Hurtling Down the Road to Serfdom

[Calabrio]

Norway, I choose Norway... far away from Hayek... the US is far closer to Hayek than Norway - but chose another country other than the US that you believe is closer to Hayek if you have one Cal.

I'm hardly a student of Scandinavian economies, but I do know that by choosing Norway, you deliberately picked the strongest economy in that region.

Norway is country with a tiny, homogeneous population about equal to the state of Alabama. And the homogeneous small society has the luxury of being supporting by the extremely lucrative oil and fishing industries. But even despite that, they still seem to have employed some fiscal discipline.

They have a $400 Billion dollar fund from their natural resources, but they have strict limitations on how much of that they can spend a year and while they are very pretty much a socialist country, many of the industries, like the banking, aren't as heavily regulated or guaranteed like they are in the U.S. That's why Norway hasn't been hurt during the past few economic downturns as the other countries in the region, or the continent.

But pointing to Norway and saying that their system should be a model is about as foolish or misleading as pointing to Saudi Arabia and saying that there economic system works and should be a model. If the oil economy crashed, those countries would be in economic collapse.

How are things going in Greece, foxpaws?

 

[foxpaws]

The Road To Serfdom was originally written for a British audience and with Britain primarily in mind. I thought you would know that since you have "read" the book...

Ah, shag - Cal wanted me to pick a specific Scandinavian country to use as a foil against Hayek's theories - . It didn't have anything to do with Hayek's original audience.

Cal's request...

Name a country, not a region.
I'm not going to compare entertain comparing a country with a region, it's
a waste of time.​

Cal, of course I chose Norway (specific country rather than region) to go against the US, because of all the Scandinavian countries I probably know more about it, since I am of Norweigian descent, and own property there. There isn't a really good example of a country that follows Hayek, so the US is probably the closet currently. You might have a better example than the US, and if so you might want to use it as an alternative. I know the US is usually in the top 5 in economic freedom rankings, but maybe you might want to choose Singapore, Australia or Hong Kong - however their political systems wouldn't be a good comparison to a pro-hayek viewpoint.

However, I will continue with my choice that Norway disproves at least some of his theories. High employment, high taxes, high level of democracy, high education level, high level of happiness, and greater upward social mobility. Norway has a 11% budget surplus, zero national debt, and an economy that grew 3% last year all within a somewhat socialist economy (the government owns about 50% of all industry).

However, according to Hayek, Norway should be failing, rather spectacularly. But Norway has no 'horror camps,' the vilest people haven't risen to absolute power, Norwegians certainly don't approach any definition of serfdom (their freedom is arguably stronger than the US). Norway has been in this system for about 60 years. There is a feeling that you have a sense of responsibility, of virtue. You are given a lot, and in turn, you are expected to give a lot. Norway is a good foil to Hayek's theories.

Now, I certainly think you can find examples of countries that have lost economic freedom, such as Venezuela, that have also lost political freedom. But, I don't think that is the 'rule'. I think that Hayek oversimplifies things, and misses many underlying conditions that could cause the loss of some economic freedoms while actually creating superior political/individual freedom.

I think if you look at Greece Cal - it is corruption that is their biggest problem... both in the private sector (Greece's nationalized industry isn't a big as compared to Norway) and in the government.

 

[Calabrio]

Foxpaws, you've completely ignored the point.
The economy of Norway is influenced because of it's very small population and large natural resource wealth. As I said, using that as an example of a successful economic or political model makes as much sense as saying the same for a country like Saudi Arabia.

Additionally, to argue that the U.S has embraced the Hayek model this century is dishonest as well. The U.S. government fiscal policy has been hugely influenced by Keynesian economics this past century.

If you don't agree, then explain why this government past the wasteful "stimulus" bill last year and are attempting to pass another one under the focus group tested label of a jobs bill this year? There have been brief moments and periods where there have been dissenting opinions, but this past century has been dominated by the failed theories of Keynes.

