Find a survey of people from one of these coutries living in the USA. See if they are happy. I bet they are happier than those in their heritage of origin. They did this with life expectancies that are so high in this area of the world. But when compared to people whose heritage is from these places living in similar climates in the US they found even higher life expectancies. So the answer is from Mark Twain: There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
So then what makes government taxation morally permissible for things like defense and the justice system? If taxation for social welfare is wrong, why is it not wrong for things that the government is set up to handle.
You’ll find that most people here are anarcho-capitalists and don’t see a need for a government in the first place.
Personally, I’m somewhere between minarchism (minimal state) and anarchism, due to certain reservations. I think the US government was supposed to be funded with tariffs, but I could be wrong. I’ve been wondering if a minimal state could be funded by renting on the free market the land already owned by the state, since most states own considerable tracts of land. This way there would no need for coercive taxation.
fuzzybunny, I don’t think you should be worrying about the natural rights moral arguments for or against socialism right now. The key is this: happiness cannot be measured by studies. There is no mathematical forumula that can accurately measure happiness. Personally, when I was in Copenhagen for a little bit, I was not impressed at all by what I saw. People there live modestly compared to capitalist paradises like Singapore, Ireland, and Hong Kong which are known for their economic freedom and prosperity.
You might want to listen to this about why socialism is impossible. There also is this report on why Swedish socialism is a failure. You can read more criticism of the welfare state model here and you can read a criticism of the study of happiness here.
I’d also like to add this. Although Denmark has a burgening government bureaucracy, they are quite business friendly and were ranked #11 on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. That might help explain the high happiness level of Danish citizens
Very good. The answer is nothing. Taxation = theft, period. Even Ayn Rand thought so, and she wasn’t even an anarchist.
I didn’t mean any negative connotations by using the word ‘shove’. Also, I meant to say that I don’t agree with utilitarian ethics, not necessarily that they are unethical.
Here are some articles to look over dealing with the Welfare model of Sweden.
http://mises.org/daily/955 This one deals with the statistical fact that the average swede is more poor than the average american
http://mises.org/daily/2259 This article deals more with the areas where Sweden has been successfull have been due to deregulation and none of it is due to their welfare state
From an Anarcho Capitalist view point all taxation is theft since government is inherently forcefull. From a minarchist view point taxation is only justified if it is funding areas that protect you from the transgression of others but not to buy you a burger.
The culture of Northern Europe is far different from that of old England and the U.S. In the cold weather of N. Europe, people had to live together to survive. While in the large fields of Britainia, people wanted to be left alone to live their lives.
America is far too large to have a welfare State. I’ve not been there, but most of NE has the same climate and environment to a certain extent. Whereas in the U.S. you have plains, desert, swamp, mountains, and forests all in one nation. People who live in different areas will have different beliefs about how their lives should be governed.
Welfare is worse if you are forced to pay for gas heaters, for some guy in northern Montana, and you live in southern CA.
Plus no other nation has as much cultural tension because we all come from different backgrounds and nationalities. Most nations in Europe are homogeneous while here it is heterogeneous. There is very little " community " in America
America was screwed the minute the Articles of Confederation was thrown out. It was supposed to be a loose Republic, not this grand super-state the Federal government has created.
I think that in Sweden you can’t even get drunk whenever you want because the cops and politicians say 1) it is bad for you 2) you are not a human, so you either follow their orders or else go to jail ?
Oh, I think there’s conscription in Sweden ?
You can stop obeying the government’s orders and nothing bad will happen to you ?
Are you seriously saying these people are free ?
You’ve found the nub.
Taxation is not right or wrong dependent on how it is spent. The act itself, confiscating the wealth of others, is criminal.
If a person wants to be defended let him hire protection. If he prefers to take the risk of going undefended, that is his choice. Government is not only offensive, it is unnecessary.
The scandanavian socialist nations are probably wealthy but only in a “seen vs. unseen” way. For instance everyone has jobs, income, etc. But all these gains are at the expense of generations of broken windows and according to some articles I read here on this site, are soon to be overtaken by the sheer destructive force of their taxes. It is enough to say that we are all well supplied with roads, computers, in essence the latest goods in consumption and luxury, but the real question is what would’ve been created had you not subsidized roads, etc. Flying cars anyone?
The so-called Scandinavian model basically boils down to very high income and sales taxes, lots of regulation and welfare but acceptable (by modern standards) corporate taxes. These states have been maintaining a very precarious economical equilibrium but lately they’ve become aware that the system is failing and needs amendments. Economic growth has ground to an halt and they’ve started to chip away at the capital accumulated in the post-WWII years (up to the '70s). Standards of living have been slowly declining and there are worries that public debt will start to skyrocket in the case of an economical crysis (like the present): less taxes means less money to pay for “services”.
In short everybody with a functioning brain has realized that it’s time to cut taxation, public spending and regulations. The problem is nobody’s ready to foot the bill: that’s a common problem in socialdemocracies. People become so addicted to State-provided “services” that it becomes very, very hard to start cutting expenses. Immensely powerful public workers unions (especially the retirees living on welfare) start to stir. You cannot cut taxes if you cannot cut expenses first. That’s one of the huge practical problems libertarians should start to face: persons on living on taxes money are many and very powerful. More powerful than the small businessmen, farmers, traders etc to which the libertarian ideal is most appealing. But that’s fuel for another debate.
The problem with importing this model to the US is simple: Scandinavian countries have been barely able to fund their welfare State with taxes running in the 50% of GDP region and their economic growth has been deliberately sacrificed for short and middle term gains at the ballot box. The US, apart from the welfare state, should need to finance a worldwide empire with an immense standing army, has many “allies” (the names are well known) which have come to expect large “donatives” each year and let’s not forget corporate welfare and other “petty” projects. Can you afford that?
There, fixed it for you.
Actually this was not the case, at least based on what I’ve been told of Finnish history. Finns tended to be extremely individualist, to the point of isolation from neighbors (there are plenty of “jokes” about killing your neighbor with an axe, should you ever meet him). And even Finnish society reflects this, as small-talk and other “higher” forms of socializing have been virtually non-existent. It is only recently that this has begun to change, as the cosmopolitans have deemed it a flaw that Finns don’t practice small-talk and other such nonsense.
Thankfully there are still people who haven’t been turned into wine-sipping Parisians, since I already know what the weather is like.
Or a woman. WOMP WOMP!
Thank God, because those aweful Frenchmen don’t even axe their neighbors!
Thanks for the responses, everybody. Theres been some good information, but I’m still sorting through it all. Just to let everyone know this isn’t a hit and run.
BWAHAHA.
So, boiled down into a single sentence, any wealth attained by Scandanavian/Nordic countries is simply a product of wealth and capital acquired during their capitalist period decades ago, before their switch to socialism?