Hurtling Down the Road to Serfdom

[foxpaws]

I've read more of that than you have of Hayek.

Uh, no, you're wrong. I guess you didn't read either the link you posted nor the quote I posted from your link. Personal freedom is way down in Norway. Nice try.

Wrong. Actions speak louder than words. But I guess we agree to disagree. You cannot prove a negative, of course, but you can't make a very good case either.

Funny how you try to claim that my sig is a misquote. Beam in your own eye first...
That's great fox...nobody cares.

I have read Hayek - I think Shag is finally realizing that.

here is the freedom http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/"]link again - I had it posted earlier in the thread. What quote are you talking about?

And my quote of yours is exact Foss, and complete, nary an ellipses to be found.

And you were the one questioning my property ownership in Norway - sorry to disappoint you.

 

[foxpaws]

Citing historical examples that demonstrate of the thesis is not a statement of the thesis.

An interesting passage written by Hayek from the preface to the 1976 edition of The Road To Serfdom:

It has frequently been alleged that I have contended that any movement in the direction of socialism is bound to lead to totalitarianism. Even thought this danger exists, this is not what the book says. What it contains is a warning that unless we mend the principles of our policy, some very unpleasant consequences will follow which most of those who advocate these policies do not want​

The straw man you are currently attempting to inject here has been around for a quite while and was dispelled by Hayek in 1976.

Also, as Cal already pointed out, picking Norway as a way to disprove Hayek is dishonest. Even if you could honestly represent Hayek's claims, you are cherry-picking a country that has an abnormally small population and abnormally large natural resources to financially back it's policies. So the factors that would trend toward tyranny are muted because of larger resources to fund policies and going to manifest themselves exceedingly slowly.

Did you read the bottom section of my post? I know about the inevitability argument...I even quoted Hayek from the first edition...

Nor am I arguing that these developments are inevitable. If they were, there would be no point in writing this. They can be prevented if people realize in time where their efforts may lead…

And as your quote said...
What it contains is a warning that unless we mend the principles of our policy, some very unpleasant consequences will follow which most of those who advocate these policies do not want

You could stop it, move away from socialism and get back to capitalism, but if allowed to proceed socialism would end up as it did in Germany... Norway hasn't 'mended' its policy - the consequences of its socialist policies should be by this time (60+ years) 'unpleasant'. Socialism hasn't been curtailed 'in time' so by now the evil results should be very apparent.

So it should happen in all cases - it shouldn't matter that Norway is small or isolated or have some wealth... some evil person should rise to take control...

 

[fossten]

here is the freedom http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/"]link again - I had it posted earlier in the thread. What quote are you talking about?

What, too lazy to read? Tsk tsk, fox, God gave you two eyes and one mouth for a reason. And yes, it's just an analogy.

And my quote of yours is exact Foss, and complete, nary an ellipses to be found.

I didn't distort the meaning of your quote, nor take it out of context, which is what you did with mine. I merely shortened it because you are too wordy. Your meaning is still intact, which is that Obama is a socialist.

And you were the one questioning my property ownership in Norway - sorry to disappoint you.

Hard to be disappointed when I don't really care.

 

[shagdrum]

... Norway hasn't 'mended' its policy - the consequences of its socialist policies should be by this time (60+ years) 'unpleasant'.

Hayek never gave a time frame.

You are simply assuming that if it hasn't happened by now, it will not happen; you are drawing a completely speculative and arbitrary line beyond which you claim that socialism succeeds in avoiding the problems spelled out in his book.

It is absurd to think that Norway disproves Hayek if you truly understand his argument concerning how and why collectivism trends toward tyranny.

Hayek argued that collectivism breeds more collectivism chiefly because of the scarcity or resources and inherent inefficient allocation of those resources under collectivism. Norway has not hit that wall yet.

They have the means to put it off for quite a while. However, barring infinite resources, they will hit that wall. All social spending programs are ultimately ponzi schemes that are not sustainable. Norway has no magical ability to avoid that economic reality. It simply has the resources and the foresight to put off that cold reality.

Socialism hasn't been curtailed 'in time' so by now the evil results should be very apparent.

Again, you are ignoring the "how" and the "why". Collectivism inherently breeds more collectivism. After a point, this centralization of power allows someone less then honorable to rise to power without adequate safeguards against an abuse of power or dictatorial power grab. This is precisely what happened with Hitler and has happened numerous times in socialist countries in the past.

Resources are ultimately scarce. There is always an inverse relationship between resources (inputs) and social spending (outputs) and that difference grows under collectivism. The available resources per capita are much higher in Norway then in most other countries. That fact can not be ignored or downplayed when comparing Norway's record to Hayek's thesis.

You are also assuming that a tyranny is not in place. This ignores the possibility of a soft tyranny. While I personally don't know enough about Norway to say conclusively weather or not a soft tyranny is in place, the fact that they have high taxation is a very strong indicator.

As the Sharon Statement says, "political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom" and economic freedoms are the first to go under socialism. Natural Rights are incompatible with collectivism. Only positive rights are compatible with collectivism and positive rights are an illusion because any "right" that is dependent on the government is not a right, and any "right" that can be arbitrarily taken away by the government is not a right.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C.S. Lewis​

 

[shagdrum]

here is the freedom http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/"]link again - I had it posted earlier in the thread.

Cherry picked stats with ideologically self-serving methodologies resulting in misleading conclusions being drawn in this forum hardly reinforce the claims you are making. Any study that looks at "life expectancy" to draw conclusions about quality of life and/or healthcare is ultimately misleading.