Socialism destroys the Swedish Family?

[XPav]

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1406

Apparently, socialiasm has destroyed the Swedish family. One part which I seem to be missing is the part where the author explains the consequences of the destruction of the Swedish family.

Any Swedes care to to comment? Does the lack of family drive you to US-based message boards in an effort to soak up the familiness you find or is this guy just wierd?

[Johan O]

Can I call you daddy?

[Johan O]

I was a bit overwhelmed by the article. One thing though, the 'anti-state Progress Parties' and Ny Demokrati are not as much libertarian as populist and racist, often blaming immigrants for the deterioration of the welfare state. Also this "Sweden represents a more complete and therefore more oppressive version of the socialist domestic order, one surpassing in its comprehensiveness even that of the Soviet Union. " seems a bit exaggerated. Calling Sweden more oppressive than the Soviet Union is taking it a bit far, I think.

[snowmyr]

I think it's fairly obvious here that Sweeden is the Soviet Union in disguise. The Soviets just needed some time to regroup so they relocated. Then they went and gave all it's citizens super cheap high speed internet connections so the geeks of the west would realise the Soviet way is best and revolt.

I saw this coming a long time back, Comrades.

[Kalle]

The author ignores the impact that the women's entry in the workplace might have on the ability of families to take care of children and elderly. He neglects to explain the advantages of the traditional family unit as opposed to the welfare state system he rants against. He doesn't comment on the possible negative consequences an abolishment of child labour laws and public education might have, hell he doesn't even mention why they were established in the first place save as a way to increase government control. I could go on and on and on.

This man makes me very, very, angry. I have some understanding for hs underlying arguments, but his presentation, his argumentation, leaves very much to be desired. The fact that he refuses to consider, for even a second, that his proposals might have some negative effects, or that the Swedish system as it is might benefit the citizens really shows him to be an arrogant bastard too caught up in his own rhetoric to argue properly.

[Anders Hallin]

Very interesting. Of course, his opinions are quite well summed up in his suggestions:

1. end state-mandated and state-controlled education, leaving the training and rearing of children up to their own parents or legal guardians;
2. abolish child-labor laws, again reasoning that parents or guardians are the best judges of their children's interests and welfare, vastly better than any combination of state bureaucrats;
3. and dismantle the Social Security system, leaving protection or security in old age to be provided, once again, by individuals and their families.


By the way, for those unaware of it Sweden has probably the most comprehensive statistical data about it than any other country in the world, in some cases going back as far as 1749, a lot of it available here:
http://www.ssd.scb.se/databaser/makro/start.asp?lang=2

Den svenska länken:
http://www.ssd.scb.se/databaser/makro/start.asp

[Jason McCullough]

Whoa, we're linking to crazy Austrian economist sites in here now?

[XPav]

I can do that because I am the official forum smacktard. I even have a plaque.

[Jason McCullough]

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=66

"How is capitalism being treated in American popular culture today? The signals are mixed, but generally the picture is bleak.....But the most serious assault on upper-level management currently underway on American television is occurring in the world of professional wrestling, and in my expert opinion the leading cultural indicator in the U.S. is the Worldwide Wrestling Federation. I for one did not believe that the Cold War was really over until a hitherto villainous wrestler like Nikita Koloff began to speak warmly of glasnost during his television interviews."

http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=277&month=11

"One has to wonder if George Lucas hasn't been reading Ludwig von Mises or Murray N. Rothbard during the long sabbatical that he has taken since his last major movie project. As a wealthy capitalist and businessman, Lucas certainly knows all too well what the government means to wealth and what the market means to the success of complex production processes like a major motion picture......Along with that–-and consistent with the experience of Imperial Rome and the US–-we see the effects of currency depreciation. This depreciation affects all people who use the money, even in such parched, desert places like Tatooine, where a Jedi warrior tries to exchange credit-based money of the Republic for necessary supplies. He is turned down because the money is no longer valued on the periphery of the Republic. As a result they must resort to barter, which is exactly what Mises said is the final result of inflation."

There's like an infinite supply of this stuff on there.

[Bob Violence]

abolish child-labor laws, again reasoning that parents or guardians are the best judges of their children's interests and welfare, vastly better than any combination of state bureaucrats

Jesus Christ.

