hey rog and platt,
rog's response is in progress, but id like to ask one question...
>The tragedy is that before its
>plunge into welfare statism during the 1960's, Sweden had one of the
>world's fastest growing, most prosperous economies, according to
>Swedish historian Johan Norberg.
Elliot:
so what? sorry, but why is having a growing economy nessicarily the best? i
believe the swedes knew that going into socialism would hinder their
economy, but decided that having widespread free education and healthcare
was more important. Is your average swede more content that a poor black
american? do the swedes riot because they have "fewer material goods", or
do they like their system?
Im not arguing at all for socialism. someone once said "the socialists may
win, but socialism never". But id just like to question the validity of
economic progress, ammount of material goods and other quantifications
rather than qualifications.
Anarchy also would be much more dynamic than socialism. Whats with this
capitalism is better than maoism so its better than every other possibility
type of argument. no one says capitalism is uneffective, or less effective
than anything else in practice, but lets not limit possibilites here.
Elliot
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:19 BST