 

[foxpaws]

Foxpaws, you've completely ignored the point.
The economy of Norway is influenced because of it's very small population and large natural resource wealth. As I said, using that as an example of a successful economic or political model makes as much sense as saying the same for a country like Saudi Arabia.

Not really - unemployment in Norway is only 3%, it doesn't depend on just the income generated by selling its oil. However, it does has a full cradle to death very liberal (socialist) welfare system. If hayek were correct - the availability of welfare (in Norway's case funded by north sea oil) would cause unemployment to rise to unmanageable levels. You can get $1,500 a month for life. No forms, no judgment, they will just give you that much forever. According to Hayek, everyone should be jumping on the welfare system in Norway - but they aren't.

Saudi Arabia isn't successful - it scores very low on most of the factors I listed - happiness, freedom, democracy, employment et al. It isn't socialist, it is a capitalist dictatorship. Actually, just the opposite of Norway. Heck, even per capita gdp is quite a bit lower than Norway (saudi - 23,000 vs 53,000 for norway). In fact, the US scores much, much better than the Saudis in almost all categories as well, including per capita gdp (US - 46,000). A country rich in natural resources doesn't equate to success Cal - you have to 'work' at it.

Additionally, to argue that the U.S has embraced the Hayek model this century is dishonest as well. The U.S. government fiscal policy has been hugely influenced by Keynesian economics this past century.

As I said - there isn't a very good example of Hayek in action currently - but the US is probably as close as you can get in the world right now - I even gave you a list of alternatives cal - you might want to go with one of those.

And the fact that there isn't a good hayek model might prove something - perhaps it is an economic theory that isn't sustainable.

 

[Calabrio]

And the fact that there isn't a good hayek model might prove something - perhaps it is an economic theory that isn't sustainable.

Not at all. The fact that governments have not been enthusiastic about economic models that limit their power is no surprise.

Do you really think that the economic conditions around the world right now look sustainable? Do the economies of France, England, Italy, or Greece look sustainable right now.

Does the U.S. economy look sustainable to you right now? Can we afford the unions, the pensions, the social spending, and the high regulation and taxation?

As stated, Norway has a very small population, a tiny military, and it's blessed with extremely lucrative natural resources that fund the social spending. That influx of money keeps the system stable. This model would not work in any other country or if the population were considerably larger.

But how free is a person who works and depends upon the government from cradle to grave? And how free is a person who is forced to contribute half of their earnings to the government in the form of various taxes?

 

[foxpaws]

Not at all. The fact that governments have not been enthusiastic about economic models that limit their power is no surprise.

So, Hayek is unachievable? Why even discuss it then. We won't be getting rid of government... Does Hayek only work in a libertarian society?

As stated, Norway has a very small population, a tiny military, and it's blessed with extremely lucrative natural resources that fund the social spending. That influx of money keeps the system stable. This model would not work in any other country or if the population were considerably larger.

However, Norway does prove Hayek wrong - Hayek claimed his theories were applicable from anything above and beyond small village scenarios. Norway is much bigger than a small village-and all the 'doom and gloom' that Hayek predicted would happen with a socialist economic system has failed to materialize.

What does Norway do right? It is obviously above and beyond the natural resources. Actually Cal - UAE is the best example that you can put against Norway. About the same population size, same amount of oil income, however UAE is a capitalist society with a loosely based parliament/monarchy political structure. They fail against Norway in those categories mentioned above.

But how free is a person who works and depends upon the government from cradle to grave? And how free is a person who is forced to contribute half of their earnings to the government in the form of various taxes?

What is different about Norway then? There is a saying in Norway that loosely translates to 'If you are given a lot, you are expected to give a lot'. It probably accounts for the fact there isn't a lot of chaffing at their high taxes. They see rate of return on their taxation. Education, health, retirement, and future investment in all those things for their children and beyond. As they age, they know they need an educated, healthy workforce behind them to pick up the reins. They are big on investment. And they know investment involves much more than money in the bank.

