Poul Anderson, The Stars Are Also Fire, 14.
"'I remember Anson Guthrie remarking once that when he was young, Sweden was what he called a nanny state, but it got rid of that and nowadays people there are more free than in most countries, including North America.'" (p. 189)
"'...the Renewal is getting more frantic, more ruthless, as the country goes to pieces beneath it. Bill spoke too freely in defense of freedom. He was killed 'resisting arrest,' the police reported." (p. 191)
Are freedom and social provision incompatible? My freedom of movement is not curtailed if my unemployed or disabled neighbor receives state benefits. I have not felt that I would be less free if I moved to Sweden. Or does "freedom" mean "low taxes"? When an economy is expanding, large companies can afford to pay high taxes. On the one hand, a competitive economy has an inherent boom-slump cycle. On the other hand, technology vastly increases the productivity of labor. We should be able to go beyond squabbling about how the national income is to be divided between social provision and company profits.
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry, but you are still missing the point Anson Guthrie (and Poul Anderson!) was trying to make. Beyond a certain point in the concentrating of power in the state, any state, gov't becomes more and more oppressive and tyrannical. A gov't might start out as a well meaning if clumsy nanny state--and gets worse. We have been seeing exactly that in the US when gov't tries to force Catholic nuns to pay for abortion and "birth control" drugs in their health care insurance. In total and absolute violating of their right to believe the teachings of the Church!
And one point to keep in mind about heavily taxing businesses is that takes money away from employees, stock owners, and investors who could have used those funds for far more productive purposes than the dole or welfare. Some of that money could have been used for developing/inventing technology increasing the productivity of labor. So I'm going to side with those who favor a more limited state with lower taxes.
Sean
Sean,
I think that a "nanny state" can be democratic, guaranteeing civil liberties.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Maybe, up to a point. But once that point is passed such a nanny state becomes more and oppressive and meddlesome.
Sean
Post a Comment