[Case]

Is this guy related to Vox Day?

[Chris Nahr]

Ah, private property anarchy at its best! I found Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe very enlightening, a collection of essays that outlines the ideology of the Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe line of thinkers.

As I understand their ideas so far, their fundamental point is a moral one, not a technical one. They reject the notion that a "good society" is about maximizing some statistical parameters (like health or wealth) for the largest possible number. The foundation of their ethics is complete liberty to deal with one's own property, including one's own body. That principle must never be compromised, regardless what comes out of it.

They also say that social democracy (which includes all existing Western states in their diction) is bound to fail and collapse, but that's not central to their belief -- if you could draw up some kind of social democracy that wouldn't collapse they would still oppose it on moral grounds.

Anyway, fascinating theory and very appealing in its internal consistency and its ability to explain obvious defects of the modern democratic state. The alternative outlined by Hoppe actually looks workable which surprised me as well.

[Anders Hallin]

The thing I don't see is how it's more free to be under the power of your parents than it is to be under the power of society. Though since that text seems to treat children as mere objects, I guess they don't really count as individuals.

[Jason McCullough]

It's just extreme libertarianism, with horrible statistical and logical crimes to justify state non-intervention in the economy.

[Kalle]

As I understand their ideas so far, their fundamental point is a moral one, not a technical one. They reject the notion that a "good society" is about maximizing some statistical parameters (like health or wealth) for the largest possible number. The foundation of their ethics is complete liberty to deal with one's own property, including one's own body. That principle must never be compromised, regardless what comes out of it.

The last paragraph nicely sums up why I despise these people.

[Chris Nahr]

The thing I don't see is how it's more free to be under the power of your parents than it is to be under the power of society. Though since that text seems to treat children as mere objects, I guess they don't really count as individuals.

Not mere objects, but freedom would be restricted to property owners. More specifically, land owners. Freedom and ownership is identical in that world view. You are free because, insofar, and so that you can accumulate property.

Children are free to leave their parents since children, like anyone else, own their own bodies; however, they must either find unowned land, or have enough property to purchase land, or else find someone who would take them into their own land.

If you piss off the land owner on whose property you reside, and you can't find anywhere else to live, then your only remaining option is suicide. Hoppe says that this is how outcasts were treated back in the old days (pre-Roman Britain IIRC), and as far as I can tell he approves of it.

[Qenan]

If you piss off the land owner on whose property you reside, and you can't find anywhere else to live, then your only remaining option is suicide. Hoppe says that this is how outcasts were treated back in the old days (pre-Roman Britain IIRC), and as far as I can tell he approves of it.

Well isn't that special. How about killing the landowner and wresting his property from him by force of arms? 'Cause that would be a whole lot more likely than suicide.

[Chris Nahr]

While that might sound like an appealing option, the surrounding landowners would obviously send in whatever police forces they've hired if that happened...

[Kalle]

Sure, but what if there is more than one landless person who's unwilling to kill himself? Now we're talking social uprising, depending on the behaviour of the landowners that's not too unlikely, and since available land is finite while the population is steadily rising the landowners will find themselves severly outnumbered.

[Chris Nahr]

The theory goes that most people would live in some kind of community with shared ownership of the land, be it a high-rise building or a gated community. We're not talking about a couple of feudal lords with vast estates here. Most people would be landowners in this scenario.

[Kalle]

Even so, there will be landless people, and their numbers will keep growing.

[Anders Hallin]

The theory goes that most people would live in some kind of community with shared ownership of the land, be it a high-rise building or a gated community. We're not talking about a couple of feudal lords with vast estates here. Most people would be landowners in this scenario.
They'd be somehow stopped from making timely grabs at unclaimed land or buying land of someone impoverished (is that even a word?) by drought?
See, I've heard naïve social theories before, but that sort of takes the cake :)

[Qenan]

In any case, theories that assign social rights based on land ownership are loony and harken to a different age. Most of the productive capacity of a modern society is not based on land.

[Chris Nahr]

Umm, you guys don't get it. "Land" ownership means owning the apartment you live in... not 100 acres of farmland.

[Kalle]

What about people who rent their apartments?

[Chris Nahr]

That's not something you'd really want to do in that world, I guess...

[Kalle]

Like Anders said, naive.