Philosophy Of Liberty
 

<A href="http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf">Philosophy Of Liberty</A>

This Flash Presentation Is from ... The International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL).

http://www.isil.org/

I couldn't make it more than 30 seconds into that. It seemed like a paragraph of text stretched into a flash presentation with graphics that didn't really add anything to the text.

Personally, I like a lot of aspects of libertarianism, but I do think there is a place for heavy government regulation. For example, as we have seen, power privatization has been a colossal failure in the USA, mostly due to the misguided idea that a "free market" can reign in an industry where a new power plant can take at least 10 years to build.

It's this slavish dedication to the free market above all else that turns me off about libertarianism, otherwise I would probably call myself one.

I'd say just the opposite. Where the government trys to play with the power companies with price fixing (natural gas in the east) and extreme regulation (California) you have problems, in areas where competition is allowed to work, it works just fine and doesn't cost extra tax payer dollars.

Now thats just my feeling on it based on how well it works in my state (or lack there of) and why our utility monoply is having such troubles. On the plus side towns are starting to buy cheaper power from other states, long live the free market.

Since you think its such a horrible faliure, maybe you can give a few examples, and show were government control is better.

Thank you Communism!!!!

Sure, let's look at Enron. The timeline for Enron is a pretty good read:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.ht.../enron/1127125

http://www.platts.com/features/enron/timeline.shtml

Also, this BBC story is a REALLY good summary of enron, the best I have seen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...ne/default.stm

I can confidently say that Enron would not have happened if power companies were not allowed to privatize.

I'm unsure how you blame the california problem on overregulation. History has shown that there was no real energy shortage in California during the power crisis, and the companies like Enron were using scams with names like Death Star to dupe the public out of billions.

A truly free market depends on low barriers to entry, that's just Adam Smith Econ 101. A power market, where power plants can cost hundreds of milllions and take 10-20 years to build , is a terrible place to have a free market.

I'm not against states being able to sell their excess power to other states. However, I think state-owned and state-planned power systems are a more efficient way to supply power to the masses.

Mojo, I've seen you make some good posts here. It's really disappointing when you toss off one-liner trolls when I know you're capable of better.

Thats true, but so what? When missmanagement and fraud happens in the private sector we invesitgate and put people in jail. If only the state and federal governement had such rules.

From what I understand it was the price-fixing of the State government along with a 25% reliance on out of state power coupled with a draught which led to the mess. There wasn't a free market in CA, you had a artificially controlled one.

It was the STUPID system set up by the govt of California which allowed them to dupe the public out of billions.

Also from what I read (and no I don't know of the source right now) there have been no new power plants in CA for quite a while, due to the stringent and very expensive regulations in California law. Its been a long time so I can't list them, but based on how crazy they are in my field, I can't see them being any better in the energy industry

I was just merely pointing out how Capitalism kicked Communism's ass in the last half century due to the lack of (or a lesser role) of Government being involved.

I was answering your request <i>Since you think its such a horrible faliure, maybe you can give a few examples</i>.

You asked for information. I gave it to you. You agreed that it was correct then said the information doesn't matter. Enron was the largest bankruptcy in the history of the world. Perhaps you can show me some government sector failures on that scale? Or any massive failure of a government-run power system?

Quote:

From what I understand it was the price-fixing of the State government along with a 25% reliance on out of state power coupled with a draught which led to the mess. There wasn't a free market in CA, you had a artificially controlled one. It was the STUPID system set up by the govt of California which allowed them to dupe the public out of billions.