They aren't so intent on the 'now'. Here in the US we have gotten so wrapped up in the 'now' that we are poisoning the future. Norwegians find that appalling. They have no concept of why we don't provide for the poor like they do, or have the education opportunities that they do. With only 3% unemployment (and that is pretty high by Norway's standards, they usually are in the low 2s) it shows how investing in the education of everyone, creates economic stability. They have a highly educated workforce that understands the benefits of being employed. Fewer people aren't working - so you have fewer poor. And they understand the investment in the future those things offer. Invest in the health of the poor, and the economic 'status' of the poor, and educational opportunities for the poor and in the long run, the poor don't cost you as much money. It even creates things like lower crime rates.

All of these things are just the opposite of the horror camps that were envisioned by Hayek as the result of an economic system that pretty much paralleled Norway.

Do you really think that the economic conditions around the world right now look sustainable? Do the economies of France, England, Italy, or Greece look sustainable right now.

Does the U.S. economy look sustainable to you right now? Can we afford the unions, the pensions, the social spending, and the high regulation and taxation?

Could it work in a large country, such as the US, that doesn't have the natural resource that Norway has? Well, as you said Cal, what we have certainly doesn't seem to be sustainable. Perhaps we should look at the idea of investing in the future... and not just make it a 'catch phrase' but really embrace it. Forget the mantra of 'now'. We have been given great gifts, do we really return them in kind?

 

[fossten]

However, Norway does prove Hayek wrong - Hayek claimed his theories were applicable from anything above and beyond small village scenarios.

The exception does not disprove the rule. You're very weak at debate, fox.

Edit; I have yet to see any evidence provided that proves that Norway is a socialist country, by any definition. From what I have read, Norway is more free market than the US. It has a welfare state and universal healthcare, but much less regulation on business.

You need to establish a foundation before you can make your argument, fox. I reject the premise that Norway is a socialist country.

 

[foxpaws]

Edit; I have yet to see any evidence provided that proves that Norway is a socialist country, by any definition. From what I have read, Norway is more free market than the US. It has a welfare state and universal healthcare, but much less regulation on business.

You need to establish a foundation before you can make your argument, fox. I reject the premise that Norway is a socialist country.

Well, lets get this out of the way first... Depends on your definition of socialism... Over half of the industry in Norway is nationalized Foss - sound socialist to you? Most consider Norway a market influenced socialist state. It is a highly taxed, highly regulated, welfare state. It is probably the most socialist country (maybe Sweden - I think they sort of battle this out) in the world today. I believe they spend around 45% of the GNP on public expenditures. There are thousands of little things that show it is a socialist state - things like the farmers are basically forced to join marketing co-ops that are approved by the state.

Is it as structured as a socialist state would be ala Marx? No. Does it follow more modern definitions of socialism - very much so.

The exception does not disprove the rule. You're very weak at debate, fox.

Capitalism, Hayek said, is the only system of economics compatible with the human condition of dignity, providing us with prosperity and liberty. He argues in Serfdom that as we move away from that system, we empower the worst people in the society to rise to the top.

Foss – according to Hayek there should be no exceptions to the rule. It is part of human nature, a natural consequence of socialism. You can’t fight nature (as shag likes to point out). Socialist Norway should be long under the rule of vile despots...

Hayek, in Serfdom, uses his study of the rise of Nazis in Germany as ‘proof’ of his theory. Germany, who after losing the first world war was a socialist country. Hayek believes their socialist policies, the ‘planners,’ and their inability to create a ‘plan’ after the first world war lead to the rise of Hitler, and created the mechanism that allowed him to rule.

He doesn’t take into account many things. He has Germany functioning almost within a bubble, no outside influences.

If you look at Germany between the wars you find a country that was treated as ‘scum’ by the rest of Europe. Basically as second class citizens. They were not given loans to rebuild their country, and eventually they become vulnerable to someone who appealed to their sense of vanity and pride. Hitler gave them that. He fed on their sense of nationalism. He gave them back their ‘pride’. This had nothing to do with the socialist state, and everything to do with outside influence.

