Re: More Green Party

From: Waldemar Ingdahl (
Date: Fri Jun 30 2000 - 23:00:19 MDT

>Subject: Re: More Green Party
>Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:58:21 -0700
>"Waldemar Ingdahl" <> wrote:
> > Remember the basic principles of the welfare state: people are too
> > weak and evil to decide for themselves. It is better if a technocratic
> > 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".

Indeed your just repeating the same motto, but with nicer words.
Who annihilated the traditional safety nets? Who has made impossible for the
market to provide income insurances? These things were working out in the
past, but on a low scale (of course, for societies on a lower level of
development). But then the 20th century was the century of the blind faith
in central planning.

> > transhumanists, the welfare state doesn't produce self- asserted
> > individuals. It produces sycophants, that are horribly afraid of what
> > 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.

What perpetuates this system, and makes this conduct profitable in the short

> > state, the bureaucrats' opinion matter for all decisions in life. Forget
>Not in the US. Perhaps Sweden has gone past the point of moderation.

Unfortunately, the difference between the US and Sweden is just a matter of
degrees, not a difference in fundamenta.

> > the system collapses the country goes down the drain. Uruguay was one
> > the richest countries once, by adopting a very big welfare state they
> > 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-)

Still in the 20s Uruguay was sending aid to Sweden, and the fall of the
Urugauyan economy cannot be attributed to economical determinism. Successful
societies are able to adapt, to develop new ways of living and producing.
The welfare state calcifies that, since it doesn't give incentives for
change, rather it premiates staying in the old system. Uruguay was also hit
hard by the complete collapse of world trade in the late 20s, when most
countries engaged in mercantilist tariff barriers. But the ulterior motive
was the welfare state, the juntas came when the economic collapse was
starting to be felt by society at large. Often the gained support by
pledging that nothing would change under their rule

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:53 MDT