You understand incorrectly.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issue...s_capitol.html

Quote:

Briefly, here's how a few of the scams worked: "Death Star": Enron would overschedule its expected power transmissions to create the illusion that the state's grid would be overloaded, then receive state payment for "relieving" the congestion. The beauty of this con, the company's memos noted, is that "Enron gets paid for moving energy to relieve congestion without actually moving any energy or relieving any congestion." It's the sort of protection deal that would make Tony Soprano proud. "Fat Boy": This scam (aka "Inc-ing") also involved overscheduling power transmission -- for example, to a company subsidiary that didn't really need all of it. Then Enron would sell the "excess" power to the state at a premium. "Ricochet": Also called "megawatt laundering" (by analogy to money laundering), Ricochet was the power equivalent of a real-estate land flip: buy in-state power cheaply, flip it out-of-state to an intermediary, then re-sell it to California at a highly inflated "imported" price. There were others, but you get the general idea: the only "invisible hand" in this pseudo-free market -- heavily promoted by Enron and its lobbyist allies -- was Enron's. The Enron memos also say that traders from other companies (with even larger interests in the California market) were doing the same, and now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says it will force them to cough up the evidence. Yet California began complaining to FERC as early as May of 1999 that the big energy companies were manipulating the market for billions of dollars. The regulators did nothing.

Note that the FERC regulators were all Bush appointees.

Quote:

Also from what I read (and no I don't know of the source right now) there have been no new power plants in CA for quite a while, due to the stringent and very expensive regulations in California law. Its been a long time so I can't list them, but based on how crazy they are in my field, I can't see them being any better in the energy industry

There has not been a power crisis here since the fall of Enron. Yes, California has a lot of rules for constructing a power plant. We have a lot of environmental activists who care about the impact of power plants. We have earthquakes. We have a lot of people.

So, to get back to the original point. I like a lot of what Libertarianism has to say, but there are specific tenets to Libertarianism that I have a problem with, and one of those is that all free-markets are good.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. Let's completely deregulate the airline industry! After all, people are in control of their own actions! So, people will have to decide for themselves each time they board a plane whether the individual pilot is qualified. (we won't certify the pilot, too much regulation.) The plane is safe. (we won't have third-party inspectors, too much regulation.) And if the airport is well run. (again, no need for the FAA, too much regulation.) We'll also let the airlines themselves decide whether the pilot information and safety information should be public or secret, and free or for-sale.

Would this be workable? Of course not. When libertarians talk about the "free market" whether in power, in the stock market, or in airlines, they conveniently tend to overlook the massive amount of regulation required to make a "free market" work.

But again, I like a lot of the Libertarian Ideals, they just sometimes go too far.

Given that no power companies were privatized until the 80's, when Russia was already in steep decline, I don't see how your point applies to mine.

In fact, I would have a stronger argument than you if I said that heavy government regulation of power companies helped defeat communism. :)

I found this very interesting.....

Its got a nice list of signatures on it.
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/news/ca...ty_crisis.html

It is interesting, if only as a historical artifact of how far in the sand businesspeople and business professors were about the true extent of the problem. Enron declared bankruptcy in November of 2001 (see the timelines I posted previously). That document is from January of 2001.

I'm waiting for those examples of the failures of publicly-operated power systems. I've shown my hand. It's time to show yours.

First off, Enron is one power company. One corrupt power company. To suggest that because of one company that privatization is a failure, is ridiculous. Wherever you have positions of power (no pun intended), there will be corruption. The only difference between corrupt private companies and corrupt government agencies, is that private companies are eventually caught and held accountable (as much as rich white men can be held accountable in our legal system :rolleyes:).

A government agency is held much less accountable by the people, as there really is very little way for them to exercise power over it. If AT&T suddenly is revealed to be a corrupt bunch of hooligans, consumers can switch their local phone service to another provider. Hopefully, eventually, there will be several options for each consumer for any utility.

I believe in the Libertarian idea of choice when it comes to, say, software, or groceries, or gas stations. But it seems to me that the idea of "consumer choice" on utilities is largely a farce. You're only going to have one water pipe, one gas pipe, one electricity line into your house, so the "choice" is really just rich people pushing monopoly money around. I have yet to see a successful consumer choice system.

In fact, LA was well served in the CA power crisis by their independent power system, while San Diego, an early adopter of power choice, got screwed.