Now, perhaps the socialist state made it easier for Hitler, but it didn’t cause Hitler. The treatment of Germany by the rest of the world after the war is what enabled the ‘worse’ to rise to the top. Had Germany been given loans, allowed to rebuild, like the rest of Europe, and not treated like second class people, the Germans wouldn’t have been susceptible to a person like Hitler. He depended on a premise that it was ‘us against them,’ and created a superior race theory to foster that belief even more. The economic system in place made very little difference, the rest of Europe would have continued to belittle Germany and Germans irregardless. It might have been a little slower if there was a capitalist system in place, but the sense of rejection by the world, and the need to be 'proud' of who they were would have still been in place, and still would have been the stair steps to Hitler's rise to power.

If after WWI the allies would have done what they did after WWII, and go in and rebuild Germany, making sure that there wasn’t a foothold for someone like Hitler, who used national pride to incite the people to war, WWII might have been avoided.

Remember there is only 20 years between the wars – so this happens very quickly according to Hayek. But, it has been 65 years since the fall of Nazi Germany, and we have yet to see the rise of another Hitler in Germany, in spite of their continued socialist policies. The difference, this time the Allies rebuilt Germany, and didn’t treat the citizens as ‘scum’.

You can’t go back and look at the rise of Hitler in a vacuum, like Hayek does. You can’t remove the sense of abject misery that the Germans felt after their defeat, and their appalling subsequent treatment by the other European nations.

 

[fossten]

Well, lets get this out of the way first... Depends on your definition of socialism... Over half of the industry in Norway is nationalized Foss - sound socialist to you? Most consider Norway a market influenced socialist state. It is a highly taxed, highly regulated, welfare state. It is probably the most socialist country (maybe Sweden - I think they sort of battle this out) in the world today. I believe they spend around 45% of the GNP on public expenditures. There are thousands of little things that show it is a socialist state - things like the farmers are basically forced to join marketing co-ops that are approved by the state.

All assertions, no proof. You think I'm going to take your word for it? Let's see some LINKED statistics, starting with the TOTAL number of business regulations Norway has compared with the TOTAL number of business regulations the USA has. If you cannot produce this, then I will claim victory while stubbornly demanding that you answer this question. Until then, this discussion is over.

/foxpaws tactics

 

[shagdrum]

according to Hayek, Norway should be failing, rather spectacularly...

...Norway is a good foil to Hayek's theories.

Your continued misrepresentation of Hayek (direct or indirect and vague) is getting old. Specifically, what theories of Hayek does it disprove?

If you are vague on that then it is very easy to claim what you are claiming and avoid it being challenged. However, it also makes your assertions empty.

 

[foxpaws]

All assertions, no proof. You think I'm going to take your word for it? Let's see some LINKED statistics, starting with the TOTAL number of business regulations Norway has compared with the TOTAL number of business regulations the USA has. If you cannot produce this, then I will claim victory while stubbornly demanding that you answer this question. Until then, this discussion is over.

/foxpaws tactics

Well - check out Heritage Foundation foss - they rank economic freedom for the US and Norway

So, since they aren't socialist why don't you wildly embrace their proven policies - their non socialist health care, non socialist state-only education system, their non socialist nationalized ownership of 50% of all companies, their non socialist ownership of banks, their non socialist ownership of the telecommunications company, their non socialist labor is always right labor laws, their non socialist welfare state...

You claim over and over that obama is a socialist because you say he supports exactly those types of policies Foss. How can a country that already has all those policies in place (and more) not be socialist?

 

[foxpaws]

Your continued misrepresentation of Hayek (direct or indirect and vague) is getting old. Specifically, what theories of Hayek does it disprove?

If you are vague on that then it is very easy to claim what you are claiming and avoid it being challenged. However, it also makes your assertions empty.

Hayek theorized that totalitarianism is not an accident that happens because the people in socialist countries chose evil leaders. Totalitarianism, Hayek believed, is the logical outcome of socialism. That there really wasn't a 'choice' but it was inevitable, and logical, that someone like Hitler rose to power because of the socialist system in Germany.

