4 ms·

What is not moral is that there are still people willing to destroy the economical system of countries where people are, as of now, still free to talk and move.

What is not moral is that there are still people willing to destroy the economical system of countries where people are, as of now, still free to talk and move. Once a state defaults it's typically followed by a more authoritarian regime. I cannot begin to understand how there are so many people asking for "more state" when you see what too much state leads too. It first invariably leads to default. Then to a more authoritarian regime. Then a planned economy and from there it's the infernal spiral down to mediocrity and tyranny. But of course people asking for more state will tell you that North Korea is not a good example of communism and that Argentina is not a good example of socialism. How convenient. The answer to our problems is not more state, but less.

rosser 14y ago
The answer to our problems is not more state, but less. No, the answer is better state. In practice, that's seemed to correlate somewhat positively with less state, but it's by no means axiomatically so. Any assertion to the contrary is ideology. For existence proofs, plural, consider the Nordic states. They're more state than many, if not most, yet they're widely regarded as among the "best", even by objective measurements. Contrariwise, consider Somalia. That's about as least-state as you can get, and yet it's somehow not the very model of civilization...
- newbie12 14y ago
  The Nordic super nanny state is something of a myth. All three have very open markets and size of government that is 50% of GDP or less (US is 42%). http://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden http://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden
  - Al-Khwarizmi 14y ago
    These GDP data appear frequently in this kind of discussions, but percent of GDP is a meaningless metric in practice. I have been to Sweden and to the US often and it's pretty obvious in day-to-day life that the state is much more involved in people's lives (for good and/or bad, I'm not discussing ideology) in the former than in the latter.
- javert 14y ago
  > For existence proofs, plural, consider the Nordic states. They're more state than many, if not most, yet they're widely regarded as among the "best", even by objective measurements. That's also what I had always heard, but surprisingly, it's precisely backwards. [1] > Contrariwise, consider Somalia. That's about as least-state as you can get, and yet it's somehow not the very model of civilization... That's a straw man. Small government people are not calling for anarchism. Anarchists are calling for anarchism. (Some self-styled anarchists claim to be in favor of small government; they should just be dismissed.) > but it's by no means axiomatically so. Any assertion to the contrary is ideology. All scientific progress is attacked in this way at the beginning. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570840-nordic-countries-are-reinventing-their-model-capitalism-says-adrian http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570840-nordic...
- crusso 14y ago
  No, the answer is better state The problem is that the State (in the USA) is unwilling to be accountable. The current trend of just adding more of it in hopes that it will become better is sickeningly naive. Regarding Nordic states and Somalia... Nordic cultures are fairly homogenous. For thousands of years, if you weren't a cooperative with your neighbor and planning for the cold months; your genes left the pool. Nordic people are culturally and genetically predisposed to thrive in a collective. Great. Works for them. Somalia is a fairly anything goes state under loose Shari'a law. Not too long ago, it was communist, and that was no picnic either. Really, Somalia lacks the basic Civil Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society) framework needed for any political/economic system to do well.
jhuni 14y ago
> But of course people asking for more state will tell you that North Korea is not a good example of communism and that Argentina is not a good example of socialism. The Workers' Party of Korea attends the International Meeting of Communist and Workers parties along with the ruling parties of China, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal, Cuba and many other international communist parties. The DPRK definitely is affiliated with communists but its ideology isn't communism it is a combination of Korean nationalism, Juche, and self-reliance. Since you equate communism with statism you don't know what it really means. Communism is a broad category of societies that do not have classes of social relations to the means of production. Three of the most important types of communism are primitive communisms which existed before the development of means of production, collectivist communism which is based upon common ownership of the means of production, and individualist communism which is based upon personal ownership of the means of production such as 3D printers and distribution on a free market.
- Peaker 14y ago
  What's the difference between Juche and self-reliance?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

rosser 14y ago

The answer to our problems is not more state, but less. No, the answer is better state. In practice, that's seemed to correlate somewhat positively with less state, but it's by no means axiomatically so. Any assertion to the contrary is ideology. For existence proofs, plural, consider the Nordic states. They're more state than many, if not most, yet they're widely regarded as among the "best", even by objective measurements. Contrariwise, consider Somalia. That's about as least-state as you can get, and yet it's somehow not the very model of civilization...

newbie12 14y ago
The Nordic super nanny state is something of a myth. All three have very open markets and size of government that is 50% of GDP or less (US is 42%). http://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden http://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden
- Al-Khwarizmi 14y ago
  These GDP data appear frequently in this kind of discussions, but percent of GDP is a meaningless metric in practice. I have been to Sweden and to the US often and it's pretty obvious in day-to-day life that the state is much more involved in people's lives (for good and/or bad, I'm not discussing ideology) in the former than in the latter.
javert 14y ago
> For existence proofs, plural, consider the Nordic states. They're more state than many, if not most, yet they're widely regarded as among the "best", even by objective measurements. That's also what I had always heard, but surprisingly, it's precisely backwards. [1] > Contrariwise, consider Somalia. That's about as least-state as you can get, and yet it's somehow not the very model of civilization... That's a straw man. Small government people are not calling for anarchism. Anarchists are calling for anarchism. (Some self-styled anarchists claim to be in favor of small government; they should just be dismissed.) > but it's by no means axiomatically so. Any assertion to the contrary is ideology. All scientific progress is attacked in this way at the beginning. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570840-nordic-countries-are-reinventing-their-model-capitalism-says-adrian http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570840-nordic...
crusso 14y ago
No, the answer is better state The problem is that the State (in the USA) is unwilling to be accountable. The current trend of just adding more of it in hopes that it will become better is sickeningly naive. Regarding Nordic states and Somalia... Nordic cultures are fairly homogenous. For thousands of years, if you weren't a cooperative with your neighbor and planning for the cold months; your genes left the pool. Nordic people are culturally and genetically predisposed to thrive in a collective. Great. Works for them. Somalia is a fairly anything goes state under loose Shari'a law. Not too long ago, it was communist, and that was no picnic either. Really, Somalia lacks the basic Civil Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society) framework needed for any political/economic system to do well.

jhuni 14y ago

> But of course people asking for more state will tell you that North Korea is not a good example of communism and that Argentina is not a good example of socialism. The Workers' Party of Korea attends the International Meeting of Communist and Workers parties along with the ruling parties of China, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal, Cuba and many other international communist parties. The DPRK definitely is affiliated with communists but its ideology isn't communism it is a combination of Korean nationalism, Juche, and self-reliance. Since you equate communism with statism you don't know what it really means. Communism is a broad category of societies that do not have classes of social relations to the means of production. Three of the most important types of communism are primitive communisms which existed before the development of means of production, collectivist communism which is based upon common ownership of the means of production, and individualist communism which is based upon personal ownership of the means of production such as 3D printers and distribution on a free market.

Peaker 14y ago
What's the difference between Juche and self-reliance?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]