3 ms·

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 s

by 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.

by rosser 14y ago

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.