But, Norway - more socialist than Germany was in the 20s and early 30s (if you go by nationalization of companies, banks and communications, the depth of the welfare state, and others), hasn't fallen into a totalitarianism system, nor has any leader arisen to take advantage of the socialist system in place as Hayek postulated was inevitable. Hayek stated that fascism and Nazism were not reacting against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies. However this hasn't proven true in the case of Norway - or any Scandinavian socialist state.

I think outside forces played a much bigger part in the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany, rather than placing their rise entirely Germany's rather borderline socialism after WWI.

 

[fossten]

Well - check out Heritage Foundation foss - they rank economic freedom for the US and Norway

So, since they aren't socialist why don't you wildly embrace their proven policies - their non socialist health care, non socialist state-only education system, their non socialist nationalized ownership of 50% of all companies, their non socialist ownership of banks, their non socialist ownership of the telecommunications company, their non socialist labor is always right labor laws, their non socialist welfare state...

You claim over and over that obama is a socialist because you say he supports exactly those types of policies Foss. How can a country that already has all those policies in place (and more) not be socialist?

When did I say Norway was NOT socialist? Link please. This sounds like another weak straw man on your part.

I'm confused - now you say Norway is NOT socialist? You claimed Norway was socialist before. Please make up your mind. I never asserted that Norway was not socialist - I simply asked you to lay the foundation first, with cites and linked facts. I guess you can't do that. Oh, well, I'm not surprised.

Again - so there's no mistake - if you claim Norway is socialist, please demonstrate this with cites and/or linked facts from a reputable source.

Here's why I won't embrace Norway:

Norway’s overall economic freedom is limited by the lack of fiscal competitiveness, the large presence of the government in the economy, and labor market rigidity. The government has focused on containing expensive welfare programs in recent years, but government spending still remains more than one-third of GDP. The state still owns around 50 percent of all industries, including enterprises in manufacturing, telecommunications, hydroelectric power, and transportation. While the corporate tax rate is moderate, personal income taxes are very high, and the overall tax burden is considerable.

In the meantime, are you admitting that Obama is a socialist?

 

[foxpaws]

When did I say Norway was NOT socialist? Link please. This sounds like another weak straw man on your part

Edit; I have yet to see any evidence provided that proves that Norway is a socialist country, by any definition. From what I have read, Norway is more free market than the US. It has a welfare state and universal healthcare, but much less regulation on business.

I'm confused - now you say Norway is NOT socialist? You claimed Norway was socialist before. Please make up your mind. I never asserted that Norway was not socialist - I simply asked you to lay the foundation first, with cites and linked facts. I guess you can't do that. Oh, well, I'm not surprised.

I was being sarcastic-by labeling all those programs as 'non-socialist' I was trying to point on the silliness of your argument that Norway isn't socialist.

It isn't totally socialist - just like the US embraces some socialist programs and isn't a free capitalist economic system either. There isn't a 'complete' example on either side.

As far as democratic socialist countries - Norway, and perhaps Sweden, are the two countries that match our modern view of socialism.

Here's why I won't embrace Norway:

So, you want proof – well here is a great book on why the Nordic model is socialist..

But, let’s just look at a bit of the synopsis…

incentives associated with high tax wedges, a generous social security system and an egalitarian distribution of income.​

egalitarian distribution of income - even Shag would admit that is socialist...

And here is a great paper, funded by the Norwegian Government, on what the Norwegian tax structure is structured to accomplish.

From its synopsis…

In this national report, I will first address the two most important non-fiscal purposes in Norwegian tax policy: redistribution and correcting market failure.​

Gosh, the government correcting the market with their tax policies - so socialist....

Glad I found the Heritage stuff for you Foss - you are welcome...

Heck, there are things in Norway that appear very 'capitalist'. Property rights there are perhaps the best in the world - but that lends itself to natural rights - which the Norwegians are all over. They view state run health care (and it is socialist - it is state run) as a natural right.

