Socialism is synonymous with Oligarchism / Totalitarianism

From the book "The Road to Serfdom"
Original link: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=fLovVMN6swkC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24

​

 

Some facts about Denmark:

1. The large public sector (30% of the entire workforce on a full-time basis[11]) is financed by the world's highest taxes[9].
​

2. The income tax in Denmark ranges from 42.9%[9] to 63% progressively, levied on 4 out of 10 full-time employees[12].
​

3. Discussions on increasing the labor supply include abolishing a labor market arrangement called efterløn (eng.:early retirement pay)[17], at the present (end of 4th quarter 2007) with 143,448 participants (60 years until 64 years of age)[18]. Participation in this scheme is also open for self-employed people (farmers, fishermen, lawyers, etc.). Shortening the time unemployment benefit can be received (four years at the present), as an example, is also discussed. The Danish Economic Council in its 2008 spring report (27 May)[19]proposes limiting the dagpengeperiode to 2.5 years, which is still half a year more than at present in Sweden and Norway, said in an interview by the chairman (da: overvismand) (professor of economics, University of Copenhagen) Peter Birch Sørensen 27 May 2008 on the TV program Deadline (10.30 pm), channel DR2, the Danish Broadcasting Corporation.


Tax burden

With a GDP of 1,642,215 million DKK and revenue from taxes and ownership at 803,693 million DKK (2006)[9], 49.07% of GDP, it is of extreme importance what happens in the tax-financed part of the economy. According to newly revised statistics, Denmark has had the world's highest tax level in 2005 and 2006, at 50.7% and 49.1% respectively. Denmark also held this position 1970-74 and 1993-95 . These figures do not include income from ownership.[9]


​

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/05/business/labor.php

People who are born there don't think its so great. This is the same thing happening in Australia, no less. Here it's called 'the brain drain', and it actually amounts to entrepreneurs and other types of self employed intellectual moving out of the country so they are not suffocated by the high tax rates and crippling regulation and paperwork.

After just one generation of this there arises 'a labour shortage' in the country, whilst another generation retires, making the system top heavy. Suddenly all the benefits that have been so touted get cut, because tax revenue cannot cover them. But tax rates are not decreased, or if they are, they are reinstated a parliamentary term later.

In 1849 absolute monarchy was peacefully replaced by a free constitution. The long-term benefits of fundamental principles such as the inviolability of private property rights, the freedom of contracting and the freedom of association were probably essential to future growth though hard to quantify.
Modernization and Convergence, 1870-1914

During this period Danish economic growth outperformed that of most other European countries. A convergence in real wages towards the richest countries, Britain and the U.S., as shown by O’Rourke and Williamsson (1999), can only in part be explained by open economy forces. Denmark became a net importer of foreign capital from the 1890s and foreign debt was well above 40 percent of GDP on the eve of WWI. Overseas emigration reduced the potential workforce but as mortality declined population growth stayed around one percent per annum. The increase in foreign trade was substantial, as in many other economies during the heyday of the gold standard. Thus the export share of Danish agriculture surged to a 60 percent.
The background for the latter development has featured prominently in many international comparative analyses. Part of the explanation for the success, as in other Protestant parts of Northern Europe, was a high rate of literacy that allowed a fast spread of new ideas and new technology.
The driving force of growth was that of a small open economy, which responded effectively to a change in international product prices, in this instance caused by the invasion of cheap grain to Western Europe from North America and Eastern Europe. Like Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium, Denmark did not impose a tariff on grain, in spite of the strong agrarian dominance in society and politics.
Proposals to impose tariffs on grain, and later on cattle and butter, were turned down by Danish farmers. The majority seems to have realized the advantages accruing from the free imports of cheap animal feed during the ongoing process of transition from vegetable to animal production, at a time when the prices of animal products did not decline as much as grain prices. The dominant middle-sized farm was inefficient for wheat but had its comparative advantage in intensive animal farming with the given technology. O’Rourke (1997) found that the grain invasion only lowered Danish rents by 4-5 percent, while real wages rose (according to expectation) but more than in any other agrarian economy and more than in industrialized Britain.

