I needed to elaborate slightly on a section of the article to avoid misunderstandings. The previous text was imprecise and has now been replaced by the following:
"Political scientists and historians heavily criticize this as a false causal binarity. A major counter-example frequently cited is the Scandinavian model. The historical reality of Western ( social market economy in West-Germany) and Northern Europe (Norway, Sweden, and Finland) directly refutes Hayek’s claim; these nations have maintained high tax rates and extensive welfare systems for generations, yet they consistently rank among the freest, most democratic societies in the world. While we do see that democratic social structures are being dismantled there as well, and that the advance of totalitarianism is not sparing these countries either, I am referring here to the entire post-war period."
Oh, I’ve subsequently added a few sentences to various parts of the article—or modified them. It seems my work was published a bit too hastily...
You can find interesting, further information in this article in German :
I would like to suggest that the post war period is not very long, in the 19th century you could live your entire life without coming into contact with the state, maybe an exception would be post offices.
If you give the state your finger it will take your arm, it is therefore inevitable that tyranny will result from welfare.
I take your point that its possible we have been fed two theories to keep us in the psychopaths overton window, just as in right and left but for me there can be no doubt whatsoever that the state will inevitably become tyrannical because its baked into human nature, estate agents tend to be sociopathic liars because the sales system they operate in is corrupting by nature.
State help might not set out to be a trap but that is how it will finish up, I am now quite convinced that the psychopaths were responsible for the NHS and it's equivalent in Europe so as to create dependabcy and destroy self reliance both for patients and medical staff, I find it inconceivable that doctors and nurses could have been persuaded to murder patients before the NHS was created.
If we view the power structure known as the "State" as something that has already been completely corrupted by thieves and manipulators, then I naturally agree with you. However, I often use the term "state" from a purely theoretical perspective, and therefore in a completely neutral way.
The toxic, humanity crushing extremes, crony capitalism or collectivism/communism/socialism arrive at the same destination for the individual: destitution, delegitimisation and dependency. Add to that depravity, depopulation and deindustrialisation, and the overlay of the Malthusian Directive crystallises with the now obvious force of declining population/infertility rates.
UNEP population models of 2016 used to aid the installation of the UN New Urban Agenda (a reiterating reinforcement of 2030 SDGs for cities) are now demonstrably out of date.
Ideology Usurps Constituency: Globalist Puppetry In The Age Of Tyranny: The Municipal Authoritarians
Only now do I realize what I failed to describe in the article: the concept of a "golden mean" regarding state regulation versus non-regulation unfortunately went unmentioned. When considering this aspect in the context of socialism versus capitalism, I believe one should view capitalism just as critically as socialism. Furthermore, we should not conflate the term "socialism" with communism; doing so risks disparaging social equity—an important aspect of an otherwise capitalist state system. It is propaganda that discredits the term "social" and frames the working class's social achievements as being inextricably linked to the abolition of private property. At this point, everything associated with socialism would have to be separated from the concept of "communism." I wrote this article to refute such propaganda-driven claims.
P.S.
If you link cronyism with communism, and communism with socialism, then welcome to the propaganda echo chamber. This approach allows the formation of cartels/monopolies—and the buying up of entire governments under the euphemism of "lobbying" within capitalism—to be swept under the rug and rendered invisible. I find this perspective rather one-sided; in my view, all political systems that do not involve direct democracy ought to be subjected to the same level of criticism. This applies equally to the socialist systems of the former Eastern Bloc states and to capitalism.
Your comment fuels my fear that I could have easily saved myself the trouble of writing the article (lol). Unfortunately, I lack the necessary writing skills, as well as the time and inclination, to write a 200-page explanation in the form of a book. But even that would presumably be futile.