And since the finance minister is Sosialistisk venstreparti I think that probably says it all…

You can go down the street and visit 3 places that sell coffee - all 3 will have different prices, but walk into any liquor store (state controlled) and you will pay the same price for your bottle of schnapps. Legal fees are regulated, so are the prices that farmers get for their products. Probably in about half of things that have 'cost' the government regulates the pricing structure. Government regulates how much people get paid - not just minimum wage. Certain industries have government controlled wage standards. Norway sets quotas for employment – such as the 40% female quota for boardrooms. Your tax forms are posted on-line - so everyone knows what you make foss.

In the meantime, are you admitting that Obama is a socialist?

You claim Obama is a socialist - right Foss? He doesn't embrace even the tip of the iceberg of socialism that is present in Norway. How can Obama be socialist, and yet Norway not be socialist?

Here is a great article that supports that very premise – that Obama wants us to be like Socialist Norway… You like American Thinker don’t you Foss?

 

[fossten]

Tsk tsk, fox, you continue to misrepresent what I said. I NEVER SAID Norway wasn't socialist. I simply asked you to lay a foundation before making wild assertions. Can you be honest for once in your life, or shall I just resort to wrapping your quotes around any group of words I choose?

It isn't totally socialist - just like the US embraces some socialist programs and isn't a free capitalist economic system either. There isn't a 'complete' example on either side.

This statement completely invalidates your entire argument.

But thanks for admitting that Obama is at least 'partly socialist.'

So, your position is that Norway is socialist? And you say Obama is the same? And you advocate this type of model - correct, fox?

 

[foxpaws]

Tsk tsk, fox, you continue to misrepresent what I said. I NEVER SAID Norway wasn't socialist. I simply asked you to lay a foundation before making wild assertions. Can you be honest for once in your life, or shall I just resort to wrapping your quotes around any group of words I choose?This statement completely invalidates your entire argument.

So, now you can read how socialist Norway is - enjoy your reading material Foss...

There is never a complete example on either side of politics - it is impossible - if you are looking for current socialist examples - Scandinavia is a good choice. You can't find an example of complete, open capitalism either foss - you have to go with what you got...

So, when looking at how Hayek viewed socialism, Norway pretty much falls in line with his example. A government that is actively pursuing egalitarianism on many levels. A planned society, complete with planners.

However, unlike Hayek predicted, evil people haven't risen to the top of the government, totalitarianism hasn't been the result. Norway hasn't fallen into fascism or nazism.

But thanks for admitting that Obama is at least 'partly socialist.'

So, your position is that Norway is socialist? And you say Obama is the same? And you advocate this type of model - correct, fox?

Have I foss - have I ever said Obama was socialist here? Nope... He doesn't come close to the Norway example of socialism. I have yet to see him nationalize 1/2 of the businesses here. I rather doubt that he will demand that 40% of board members are women. I wonder if he will put price controls on Budweiser. Perhaps though, posting our tax forms online should be something to explore, what would yours reveal foss?

But, you can't have it both ways.
You do say that Obama is a socialist - by that logic alone, you must also say that Norway is socialist.

And I don't advocate the Nordic model - I own property there, I visit often, I wouldn't want that system in the US.

 

[fossten]

So, now you can read how socialist Norway is - enjoy your reading material Foss...

There is never a complete example on either side of politics - it is impossible - if you are looking for current socialist examples - Scandinavia is a good choice. You can't find an example of complete, open capitalism either foss - you have to go with what you got...

Ah, but I didn't raise that argument, fox...the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that socialism works. You have FAILED to do so.

So, when looking at how Hayek viewed socialism, Norway pretty much falls in line with his example. A government that is actively pursuing egalitarianism on many levels. A planned society, complete with planners.

However, unlike Hayek predicted, evil people haven't risen to the top of the government, totalitarianism hasn't been the result. Norway hasn't fallen into fascism or nazism.

You missed the part about the lack of personal liberty. Ah, but what's a little goalpost-moving in the interest of pushing a false premise, eh fox?

