@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Less government = greater freedom. That's a popular notion now with the Hayek/libertarian crowd. They consider it a self-evident truth.
Let's note first of all that the formula inevitably rejects citizen democracy at any point where the majority of citizens themselves knowingly choose a government which forwards social programs or which institutes or continues progressive taxation or which supports serious curbs on how business entities go about their business, etc. A community cannot, in this "libertarian" model, be considered free if its citizens knowingly establish a political system divergent from the model.
Further, there's an attending belief that this model is the route to the community's prosperity and that a "socialist" or social democratic model will thwart prosperity.
But the real world doesn't provide evidence except in pretty much complete contradiction of both of those axiomatic presumptions.
The nations that we commonly refer to (with good reason) as members of "the free world" are all social democracies. Every one of them. No exceptions. And it is these nations which demonstrate the greatest levels of civil liberties, personal safety, health, happiness (generally) and prosperity. Every one of these nations have long traditions of progressive taxation and large social programs. Including the US, of course. If that "libertarian" formulation had grounding in reality, it is rather difficult to see how the above would hold true and hold true so universally.
And there's another side to this dilemma for them. One ought to be able to point to exemplars of successful, prosperous nations where high levels of civil liberties and citizen happiness are evident and which operate on the model these Hayek fans cheer for.
But there isn't even a single such exemplar.
I think you are confounding arbitrary (and undefined by you) models and ideals with complex reality, and doing so to make a flawed point.
While the various countries of the free world do indeed all have some characteristics and policies associated with what most of us think as "social democracies" - as you note, that doesn't mean they ARE social democracies as you imply. Indeed most of them are constitutional democracies with strict legal limits on what the majority of the people, acting through a democratic process, can do or require of others. It is precisely in these limits that most of the contemporary political debated between "progressives" and "conservatives" in this country lie. Progressives tend to prefer government-managed "solutions" to social issues and to count the lack of them as no solution at all. Conservatives tend to focus on the, usually unforeseen, side effects of government-managed "solutions" and to prefer others based on either local government action or the voluntary action of people and communities. However, in the free world these debated take place mostly in constitutional democracies that have various limits on the power and reach of the central government.
Canada is a good example. The power and reach of the National government there is generally far less than in the USA - In Canada the Provinces have much more independent power than do states here. One result is that environmental law is far less intrusive and restrictive in Canada than here. I'm reminded of that every time I visit Calgary.
I believe the world provides ample evidence of the superior economic productivity of capitalism and freer markets, compared to their socialist or extreme social democratic alternatives. How do you account for the economic and social transformation of China over the past 30 years? How about the continuing slower growth and financial difficulties of the EU economies compared to those in North America? You are rather categorical on this point, and appear to insist that there are no examples (exemplars) that contradict your point, but you are obviously wrong.
