Why not Denmark? Questions from a possible convert

Howdy, all.

I'm a citizen of the great nation of Texas interested in learning a little bit more about libertarianism and Austrian economics.

Perhaps the question that most holds me back from going all-out in my embrace of libetarianism, is the supposed success of many Scandanavian countries without free-market economics. I consistently hear about how many of the socialist/liberal Scandanavian countries have low unemployment as well as wealthy citizens. Denmark, for instance, I have heard ranks number one in the world for happest citizens, and many socialist nations (Netherlands, Norway, Sweden) follow closely.

Let us set aside for the moment moral arguments against socialism (such as income redistribution as an immoral action), and focus on its practical consequences. From a practical point of view, why is it not prudent for the United States to adopt the socialism of Denmark, the Netherlands, and other Northern European socialist nations?

fuzzybunny:

From a practical point of view, why is it not prudent for the United States to adopt the socialism of Denmark, the Netherlands, and other Northern European socialist nations?

Because it could involve a reduction in standards of living.

Because it could will involve a reduction in standards of living.

Yep.

Socialism reduces the standard of living for everyone.  While these countries are "wealthier" (and even that number is subjective) most of their wealth is confiscated by the government and redistributed.  Socialist nations always have much slower economic growth.

What we cannot do is ignore the moral arguments against socialism.  To assume that somehow the State owns my money, owns me and owns all the means of production is the antithesis of liberty.  The State no more owns my labor and the products of my labor than I own you.  Socialism then is not freedom but slavery.  To advocate for socialism is to advocate slavery.  Thus morally and practically it is imperative that we do not fall for the trap that "socialism makes you happy" as they would like you to think.  Happiness comes from the freedom to live your life to the fullest.  Happiness means being able to do all of the things you want to do and socialism denies that.  The United States, though consider free, really isn't.  The Tax Foundation estimates that the average American is looted every year to the tune of 40% of their income in taxes.  Imagine the things you could do with that 40% of income that is currently being stolen.  In Scandinavian countries upwards of 60% of a persons money is stolen by the government.  Yes, they have "free" health care, education and other things the government provides but in reality the bulk of their income is being stolen to pay for overpriced services which the market could deliver at far lower prices. 

Happiness is also subjective.  If you were to take a survey now most people in this country would say they are not happy and for several reasons.  We have an unpopular war being fought which is draining the country of all of its money while young men and women are dying for apparently no reason.  The dollar is collapsing, food and energy prices are rising and people are losing their homes to the tune of some 8,000 foreclosures every day.  Yet if you go back to the 1990's when the economy was in good shape and everyone was making money you'll find that most of us were very happy.  I was very happy back in the 1990s as a high school kid earning $30,000 my senior year from a small business I started (which subsequently died and hasn't been resurrected).

You can't seperate the moral arguments against socialism because if a system is morally bankrupt then it does no one any good.

I'm sure the citizens of North Korea are very happy too, or so they're told.

How is happiness subjective if it means "being able to do all the things you want to do?"

I'm also unwilling to commit to the principle that taxation=theft/slavery. The person being robbed or enslaved doesn't have the option of escape, unlike a citizen. If a citizen is being taxed too much, then with the exception of a few countries (such as North Korea) he or she is free to leave. A slave doesn't have that option.

So what? So what if you don't travel down road X you can avoid being robbed? The fact that you're deprived of what is rightfully yours still means you're being robbed.

As for happiness being subjective, I'd say it is (or rather, that it's individual and agent-relative), but a better way to put it is that people are happy when they believe they're doing better than others - and if people in Norway, for instance, have it drilled into their heads sufficiently that they have it better than anyone else, that freedom is slavery &c., they will respond on these surveys that they're happy, and thus outperform countries like the USA. It's nonsense that has no objective basis as a metric. The formal characteristics of happiness are objective (as is the formal characteristic of value), but what it is for one to be happy (or for something to be valued) is reducible to subjective factors.

-Jon

fuzzybunny:

I'm also unwilling to commit to the principle that taxation=theft/slavery.

In that case, you will shortly be receiving an income tax form from the Imperial Republic of Wombatstan.  We've been providing you with defensive and arbitration services for about 4 years now, so you will also have to pay the interest on the back taxes.  Check or money order would be fine, no cash please.  Thanks in advance for your cooperation!

Some things....

First, while I tend to agree with others here that you can't nor should not remove moral matters from economic ones, I can understand your desire to not do so.

First, the links that Jon has been shoving around every other time the line, "But what about Nordic Country X?!" is brought up (http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/2883/39443.aspx#39443 and http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/2828/38784.aspx#38784 I guess he doesn't want to shove them out unless Sweden/Norway are specifically called upon):

http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf

http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665891.pdf

Also, as you may already understand, most of the people here tend to argue things from an ethical view.  From your stance it sounds like you might lean towards a utilitarian approach?  If so, I'd suggest David Friedman and the Machinery of Freedom.  (I feel like a street salesman, "Well, whiskey not your thing eh?  Might I suggest some malt?  Gots the aching out of your shaking!")