Have I foss - have I ever said Obama was socialist here? Nope... He doesn't come close to the Norway example of socialism. I have yet to see him nationalize 1/2 of the businesses here. I rather doubt that he will demand that 40% of board members are women. I wonder if he will put price controls on Budweiser. Perhaps though, posting our tax forms online should be something to explore, what would yours reveal foss?

Tsk tsk, fox...moving the goalposts again. You have said, in this thread, that Obama agrees with the model as run by Norway. Now you're saying Norway is socialist. 'Tis you that can't have it both ways.

As far as Obama being a socialist - see my sig...you already admitted it. Sounds like we agree in principle that Obama is a socialist. Thanks for the discussion. Time to move on.

And just because you bought an antique rolltop desk on ebay from a Nordic-based server doesn't qualify you as a 'property owner' in Norway.

 

[shagdrum]

Totalitarianism, Hayek believed, is the logical outcome of socialism.

Wrong again. In fact, those passages I posted in post #17 of this thread, make that abundantly clear.

From Cato:

Hayek's thesis in The Road to Serfdom is that one intervention inevitably leads to another. The unintended consequences of each market intervention are economic distortions, which generate further interventions to correct them. That interventionist dynamic leads society down the road to serfdom.​

from wikipedia:

Hayek’s central thesis is that all forms of collectivism tend towards tyranny, and he used the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as examples of countries which had gone down “the road to serfdom” and reached tyranny​

All totalitarian regimes are tyrannies, but not all tyrannies are totalitarian regimes.

To characterize Hayek's thesis as "totalitarianism" being "the logical outcome of socialism" is to misrepresent Hayek.

But, Norway - more socialist than Germany was in the 20s and early 30s (if you go by nationalization of companies, banks and communications, the depth of the welfare state, and others)

If you go by "nationalization of companies" then you are ignoring the heart of socialism (something you are determined to ignore anyway) as well as by insinuation distorting the critique that Hayek was making in The Road To Serfdom; effectively you are rigging the rules of the game.

...hasn't fallen into a totalitarianism system, nor has any leader arisen to take advantage of the socialist system in place as Hayek postulated was inevitable.

Again, Hayek wasn't talking about totalitarianism but about tyranny.

Tyranny comes in many forms, including the soft tyrannies talked about by Alexis De Tocqueville. (The title of The Road To Serfdom was derived from Tocqueville).

Totalitarianism only comes in much more specific and extreme forms.

It is clear you are not interested in anything other then misrepresentation and misdirection to dishonestly marginalize Hayek. Since you have claimed to have read the book, there is no excuse of ignorance for your claims here. To intentionally attempt to mislead is not only rude, but shows an utter lack of honesty or integrity. Habitual liars have no credibility nor should they be trusted.

You stay classy...

 

[fossten]

It is clear you are not interested in anything other then misrepresentation and misdirection to dishonestly marginalize Hayek. Since you have claimed to have read the book, there is no excuse of ignorance for your claims here. To intentionally attempt to mislead is not only rude, but shows an utter lack of honesty or integrity. Habitual liars have no credibility nor should they be trusted.

You stay classy...

That about sums up foxpaws.

 

[foxpaws]

Ah, but I didn't raise that argument, fox...the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that socialism works. You have FAILED to do so.

Socialism works in Norway... Call it what you will Foss, the rest of the world calls it democratic socialism.

I guess you haven't had a chance to catch up on that reading material

You missed the part about the lack of personal liberty. Ah, but what's a little goalpost-moving in the interest of pushing a false premise, eh fox?

why yes I did - however - Germans had personal liberties at first when it moved to socialism after WWI. As the Nazis moved in they removed personal liberty. That is part of what Hayek theorizes - that socialism will also remove personal liberty... Didn't in Norway.

Tsk tsk, fox...moving the goalposts again. You have said, in this thread, that Obama agrees with the model as run by Norway. Now you're saying Norway is socialist. 'Tis you that can't have it both ways.