​

So basically the economy boomed and the nation became very wealthy when Laissez-Faire economics was allowed to bloom and free trade and exposure to internetional markets occured naturally.


Now the socialists have power and they are eatting away the wealth of the nation with their socialist programs. Which won't last, as is already indicated by calls for cut backs in government spending.


Basically a positive sum game has become a negitive sum game, and now we just wait until the country goes bust.

The Danish labor market model has recently attracted favorable international attention (OECD 2005). It has been declared successful in fighting unemployment – especially compared to the policies of countries like Germany and France. The so-called Flexicurity model rests on three pillars. The first is low employment protection, the second is relatively high compensation rates for the unemployed and the third is the requirement for active participation by the unemployed. Low employment protection has a long tradition in Denmark and there is no change in this factor when comparing the twenty years of high unemployment – 8-12 per cent of the labor force – from the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s, to the past ten years when unemployment has declined to a mere 4.5 percent in 2006. The rules governing compensation to the unemployed were tightened from 1994, limiting the number of years the unemployed could receive benefits from 7 to 4. Most noticeably labor market policy in 1994 turned from ‘passive’ measures – besides unemployment benefits, an early retirement scheme and a temporary paid leave scheme – toward ‘active’ measures that were devoted to getting people back to work by providing training and jobs. It is commonly supposed that the strengthening of economic incentives helped to lower unemployment. However, as Andersen and Svarer (2006) point out, while unemployment has declined substantially a large and growing share of Danes of employable age receives transfers other than unemployment benefit – that is benefits related to sickness or social problems of various kinds, early retirement benefits, etc. This makes it hazardous to compare the Danish labor market model with that of many other countries.



​

And now from 4 to 3 years. Slowly cutting away all the benefits, but not the taxes.

 

So basically you are saying that slavery could be perfect.

Do you understand what socialism is?

First, under theoretical socialism you cannot own private property. I'm not talking about a TV or personal possessions, I'm talking about land, cars, bank accounts, assets which can be used as the basis for production. Under practical socialism you may not be allowed to own anything.

If you attempt to own something that is forbidden, you are punished. Historically this is done by shooting you in the head.

Secondly, the central planning board has control over all economic transactions. This includes what job you have, what goods and services you are entitled to, and where you live.

Thirdly, the lack of any sort of competitive market makes pricing of goods and services impossible. This leads to shortages and excesses and inefficient allocation of resources. It means that the central planning committee (government) is physically incapable of accurately predicting how much of what is needed. Fuel and food shortages are not uncommon in socialist states, and are an inescapable result of central planning.

Fourth, the shortages will create a blackmarket in which people try to trade goods without the government's knowledge. Because this blackmarket runs against the 'grand plan' -- the central planning comittee's plan -- a secret police must be created to destroy this blackmarket.

Finally you find yourself in a totalitarian state like that of any socialist country of any time in history.

So, how is it that this system is perfect? Please explain it to me, I want to know.

 

What I've described is pure socialism. Communism is just a certain type of socialism. Nazism is another.

The form of socialism we see today in the world in western countries is actually capitalism crippled by socialist controls, which grow continually. The logical conclusion of the increasing rate of socialist controls is a totalitarian state in each of those nations, unless they turn back to freedom first.

Well then I hope you realize that monopolies, by their very definition, can only exist by government control. For that matter, what is government but a monopoly over the use of force within a geographical area?

 

I see. So you are going to point a gun at me if I don't obey the dictates of your state. And you think this is morally correct?

There is no such thing as a society. It doesn't exist in reality. Only individuals exist. Individuals living on a land mass, trying to get along, and trying to get by in life.

How are you different to any other criminal. Pointing your gun at me and demanding my property. Demanding my labour. Demanding my life.

You are basically in support of slavery. You want to enslave me to others.
You would also support any other type of slavery if it were "in the interest of the people", which of course it would be, assuming the people being enslaved were a minority.

 

Well that is a fairly basic understanding of the welfare state, not socialism. The world is bigger than America. This is the debating forum. So please bring researched arguments and not opinion.

