>How would you go about "pruning" socialism out of society?
Remove and reduce state involvement.
Ahhhhhh, I thought you meant "prune" out socialism as an ideology, which I doubt could be achieved without coercion (and even then).
>Nothing is beyond the reach of the citizenry as long as they still legitimately elect their representatives.
Nothing is beyond the reach of the citizenry, period. Self-restraint is the problem. If something is wrong to do, a vote doesn't excuse it.
Absolutely not, but if the populous feels that not enough self-restraint has been shown, they can elect someone else - as per the last election. Politicians and bureaucrats can generally be trusted to exercise as much power as they possibly can (and desire to) within the limits of the system (both informal and explicit). This is only a problem if the populous doesn't like the product, the way I see it.
a_majoor said:
Since all forms of Socialism are predicated on the "Collective" controlling the "Means of Production", I really have no problem defining Communists, Social Democrats or the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party) as falling in the same "tent". There are indeed differences in how they operate; a communist would define you according to your economic situation ("class"), while a Nazi would define you by your ethnic origins. Under a Communist regime, you go to work at a state owned institution for the benefit of the State, under a Social Democratic or Fascist regime, you notionally own the property, but the State defines (to a greater or lesser extent) the actual outcomes of your productive labour, either by confiscating your wealth through high levels of taxation and regulation, or more directly by giving you your quota for the next "four year plan". (Nazi Germany practiced both methods)
The commonality you're describing is statism, not socialism. Both fascism and socialism prefer statism (in differing degrees, based on their flavour), but that no more makes them members of the same political ideology anymore than it makes fascism a subset of theocracy because they're both authoritarian (which is a statist classification). The mercantilist monarchist states of Europe were relatively statist, but I wouldn't characterize a mercantilist monarchy as socialist.
In my previous posted example, religious conservatives believe Individual rights, ownership of property and Rule of Law are results of God's Grace, while libertarians would argue these are intrinsic and inherent properties of all human beings, different points of view but arguing for the same end results. With Socialism we have different paths leading to the same end points: people only regarded as part of a "group", and the efforts of the "group" co-opted towards some end defined by a "higher authority", and one which individuals are discouraged (if not actively coerced) from opting out of.
That's collectivism (of a more authoritarian persuasion), not necessarily socialism (though a socialist state such as North Korea would fit that description to a T). Theocracy fits that description perfectly, but a theocracy cannot be, by definition, socialist since true socialism holds atheism as one of its basic tenets. Anarcho-syndicalism is an example of a socialist, collectivist ideology that's radically anti-statist. The different branches of anarchism provide interesting examples of seemingly contradictory ideologies, like Christian anarchism - collectivist, anarchist, but based in religion; or libertarian socialism (that phrase makes me laugh) - allows private property, and is collectivist but anti-statist. They'd all undoubtedly fail, but they do a good job of illustrating the difference between economic, political, social, and governmental/state concepts.
Since police states and violent repression got a bad name in the 1919-1945 period, they generally survive in out of the way places like North Korea and the People's Republic of China, but there are lots of ways to skin a cat, administrative impediments (red tape) can be applied against the recaliant citizens instead. The active can be frustrated in their ambitions, and the remainder cowed ("you can't fight city hall"). Low voter turnouts are the desired outcome of our new ruling class.
I'm not sure where you're drawing that last statement from, I.E. what evidence you have. As for the rest of it, I agree, but bureaucratic red tape is the hallmark of just about every government, be it in the US or China. Indeed, the bureaucracy is a necessary organ of government without which the government cannot provide even the most basic of services (such as elections, policing, the military, etc.).
Western Civilization rests on the underpinnings of the Sovereign individual exercising his rights, using his own property in the ways that provide the maximum benefit to himself, and having these rights and properties protected under a Rule of Law.
So long as there is are laws and a state to enforce them, the individual is never sovereign. Sovereignty entails absolute authority over the jurisdiction (in this case, the individual himself) being described and even the most minimal of legal and enforcement apparatuses, by their very existence, impose authority over the individual.
The extent this is not being followed seems to track with my thesis, the farther towards socialism a nation or society moves, the poorer and less capable that society becomes. While it is possible to mask the extent of the problem, or even attempt to overcome it by conquest and absorbing the wealth of the conquered nations (i.e. WW II, the Viet Nam wars), history does catch up in the end. Europe may no longer be Conservative (or Classical Liberal, if you preffer), but neither is the EU a political, economic or military "superpower" commensurate with their size, resource base or population. Canada dropped off the international radar some time ago and when the USSR imploded the successor states are in no condition to even solve their own problems.