Nope - I used an article on American Thinker - saying that it supports your idea that Obama is socialist. I have never claimed that he is currently.

As far as Obama being a socialist - see my sig...you already admitted it. Sounds like we agree in principle that Obama is a socialist. Thanks for the discussion. Time to move on.

I love your editing - the wonders of ellipses... I believe that Obama could have been 'socialist lite' in college, I haven't seen anything that would disprove that. However, is he a socialist now - nope.

And just because you bought an antique rolltop desk on ebay from a Nordic-based server doesn't qualify you as a 'property owner' in Norway.

I own a house in Oslo - I inherited it from my spinster aunt (I am her only niece). My other two aunts and a mounted policeman (he lives there free - so he can watch my aunts) live in it currently.

 

[shagdrum]

Socialism works in Norway... Call it what you will Foss, the rest of the world calls it democratic socialism.

So democratic socialism is a form of socialism in your view...

 

[foxpaws]

Wrong again. In fact, those passages I posted in post #17 of this thread, make that abundantly clear.

From your post Shag...

Management of socialism would therefore lead to bureaucrats gaining discretionary powers. Disagreement about the practical implementation of any economic plan would invariably necessitate coercion in order for anything to be achieved. Hayek further argued that the failure of central planning would be perceived by the public as an absence of sufficient power by the state to implement an otherwise good idea. Such a perception would lead the public to vote more power to the state, and would assist the rise to power of a 'strong man' perceived to be capable of 'getting the job done'. After these developments Hayek argued that the worst get on top of socialist bureaucracies. Those who are good at acquiring and exercising discretionary powers in government are usually the most ruthless and corrupt individuals.

There it is Shag - the worse rise to the top in socialism - why hasn't that been the case in Norway?

To characterize Hayek's thesis as "totalitarianism" being "the logical outcome of socialism" is to misrepresent Hayek.

And from Road to Serfdom - Hayek's own words...

Few are ready to recognize that the rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period, but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.

From the Library of Economic Liberty...
So Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom to warn his fellow British citizens of the dangers of socialism. His basic argument was that government control of our economic lives amounts to totalitarianism. “Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest,” he wrote, “it is the control of the means for all our ends.”

If you go by "nationalization of companies" then you are ignoring the heart of socialism (something you are determined to ignore anyway) as well as by insinuation distorting the critique that Hayek was making in The Road To Serfdom; effectively you are rigging the rules of the game.

So you want to go by egalitarianism? Norway is all for that - see my post above...

Is it inevitable - that is what is the crux - correct? Hayek even chaffed at this - I know he wrote that wasn't what he meant (how convenient). I think he said that he meant it as a warning - watch out - this could happen.

Well - so, then you could conclude that socialism isn't bad - so long as the people don't allow it to become totalitarian. They need to 'watch' it, but in and of itself it is harmless - do you think this is what he meant Shag when he stated that it wasn't inevitable...

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…

Or do you think that people need to realize where socialism may lead and scrap it before it becomes totalitarian, which it will inevitably?

 

[fossten]

Socialism works in Norway... Call it what you will Foss, the rest of the world calls it democratic socialism.

I guess you haven't had a chance to catch up on that reading material

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

why yes I did - however - Germans had personal liberties at first when it moved to socialism after WWI. As the Nazis moved in they removed personal liberty. That is part of what Hayek theorizes - that socialism will also remove personal liberty... Didn't in Norway.

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.

I love your editing - the wonders of ellipses... I believe that Obama could have been 'socialist lite' in college, I haven't seen anything that would disprove that. However, is he a socialist now - nope.

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...

I own a house in Oslo - I inherited it from my spinster aunt (I am her only niece). My other two aunts and a mounted policeman (he lives there free - so he can watch my aunts) live in it currently.

That's great fox...nobody cares.

 

[shagdrum]

And from Road to Serfdom - Hayek's own words...

Few are ready to recognize that the rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period, but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.​

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.

 

[fossten]

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.

Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark. *owned*