Jon Irenicus:

Because it could will involve a reduction in standards of living.

Yep.

I think I had meant to put "would".

fuzzybunny:

How is happiness subjective if it means "being able to do all the things you want to do?"

 

I'm also unwilling to commit to the principle that taxation=theft/slavery. The person being robbed or enslaved doesn't have the option of escape, unlike a citizen. If a citizen is being taxed too much, then with the exception of a few countries (such as North Korea) he or she is free to leave. A slave doesn't have that option.

They are not free to leave. They can not bring their property with them.

How did the government come to be in the position where it can say, "Love it or leave it"? Why is it not the citizen that can tell the government to leave?

Of course, once tax money has been taken leaving the country is not going to cause it to be returned, so your argument doesn't hold up.

I don't think it's possible to scientifically measure the amount of happiness in a country and isolate the root cause of this supposedly high level of happiness.

I hear the Scandinavia thing all the time too. Are you sure it's not just a rumor. I haven't looked into it much myself but I've never talked with an American Scandophile who could back up his assertions with anything besides hearsay.

It seems plausible to me that Viking genes and cultural legacy are the true cause of this so-called "highest" level of happiness.

"Shove"? You make it seem like I'm forcing them down your throats. All it is is a little enlightenment. BTW, utilitarian views are ethical. A lot of utilitarians just like pretending they're not and that they're somehow uniquely "scientific".

-Jon

fuzzybunny:

How is happiness subjective if it means "being able to do all the things you want to do?"

I could have worded it better but happiness is relative.  What makes you "happy" and what makes me "happy" are two different things.  One person might be tickled pink about their socialized health care, walking on clouds when it comes to "free" education and just sublimely content concerning regulations.  Whereas I find no pleasure in any of that.  I don't want money stolen from me for health care I don't want.  I'm one of those 40 million uninsured that is uninsured because I want to be uninsured.  I'd rather spend my money on guns and bullets and time at the range.  I've learned more since I got out of the public education system than I ever learned while I was forced to participate in it.  And expensive regulations has made it impossible for me to start the business I want to start and makes the one I'm in difficult.  So while one person is happy I am miserable.

fuzzybunny:

I'm also unwilling to commit to the principle that taxation=theft/slavery. The person being robbed or enslaved doesn't have the option of escape, unlike a citizen. If a citizen is being taxed too much, then with the exception of a few countries (such as North Korea) he or she is free to leave. A slave doesn't have that option.

Love it or leave it right?  So I leave this country because of the taxes only to find myself in another with equal or worse taxes.  Yeah...I'm free to huh?

Please explain how taking money out of my paycheck every two weeks without my permission, forcing me to pay taxes on a home I own (which can and will be taken from me if I don't pay those taxes), forcing me to ask permission to live by paying a tax on everything I buy and forcing me to seek permission to establish a business, drive a car, use a phone or any of the other myriad of things you must do to survive and all of which you must pay taxes in order to do, is not theft? 

If taking something from me against my will is not theft then what would you call it?

 Socialism cannot work without capitalism. Capitalism can provide the services that that these socialist governments provide, at a much lower cost to the citizen, if we simply allow the market to do so.  But, unfortunately we don't. We are taught that capitalism is not capable or willing to deal with our needs and that socialism does and is. Socialism wants to tell us what our needs are and capitalism allows us to determine our own needs as they come along. Socialism versus free market economics is a question of self determination versus someone else dertermining it for me. 

Self determination seems to be the question for me. Socialism is not practical because I am not willing to give my life,liberty and the pusuit of happiness up quite yet, to have this supposed success.

fuzzybunny:

How is happiness subjective if it means "being able to do all the things you want to do?"

 

I'm also unwilling to commit to the principle that taxation=theft/slavery. The person being robbed or enslaved doesn't have the option of escape, unlike a citizen. If a citizen is being taxed too much, then with the exception of a few countries (such as North Korea) he or she is free to leave. A slave doesn't have that option.

Of course a slave does.

Ever hear of Harriet Tubman?

That's not the point though, the point is that Tubman, like my father who was beaten and arrested for not paying taxes, should not have to leave their homesteaded property.

It's my father's house, not the governments. Love it or leave it? you. You leave! (you as a rhetorical device for government)

In any case, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the success of Scandinavian countries. (For clarity, I do not label their systems as socialist, I label them as capitalist as capitalist always involves a state and its support for capital and certain capitalists)

What successes are you pointing to?

In Sweden the unemployment rate is extremely misleading and among non-Western immigrants - i.e. brown people - it's around 50%

In Denmark over a third of the population doesn't get past nine years of education.

Norway is wealthy because of oil, but it's economy is heading for a lot of trouble.

The Brussels Journal has a good article on why the Scandinavian model is flawed and why it has resulted in such stagnation. They suggest an Irish model, which though not perfect, is much more free market and thus much better for quality of life.