Distribution of Wealth

[Timo Y]

If socialism is such an hell on earth, why are the scandinavian countries so successful?

The fact that they appear successful compared to other countries in the world is a statistical artefact.

Scandinavian countries are tiny and have a very homogenous population.  Finland and Norway only have approx. 5M inhabitants.  That's a similar scale as some counties in the US.

If you are going to compare Scandinavian countries to the rest of the world you have to choose a similar granularity.

For instance, the state of Massachusetts is just as successful as Sweden by most measures.   The state of New South Wales in Australia is just as successful as Finland.

Also, because of their small size, relative isolation, and uniform culture, they were historically very community-oriented societies, even before the introduction of state socialism.  Most Scandinavians are inclined to voluntarily share their wealth even if the state didn't force them to do it.

My personal experience from visiting friends in Sweden is that quality of life is exceptional.  However there can also be dark sides to living there, in subtle ways that are hard to measure.  The degree of intrusion by the collective into your personal life can be a little disconcerting and scary, especially if your values and lifestyle diverge from the societal consensus.

[da2ce7]

My personal experience from visiting friends in Sweden is that quality of life is exceptional.  However there can also be dark sides to living there, in subtle ways that are hard to measure.  The degree of intrusion by the collective into your personal life can be a little disconcerting and scary, especially if your values and lifestyle diverge from the societal consensus.

You can be happy in a cage, if they treat you very well... but you will still be in cage...

[JA37]

”Then explain why Norway is a successful country. Surely you have a theory of why these countries are so successful.”
Probably a combination of natural resources, a skilled workforce, a proper amount of regulations by the government and luck. I’m sure you can find resources about economic history if you google for it, as I did.

“Then explain how your conclusion fit the evidence? Don't forget that people will claim that foreign intervention is the result of the conflict.”
This has to do with Somaila then. Foreign intervention could very well be the cause of the conflict in Somalia. The result however is a very weak government that has virtually no power over the country.  You have anarchy in many parts of the country, both political and economical. In the political void you have organizations like the Islamic al-Shabab who quickly step in to fill it, using violence to enforce their view. In the economical void you have the pirates and other criminals with money and weapon who take charge.
In both accounts it’s the people with the biggest guns who run the show. And in the absence of policing of any kind, crime is often quite profitable, so most often it’s the criminals who have the biggest guns. Replace guns with “threat of violence” if you like, it’s the same thing.

“An opinion supported by no theory and no cause and effect of any kind and no empirical evidence of any kind.”
The USSR tried planned economy. It wasn’t very successful. While most people weren’t starving to death, they were certainly not doing well either. And the goods produced were substandard and expensive. In China, where they tried a similar thing ‘The great leap’ people actually died of starvation. That should take care of the empirical evidence for planned economy.
How laissez-faire has failed is harder, since it hasn’t been tried in such a grand scale. Mostly where this has been ‘tried’ is where governments fail and this becomes the de-facto standard of doing business. Somalia is one example. Nigeria is another where a weak and corrupt government ignores all regulations and its own people to give Shell Oil benefits.
In poorer countries in Asia, children are put in factories to produce goods, instead of going to school. This ensures that they will stay poor as education is a prime factor for moving up the value chain. Again, a result of no/poor regulation or observance of the rules.

Taking some quotes from other answers as well.
“How about you let people choose what they want  ?”
Ok. How do you propose to do that? How should a child, forced to work 12h/day to help their family put food on the table choose to live under a different system? How can it be bad to have a law that sais that children should attend school and factories must give out a salary that people can survive on?
In Mexico today people are choosing to not live under their economic system and choosing another. What do you think about the current climate regarding immigrants in the US?

All that said, I’m still a believer in a free market. But I do believe that in order for a market to remain free, there must be regulations and oversight. I don’t believe having a monopoly in itself is wrong, but someone must make sure that I don’t abuse that power by preventing competition.

[caveden]

If socialism is such an hell on earth, why are the scandinavian countries so successful?

Because they remain far from being socialists, and they were way farer than today for a long time in the past. Even today, although being victim of insane taxes, they suffer very few coercive regulations when compared to most countries. And yes, regulations are much worse than taxes.

In this blog post there's a list of articles you should try to read: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx
The first one detailing Sweden history is quite good. You can't just look at the current state of a country and determine that the quality of life there is a result of their current balance of freedom vs violence. Changes take years, frequently decades to happen.

Want to experience the result of a weak government? Go to Somalia.

Same silly mistake you've done above, not considering history. Somalia has always been a crappy place to live in. During the short period they had with no state (which is over, by the way), they've managed to progress more than ever, yet remaining poor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_%281991-2006%29
http://namcub.accela-labs.com/pdf/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
http://fee.org/media/stateless-in-somalia-by-benjamin-powell/

I believe that a free market needs to be regulated to be efficient.

If it's regulated it's not a free market. What you say doesn't even make sense. You're advocating violence, not freedom.

[Anonymous]

Imagine what these scandinavian countries might have been without a government. You cant see the opportunity cost of the state .

Without government regulations the computer industry follows moore's law. Imagine it heavily regulated......

