attention to the minority (due to psychological bias of numbers, perhaps, but also due to social norms).
It is essentially no different than the mafia distorting an individual’s life by causing turmoil on a missed payment for protection (which an “accident”, most likley caused by the mafia itself, prompted a seemingly prudent choice of paying for the protection rachet).
Show that the difference between a real standard of living, and one reinforced by welfare states (the artificial high standard of living), comes with one important distinction: the later comes with strings attached, and while most may view those strings as beneficial, they easily become burdensome if one were to suddenly become bankrupt, or burdened with high medical bills, both of which are hugely distorted in the monopolized markets favor, which in turn, favors The State by providing further monopolized capital for it to utilize.
This leads to the cycle of a few pennies here & there (albeit, pennies being much larger amounts, but pennies compared to how much the The State utilizes) continually feeding a cycle in which little, if anyone, notices the effects of.
A high standard of living requires reponsibilty to attain; with or without The State, this will always be true.
The State merley makes it much harder by taking away the capacity for individual’s to develop the required high-time preference & responsibilty (not to mention time spent at a job or an occupation that could be better spent on learning more trades or skills to better compete in the market for a better paying job, rather than sticking with a safe option to ensure you can pay off your debts, which seem to come as often as you pay them off).
I went off on a few tangents as usual, but stressing the role of the individual as being more responsible for their own standard of living, rather than The State, would help, I think.
A population or two in a few different countries that seemingly prove “…nations with the highest standards of living have strongly entrenched welfare states”, could easily be incidental & attribuable to far more important factors such as the behaviors of various individuals & cultural trends.
What statistic is being used to show that the economies are lagging?
Thanks man that is a good detailed response.
The UN Human Developement Index. Places like Singapore and Hong Kong are ranked behind places like Iceland, Norway, and France (though they are still in the top 30).
Third point is skewed. GDP is not a real measure of standard of living, GDP in dollars even more so. Second point is skewed more. Hordes of graduates with useless social sciences degrees and schools that produce them are a hinderance not a generator of developement. The same goes for needlessly long mandatory schooling.
Great point.
People seem to forget that many “drastic” changes that appear in hindsight occur over a gradual period of time, especially in the case of the Roman Empire when its “end” is hard to pinpoint. So the end of the European welfare state is not going to be overnight but will be the result of the gradual decline in living standards brought about by ill thought socialist policies.
One point I think we should consider in the case of the German welfare state is that unlike the USA, Germany still has factories that are ready to produce goods more efficiently.