It seems like perhaps there is a compromise. The government could operate and maintain the pipes, electric lines, and such and perhaps there could be limited competition for who gets to supply to those lines.

Where in the constitution does it say that the government's job is to provide power? I thought the only three things the government was to do was provide a system to solve arguments ( courts), provide for the peace ( police) and provide for the defence?

Harmless are you saying that the constitution provides the means for the government to cook your steak?

Where in the constitution does it give the government the power to run the Federal Aviation Administration? All these rules regulating the flights of aircraft, the certification of pilots, and the safety of aircraft are obviously unconstitutional by your argument, yes?

Also, power is already heavily regulated. Or perhaps you think that nuclear power plants should be built by anyone with the money and desire to build them?

Actually, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution. The 10th amendment says:

I think state-run power systems would be just fine.

Was California your example of a private failure?

Actually, it was found that several power companies were culpable in the deregulation fiasco in CA.
Enron's actions in this were just the tip of the iceberg,
their scandal & downfall were mostly related to the fact that they had cooked the books in their accounting and actual worth,
their actual assets didn't match their "claimed" assets.
The various power companies are still in court as the govt. tries to get back monies overcharge...and of course, they will only recover a fraction.

Even though I do agree with many Libertarian ideals,
it is an unfortunate necessity to have overview regulations
for certain industries...
since the scale of these industries affect the state & national infrastructure.
Utilities, Air Industry, Chemical, Oil, Some Environmental, etc.
Why?
Because these have become NECESSITIES for the stability of the nation & the lives that make it.
We cannot allow it to get out of hand in the first place, because too many people & business rely on it to survive.
The damage can be profound, even if caught after a reletively short time.
If released to supply and demand, the companies that already hold the majority, will milk the citizens & govt. for their profit.
As shown in CA, there are too few, and the costs of developing are too large to allow common business practices sway what we now live on.
Or at least as fast as CA allowed it, without tight rein as they released it.
It took YEARS to massage out the kinks of MA Bell and the split,
and even now, these (the Baby Bells, MCI and Sprint) are still much regulated.
But it DOES allow competition, just monitored.

As we have seen, each govt. philosphy is not good when the ideals are absolute.
We are really not a democracy, we are a federal republic.
And we are not completely capitalist, there is a bit of socialism as a safety net.
And we are not completely deregulated, there is a bit of control needed.

There is a balance to everything.

I would say that the federal bailouts and interference in Airlines is causing big problems with that industry. Also, government licenses is covered by the court and dispute part of the government.

What's your point? I said amendment X clearly states that the states have the power to regulate electricity. You appear to be arguing with yourself. :)

So you think the we will benifit from government controled services? What about bread? Or shoes? Whats to stop them from using the 10th admendment to justify socialism? I think you are over using this ademdment. I mean the founding fathers were clear cut capitalists and fought against England for daring to use government regulation to control things such as tea.

Your argument is based on such a clear lack of understanding of the constitution, american history, current history, and the current state of regulation in the USA that it is pointless for me to even begin to try to address it.

We have benefited, and are benefiting from government controlled services every day. I believe most power generated in the USA is still generated by public utilities. So this bizarre argument that I'm somehow trying to justify socialism is completely out of left field.

So Three Mile Island is then proof of government control is great?

Misunderstanding of the constitution? I am stating that the writers of the constituion fought, some personally, against government control of the free market. You are overstating the 10th admentment as a catch all for socialism.

Actually I need to side to some degree with those who think it should be nationally owned.

There DOES need to be some oversite for services, which is lost, would cripple or even destroy the nation. Power is one of those things, which if we don't have, we become our great grandparents again very quickly in terms of abilities (only without their knowlage of living without power). As such 100% private controlled is bad. There needs to be SOME regulation such that no one can turn off the lights on a whim, or due to poor management. Just like its illegal for air traffic controllers to strike, you need SOME sort of assurance that everying will keep working.