I think Europe is still quite liberal insofar as it still holds democracy and the importance of the individual as fundamental tenets, but no, they're not libertarians, which is what you seem to be describing every time you talk about "classical liberalism". John Stuart Mill was a classical liberal but I'm sure alot of his beliefs would clash with the present-day conservative "classical liberals", which is why I think the term libertarians describe them more closely. It's all a matter of degrees - both "Liberals" (lefties) and "Conservatives" (righties) stem from classical liberalism but their interpretation of "how much, when, and where" in regards to freedom differ.
Once again, a cold dispassionate look at the factual evidence is needed to draw the proper conclusions. If you really believe that having a 25% lower GDP makes your standard of living better, PM me and I will let you know where you can send 25% of YOUR wealth. Or perhaps you can explain how the Republic of Ireland has raised their per capita GDP to $34,100 in 2005 ( Canada $32,800) by lowering taxes and regulations.
I don't believe a 25% lower GDP makes your standard of living better, but I don't believe that a country needs to have a GDP of $40 000 in order to be considered successful or to have an excellent quality of life. It all comes down to how you define success - a fanatical Muslim would classify the entirety of Western society as an abject failure because his notion of success is based in the Koran. Likewise, you consider Sweden and other states as less successful because they have more regulation and a lower GDP/capita. Others would consider them more successful because they have equitable income distribution and greater social services. That being said, Norway's GDP/capita is the second highest in the world, but I doubt you'll agree that that means their system must be better as a result. Equatorial Guinea has the highest forecasted GDP per capita in the world (2005), so the measure itself is pretty darned flawed when evaluating the "success" of a country.
The main issue here seems to be that we don't share the same conception of success. By the conservative standard of "success", Sweden would be a spectacular success if its economic and societal regulation was non-existent and its GDP/cap was $60 000, even if 40% of the population was living on 500 calories/day and 60% had little-to-no access to basic health services. As long as the society is as free as it can be and economic indicators are great, it's a success. I'm somwhere in the middle between the libertarians and the social democrats - I believe in freedom of the individual but I also believe in the importance of the collective. There's a happy balance somewhere between the two, a kind of societal Pareto optimum. That's why I tend to lean towards the Liberal Party on most things - they're not the NDP and they're not the Conservatives, both of which I disagree with on most issues. It just so happens that the party I agree with most often has a crappy record on scandals. ;D
This is an age old pattern (Athens, with a fairly "Liberal" view of individual rights, property and rule of law could only be overwhelmed in the Peloponnesian wars by the combined might of Sparta and her Allies, most of the other city states of Greece and the Persian Empire. Venice, another small city state with a Classical Liberal society, was able to match the military and economic might of the Ottoman Empire at its hight, and the most "Liberal" (Classical Liberal, that is) states in the 15, 16 and 1700's like England, the Netherlands and Sweden could suddenly emerge as powers with influence far beyond their small size, population and resource bases.
Given these success stories across the breadth and depth of history, you would think this would be shouted from the rooftops, and in the last election we should have seen a Tory landslide. We didn't, so there is more selling of the philosophy to be done.
Yes, and the Mongols were quite successful too but I wouldn't call them liberal. Your attributions of causation here are highly dubious. There are a great number of historical circumstances, random events, and other variables that factored into the success of European "liberal" states (and that characterization, especially in the 16th and 17th centuries, is questionable). The death of Khan while the Mongols were on Western Europe's doorstep is one example. I don't disagree that liberalism has had a gigantic amount of influence, but also keep in mind that the type of liberalism you seem to be advocating (libertarianism) isn't anywhere near what those states had, nor really what any state has (including the US).
By your "the more freedom/liberalism/libertarianism, the better" theory, anarcho-capitalism would be the optimal and most succesful system, though I would suggest Hobbes' state of nature would be the most likely result. The non-aggression principle is absurd. That seems to be one of the major failings of libertarianism and anarchism - they place far, far too much faith in the goodness of people.
Just as an aside, are you big into Rothbard? I read a bit about him a while back, and again just now while I was looking into libertarianism.