 

This really reveals how deeply children are indoctrinated by the state to believe in collectivism. You actually naively believe that morality is impossible without a collectivist state. Incredible.

A moral code, or set of ethics, is a set of rules or guidelines which establish which actions are good and which actions are bad.

Most people follow an arbitrary and self-contradictory moral code in the form of altruism, or some variant thereof. This code states that self sacrificial actions are good, whilst self-interested actions are bad.

When asked why you have adopted your particular moral code, no doubt you are unable to give a rational response. You would probably say something like "well because its good" or "its the best" or "its what I was brought up to believe in". But none of these constitute a rational reason. The first two constitute circular reasoning (good and best being moral judgments) and the third is no rational reason at all.

So really you are insisting that I accept your moral code, for which you have no justification, and then you are denying me the right, based on my acceptance of your moral code, to take the moral highground in matters of self defense.

Well to begin with: I don't accept your moral code. I see absolutely no reason to. I find altruism to be very dangerous in fact.
And secondly: Any moral code which denies a man the right to protect himself is a pretty stupid code. Do you want to die?

Your argument was to call my argument 'a blob of text' then claim that denmark is 'happy'. What can I say?

I'm sure most socialists would disagree with you. But I'm not here to argue terms. If there are freely fluctuating prices then there is a market and it is not pure socialism.

The principle of ownership is also in dispute here. If you tax my business, and I can't stop you, then to all intents and purposes, you own my business. If you charge me rates to live on my own land, then you own my land. And so on.

 

Are you saying that without collectivism people are free to choose their own moral code? This directly implies that with collectivism, people are not free to choose their own moral code. You are advocating complete fascism.

And then you go on to equate tradition and culture with collectivism. I fail to see how successful and/or preferred modes of communication between individuals constitutes collectivism, or affirms it in any way.

Innate altruism? What a ridiculous concept. Look around you. Self-interest is the only innate drive here. Are you seriously going to attempt to claim that human beings are innately self-less? Do I even need to attack this house of cards?

Ok well I suppose those with government jobs think its great.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/05/business/labor.php

That is completely unsustainable. Their public debt is 25% of GDP.
GDP by sector agriculture: 2.6%, industry: 25.6%, services: 71.8% (2006 est.)

71.8% of the population works in the service industry...

Its a joke economy. They're living off the capital of their forefathers and borrowing to fund their government programs. Meanwhile the youth leave, which makes the median age older. Eventually everyone retires and no one is left to foot the bill. Who pays for the pensions? All the capital that should have been saved has been wasted on expensive social programs.

Far from being a highly productive economy, it appears to me that 71% of the population produce virtually nothing of value, and are paid for by a combination of existing capital and borrowed money.

But by all means, go live there.

 

On Denmark, Read this article:
http://mises.org/story/1274

 

Original quote:

While you are correct in stating that where p implies q, not-p may not imply not-q, the implicit basis of the informal argument presented was that:
Only under a system of collectivism will there be a consistent moral code, and that therefore any non collectivist system will result in chaos.

And you go on to confirm this:

By saying that hierarchy (a form of order) implies collectivism.

You know what? If I want to sell my product X to willing buyer Y for amount Z, then by what right does your preferred government agency, the FDA, come and intervene. You come in with your weapons and tell us we must obey the law. Fuck your law. You do not obey my laws. So why should I obey yours?

You have no right to interfere in voluntary actions between mutually consenting adults. And if you do aggress against peaceful people partaking in peaceful activities, then those people have every right to defend themselves against you. I don't care if you think you are doing it for the common good. If you break down my door and demand that I pay taxes to you at the point of a gun 'for the greater good' I am going to shoot you. And I am going to feel good about it. Every man has the right to be left alone.

Well, on the subject of happiness, its a pointless debate. But for what its worth I was referring originally to the youth leaving the country for brighter prospects abroad. A problem so bad, that forcing people to stay and pay off their education to the government has been considered.

And the article was substantive in so far as it identified a correlation between crime and the welfare state, amongst other things.

No. Collectivism is a type of political ideology which holds that individual interests must be put below the interest of the 'group', which in practical reality is the government. It is effectively a handy cover-term for slavery.