Now where I would differ is the extent of government control. I'm much happier with government oversite of a private company, then a government owned one. A private company as a rule will work harder, if you don't believe me, work in government a bit, and will see benifits of making the public happy with their service for the most part.

Ok its late, and I can hardly see so this will have to do, typos and all:)

I am all for goverment watching over a privatly run power company. But a government controlled power industry? Gheese talk about a nightmare.

Um, Food Eater Lad, that's the way it is today. As of 2000, 26% of electricity generation was privately run.

I see no problems with government run electricity plants today. Privately-run plants led to the biggest bankruptcy in the history of the world.

Food Eater Lad, I'm not going to respond to your posts any longer unless you better research your points. These off-topic poorly-researched one liners aren't worth my time to respond to.

Good point, but while the government may need to be in control of the infrastructure, I don't see why it should be necessary for the government to provide services to it. They can own the restaurant, but why should they be staffing it themselves?

So major blackouts by out dated equipment from a power plant accountable to no one is acceptqable to you? New Mexico lost power from one cigarette being tossed out s window, and we all know about the recent east coast problem. Lets here it for government management.
I dont know about you, but I would rather a company that wanted to make a profit and there fore have pleased customers than a government plant that wanted to spend the least money as possible in charge of electricity. Look at Nasa, using twenty year old computers to launch shuttles, is that what you want for a power company?

I assume you can also provide the stats on the quality of services for the private companies, with customer satisfaction as opposed to the services provide by the government plants and customer satisfaction? Or is this more stuff that is not worth your time to respond too?

I can agree with that system. The government (probably on a state level to make it manageable, or on a county or city level in large urban areas) should own water supply lines, electricity supply lines, natural gas lines, phone lines and perhaps even things like cable tv and internet lines. Their job would be to keep a high level of service to every customer and charge the minimum possible to break even.

The suppliers into those lines could be municipally, privately, or co-op owned, just like today, and could compete on service level and price. I think there are still some issues about who gets to build a nuclear power plant where, but it would still be a better system.

Figured you wouldnt put your money were your mouth is.

-edited. not worth getting another warning over. :)

Lib. seems like an interesting idea, but i fail to see how it could be implemented, and how it could be implemented with safeguards to keep it from devovling into a system of monetary might makes right.

It seems similar to anarchy in its apparent disregard for heirarchy and leaders and the high value it places on self worth.

I wonder, since property is derived from work, according to the flash presentation, is inheritance against the libertarian ideal?

hmmm...this seems interesting. The Right-winger's call for small governemtn have bred a generation of citizens with an irrational fear of govermental infrastructure and reliabillity. Here in Norway, we have the world's greatest standards of livinf. Schools, health-care, social security, public transportation and many other benefits are granted by our govenment, who gets reasonable taxes in return. Too bad so many stupid right-wingers here are trying to adopt american paradigms. So far they have privatized most of our energy-market, tripling the prizes and creating several severe crisis in just the last 10 years....

And what other than Vikings and cheese has Norway contributed to the world? I guess the government taking care of each Norwegien has muted that "individual spirit" that crazy Right wingers would like to foster in Americans. The rugged personal responciblity that let America succeed for two hundred years, and dare i say it, surpase all other nations as far as world contributions, military, and economic powers?
Would I tade the American working spirit and comitment to indivual freedom that allows them to succeed or fail on their own merits and create a society that dominates the world for a semi socialised system that strips people, and coddles them and leaves them in just another mediocre nation? Nope. Work hard, succeed, take care of your self and family. You and your family are YOUR responciblity, not anyone elses. This is something the left wingers have forgotton.