[caveden]

I have nothing against regulations, as long as there are several sets of them, and you can chose which one seems to you to be the most fair.

I think a more important point is that regulation does not necessarily have to be statist regulation, and does not necessarily have to be enforced through violence. In fact, I would argue that statist regulation almost always ends up causing problems, not fixing them.

+1
That's an important point that even so called minarchists frequently fail to understand.

[JA37]

Imagine what these scandinavian countries might have been without a government. You cant see the opportunity cost of the state .

There's an old saying.
Every country has an army; your own or someone elses.

Same with the government. Without an elected government we'd have different kind.

[Anonymous]

Imagine what these scandinavian countries might have been without a government. You cant see the opportunity cost of the state .

There's an old saying.
Every country has an army; your own or someone elses.

Same with the government. Without an elected government we'd have different kind.

proof ? or is that just an assumption ?

You dont need an army when each person is allowed to protect themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland


Hitler didnt invade them for a reason.....

Socialist governments disarm their citizens which leads to more opression and then people buy the idea they need the state for 'protection'.

[caveden]

There's an old saying.
Every country has an army; your own or someone elses.

Same with the government. Without an elected government we'd have different kind.

Yeah, yeah, right. Same excuse used to defend the practice of slavery during 19th century: "It exists everywhere, since always. It's part of human nature!"

And by the way, an army doesn't necessarily need to force people to pay for their protection.
And even without organized armies, a nation of armed people can already offer strong resistance too. Search about medieval Ireland, and how they've managed to repeal both Viking and Normand invasions. It took the English a strong effort (and carnage) to gain control over them, even England being a much larger nation at the time.

[JA37]

proof ? or is that just an assumption ?

You dont need an army when each person is allowed to protect themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland


Hitler didnt invade them for a reason.....

Proof that there are undemocratic forces that wants to rule countries?
There has been many coup d'état against democracies that should serve well as examples.
I mean, there is no shortage of dictators in the world.


Ohh, a Goodwin. :-)
I think you overestimate what you can do with a gun against a well armed, motivated and ruthless gang.
Studies show that you're basically alone if attacked, even if there are observers around. Can't recall what the phenomenon is called.
And I'm sure Hitler would have taken care of Switzerland eventually, given enough time. He just had other priorities.

[JA37]

Yeah, yeah, right. Same excuse used to defend the practice of slavery during 19th century: "It exists everywhere, since always. It's part of human nature!"

And by the way, an army doesn't necessarily need to force people to pay for their protection.
And even without organized armies, a nation of armed people can already offer strong resistance too. Search about medieval Ireland, and how they've managed to repeal both Viking and Normand invasions. It took the English a strong effort (and carnage) to gain control over them, even England being a much larger nation at the time.

I'm not sure what you mean with the first sentence.

How do you keep an army without paying for it? And I'm sure that a nation of armed people can offer resistance. But there's a reason countries keep an army. They're better.
And there's a difference between medieval warfare and modern warfare. Back then there wasn't much difference in military equipment. A peasant had a fighting chance against a knight. You or I would have virtually no chance against an Apache Heli or a Tank.
Yes, I know there are other ways of fighting, but that's not the point.

But I feel that we're drifting way off topic here.
The army quote was more of a way of saying that there's no shortage of people who wants to rule you.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, yeah, right. Same excuse used to defend the practice of slavery during 19th century: "It exists everywhere, since always. It's part of human nature!"

And by the way, an army doesn't necessarily need to force people to pay for their protection.
And even without organized armies, a nation of armed people can already offer strong resistance too. Search about medieval Ireland, and how they've managed to repeal both Viking and Normand invasions. It took the English a strong effort (and carnage) to gain control over them, even England being a much larger nation at the time.

I'm not sure what you mean with the first sentence.

How do you keep an army without paying for it? And I'm sure that a nation of armed people can offer resistance. But there's a reason countries keep an army. They're better.
And there's a difference between medieval warfare and modern warfare. Back then there wasn't much difference in military equipment. A peasant had a fighting chance against a knight. You or I would have virtually no chance against an Apache Heli or a Tank.
Yes, I know there are other ways of fighting, but that's not the point.

But I feel that we're drifting way off topic here.
The army quote was more of a way of saying that there's no shortage of people who wants to rule you.

people in  afghanistan seem to be managing. they have destroyed countless imperialistic war states including USSR ,England and now the US is going down in fail.   They have guns from world war 2 ffs .. 

[caveden]

The army quote was more of a way of saying that there's no shortage of people who wants to rule you.

With that I agree. That's the main reason why we have states everywhere. And you seem to be among these tyrants, since you support such brutality.

[JA37]

“Because they remain far from being socialists, and they were way farer than today for a long time in the past. Even today, although being victim of insane taxes, they suffer very few coercive regulations when compared to most countries. And yes, regulations are much worse than taxes.”
Interesting read. I’ll have to come back to that one and read more about it. However, the market in Scandinavia is regulated. Like it or not. And it’s a fairly well working market. Rules have been setup that the companies have to follow, and the state monitors the companies to make sure they all play by the rules.

