"Waldemar Ingdahl" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Remember the basic principles of the welfare state: people are too stupid,
> weak and evil to decide for themselves. It is better if a technocratic elite
> does it in their place. Really, if something is an opposition to
Can't say as that seems like the basic principle to me. I'd say it's more
"citizens starving is bad, and the traditional safety nets have been
annihilated in modern society, and the market hadn't provided income
insurance, so the government started doing it".
> transhumanists, the welfare state doesn't produce self- asserted
> individuals. It produces sycophants, that are horribly afraid of what other
> people might think (after all that's the normal situation in a welfare
Alexis de Tocqueville said this of democratic societies back in 1830, long
before welfare. As men become more equal the individual appears more
insignificant, and the force of public opinion become tyrranical.
> state, the bureaucrats' opinion matter for all decisions in life. Forget
Not in the US. Perhaps Sweden has gone past the point of moderation.
> the system collapses the country goes down the drain. Uruguay was one of
> the richest countries once, by adopting a very big welfare state they lost
> that position. So has Sweden.
_Uruguay_? Rich? When? How? I do remember Jane Jacobs saying either
Uruguay or Paraguay did well for a while, quite some time ago, with cattle
farming; decline seems natural, with falling commodity prices and no
industrial development. And a few military dictatorships, no doubt.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:47 MDT