Hello friends,
I needed to elaborate slightly on a section of the article to avoid misunderstandings. The previous text was imprecise and has now been replaced by the following:
"Political scientists and historians heavily criticize this as a false causal binarity. A major counter-example frequently cited is the Scandinavian model. The historical reality of Western ( social market economy in West-Germany) and Northern Europe (Norway, Sweden, and Finland) directly refutes Hayek’s claim; these nations have maintained high tax rates and extensive welfare systems for generations, yet they consistently rank among the freest, most democratic societies in the world. While we do see that democratic social structures are being dismantled there as well, and that the advance of totalitarianism is not sparing these countries either, I am referring here to the entire post-war period."
Oh, I’ve subsequently added a few sentences to various parts of the article—or modified them. It seems my work was published a bit too hastily...
You can find interesting, further information in this article in German :
https://apolut.net/history-james-mcgill-buchanan/
Thank you for taking so much time with this 👍🌏🕊️
Suavek
I would like to suggest that the post war period is not very long, in the 19th century you could live your entire life without coming into contact with the state, maybe an exception would be post offices.
If you give the state your finger it will take your arm, it is therefore inevitable that tyranny will result from welfare.
I take your point that its possible we have been fed two theories to keep us in the psychopaths overton window, just as in right and left but for me there can be no doubt whatsoever that the state will inevitably become tyrannical because its baked into human nature, estate agents tend to be sociopathic liars because the sales system they operate in is corrupting by nature.
State help might not set out to be a trap but that is how it will finish up, I am now quite convinced that the psychopaths were responsible for the NHS and it's equivalent in Europe so as to create dependabcy and destroy self reliance both for patients and medical staff, I find it inconceivable that doctors and nurses could have been persuaded to murder patients before the NHS was created.
Thank you for your work, I find it invaluable.
Hi Mike,
If we view the power structure known as the "State" as something that has already been completely corrupted by thieves and manipulators, then I naturally agree with you. However, I often use the term "state" from a purely theoretical perspective, and therefore in a completely neutral way.
Best wishes,
Suavek
The toxic, humanity crushing extremes, crony capitalism or collectivism/communism/socialism arrive at the same destination for the individual: destitution, delegitimisation and dependency. Add to that depravity, depopulation and deindustrialisation, and the overlay of the Malthusian Directive crystallises with the now obvious force of declining population/infertility rates.
UNEP population models of 2016 used to aid the installation of the UN New Urban Agenda (a reiterating reinforcement of 2030 SDGs for cities) are now demonstrably out of date.
Ideology Usurps Constituency: Globalist Puppetry In The Age Of Tyranny: The Municipal Authoritarians
https://drlatusdextro.substack.com/i/199812577/the-contrived-construct-of-a-small-space
Only now do I realize what I failed to describe in the article: the concept of a "golden mean" regarding state regulation versus non-regulation unfortunately went unmentioned. When considering this aspect in the context of socialism versus capitalism, I believe one should view capitalism just as critically as socialism. Furthermore, we should not conflate the term "socialism" with communism; doing so risks disparaging social equity—an important aspect of an otherwise capitalist state system. It is propaganda that discredits the term "social" and frames the working class's social achievements as being inextricably linked to the abolition of private property. At this point, everything associated with socialism would have to be separated from the concept of "communism." I wrote this article to refute such propaganda-driven claims.
P.S.
If you link cronyism with communism, and communism with socialism, then welcome to the propaganda echo chamber. This approach allows the formation of cartels/monopolies—and the buying up of entire governments under the euphemism of "lobbying" within capitalism—to be swept under the rug and rendered invisible. I find this perspective rather one-sided; in my view, all political systems that do not involve direct democracy ought to be subjected to the same level of criticism. This applies equally to the socialist systems of the former Eastern Bloc states and to capitalism.
Your comment fuels my fear that I could have easily saved myself the trouble of writing the article (lol). Unfortunately, I lack the necessary writing skills, as well as the time and inclination, to write a 200-page explanation in the form of a book. But even that would presumably be futile.
It…..just goes on on but….never ever ,ever give up .
Not ever.