“In this blog post there's a list of articles you should try to read: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx
The first one detailing Sweden history is quite good. You can't just look at the current state of a country and determine that the quality of life there is a result of their current balance of freedom vs violence. Changes take years, frequently decades to happen.”
Not to be impolite here, but reading Cato papers about economy is about as unbiased as asking the Pope about religion. The papers are interesting, but quite biased. Having read papers that are equally biased on the other end of the spectrum I’ve formulated an opinion of my own.

“Same silly mistake you've done above, not considering history. Somalia has always been a crappy place to live in. During the short period they had with no state (which is over, by the way), they've managed to progress more than ever, yet remaining poor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_%281991-2006%29
http://namcub.accela-labs.com/pdf/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
http://fee.org/media/stateless-in-somalia-by-benjamin-powell/”
They have a state yes, but is it a strong state? It doesn’t even control the whole country yet. And not all of Somalia is crappy to live in. There’s something called Somaliland where they’ve managed to setup a functional government, which has been working for a few years.

“If it's regulated it's not a free market. What you say doesn't even make sense. You're advocating violence, not freedom.”
It’s free to operate within the rules.
And how am I advocating violence? I'm suggesting that it's better that the government sets the rules than letting the CocaCola Company do it.

Again, I don't understand how I suddenly became the posterboy for socialism here. I'm just suggesting that "no rules" is a very bad form of governing anything.

[JA37]

With that I agree. That's the main reason why we have states everywhere. And you seem to be among these tyrants, since you support such brutality.

Sure, let's go for ad hominem attacks here. That'll keep the discussion civil.

[Grinder]

That was the original intent of the United States. To supposedly create differing systems and experiment. The problem now is the feds forcing their will on everyone rather than allowing freedom of choice. If socialism is worldwide and universal and everything else is disallowed then moving just replaces one slave master with another. All we ask for is free will not forced choice.

Technically they're only forcing their will on those who freely choose to live under US rule. Since all of the world is already spoken for, the only realistic way to get properly free land would be to pool together and buy a small island country or similar. There are way too few liberalists in the world for there to be any chance of changing a rich country, and whining about things that will never happen is just a waste of time.

[caveden]

It's not ad hominem, I'm just basing myself on what you've been defending on this thread: the use of violence to force people to adhere to your regulations and taxes. You're defending the state, so by definition you're supporting violence.

And who said "no rules"? Freedom is about no rulers, not no rules. This has been said more than once on this thread too. This is such a repeated topic when discussing libertarianism that when I had the chance I wrote a text about it myself. It is in Portuguese, if you don't mind an auto translation: http://tinyurl.com/6jplv8u
Of course you can find better material than that. The short book Chaos Theory, from Robert Murphy, is easy to read and good. There are also plenty of videos like this (very good video this one).

Since I'm giving links, one that you shouldn't miss is this nice short animation on ethics: http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-index.html
It was actually this animation that made search for more answers concerning libertarianism. When I first saw it, that put me in a sort of contradiction, since I couldn't disagree with its fundamentals, but at the moment I couldn't agree either with the conclusion of such fundamentals. So I went on reading and learning about ethics and economics, until I changed my mind in many aspects.

[caveden]

Technically they're only forcing their will on those who freely choose to live under US rule.

hehe, yeah, pretty much like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfQdw2K59x4

You need to merge your labor to a piece of land in order to ethically claim that such land is yours. Might doesn't make right.

Since all of the world is already spoken for, the only realistic way to get properly free land would be to pool together and buy a small island country or similar. There are way too few liberalists in the world for there to be any chance of changing a rich country, and whining about things that will never happen is just a waste of time.

That's the goal of the seasteading project: http://seasteading.org/
It is just not that easy though.

[Grinder]

You need to merge your labor to a piece of land in order to ethically claim that such land is yours.

That is a made up rule, just like the rule of states. It only works if everybody agrees with it, and even then there would need to be regulations about how much land you can claim for a particular amount of labor, how to measure labor, someone to solve disputes, and so on.

That's the goal of the seasteading project: http://seasteading.org/
It is just not that easy though.

Interesting. I still think it would be better to take over an already recognised country, though. I think for instance that transfering money to or from an entity that does not consider itself to belong to country will be difficult at best.

[caveden]

You need to merge your labor to a piece of land in order to ethically claim that such land is yours.

That is a made up rule, just like the rule of states.

It's "made up" with logical deductions out of axioms from human nature and basic ethic definitions such as "every human being should have the same set of fundamental rights". Saying this is "made up" is almost like saying mathematics is "made up". It doesn't prevent it from being true.

It only works if everybody agrees with it, and even then there would need to be regulations about how much land you can claim for a particular amount of labor, how to measure labor, someone to solve disputes, and so on.

Yes, and there would be such "regulations", only voluntarily.
It's not necessary that absolutely everybody agrees though.

That's the goal of the seasteading project: http://seasteading.org/
It is just not that easy though.

Interesting. I still think it would be better to take over an already recognised country, though. I think for instance that transfering money to or from an entity that does not consider itself to belong to country will be difficult at best.

Bitcoins solve the problem of transferring money.
Taking over existent countries is probably harder. People don't easily accept a bunch of foreigners coming in and trying to change everything.