....Well I never said that we Norwegians are a superior speices (I thinkt that is reserved for people like you). And by all means, Norway is a small country whith little impact on the world. I just believe we have had, and still have, a very good system, with good services from the government and all the freedom we want. The fact that we don't acheive a lot, might be linked to the fact that we have ca. 4 million citizens, and only 100 years of history as an independent nation. Not much time to establish a great culture. I don't really see how all that anger was called for. Yes, the US have given us great achievements in recent history. I do belive this is possible in the future as well, but maybe combined with a more just society with less poverty and diversity.

Beautiful women!

Why is it that leftist societies have the hottest women?

(California, Norway, Sweden, Cuba, China, any given spot in South America...) :D

I was refering to Norway as a country which at least used to have a relatively fair society, with full freedom for all (We are NOT communists, we are, or used to be, a social democracy. There is a difference.) I think the government can take good care of many services. I also note that every sector which have been privatized in this country, have fucked up. Energy got expensive and unreliable, the railway became a joke, telephone companies ripping people off etc etc. It's simple facts. Norway certainly haven't blossomed from the privatization. and I do belive that a greater govermental impact might create a better society for all.

Individuals are nice, but we have a society we wish to protect too. Individual freedom doesen't go away even though your governent provide you with healthcare, education, power and other neccecities. I won't endorse individual freedom at everyone elses expense. There are losers in every society, in fact, most of us will not be on top. Why should the freedom of the little percentage of big fish go before that of the vast majority? Call me a socialist if you wish ( am a reformist social democrat), I bear it with pride. I want a fair and equal society, not a country for ego-trips with money..

And you are leaving out the hottest capitalist Japanese babes?

Thats fair, and you are welcome to your opinion. Just realise that when immigration is concerend, by far, outsiders choose the nation with the big fish, the USA over Norway by a VAST majority. I wonder why if your nation is so much better?

double post

Ah yes, you are right that Japanese women are hot.

Given your disdain for collectivist societies and the fact that Japan is the only fully industrialized society that has developed without Western cultural traditions, however, I find it odd that you would hold them up as a paragon of the antithesis of what I was joking about.

...well...I guess that might have something to do with the US relying itself on immigration to fill up the low-paid jobs on the bottom of the food chain, and the fact that Norway have bigger regulations on our immigration. We deal with our own poverty before we import massive amounts. Might be egoistic, but our unemployment rate has risen in the last 10 years of breaking down our welfare society, and it's not the best time to get a massive increase in immigration.

Those wimmen is still hot no matter what their traditions.

So the fact that you wont let people into your nation to better themselves is your proof? "Let poor third worlders starve, we are too busy feeding ourselves" Lets hear it for Norway! the voice of compassion.

Ps, the world need ditch diggers too, and the US is more than happy to let anyone from any nation come and make a better life while improving the quality of life for their children. But you are right, no one can come to Norway unless everyone is fat and pampered first.

All I see is a society importing people to be a lower class. They are imported to do the dirty work. It's not glorious in any way. It is a good thing to share the wealth, but importing people to wash your tilets while bombing other countries and destroying global enviromental treaties (kyoto) isn't helping people. It's basing wealth on other's poverty. Just because people are let within the borders, doesen't seem to mean that they get any benefits.

I am in favour of less restrictions on immigration myself, the restraints have mainly been on the right-wingers account. I do believe we need to let people in, but not just to serve as the one getting all the shit jobs. If we are to let more people in, we need ot be able to include them in our welfare.

Besides, Norway got lucky, found oil and got ritch. That is nice, but it doesen't mean that we share a responsibility for every poor peron on the globe. The fact that we have achieved a high standard of living for a majority of our citizens, doesen't mean we need to import poverty here. There are only so many jobs to maintain in a frozen country mostly consisting of mountains.

So again, nice rice Norway doesnt need dirty third worlders fleeing some dictator or natural disaster coming in to their nation to make their lives better. And what jobs should uneducated people get? Lets let uneducated third worlders in to America and make them pilots, doctors and lawyers?
The fact is, they come here to make a better life for themselves, something America clearly offers. We could be isolationist like Norway and let the undesirables to their own misfortune, as you say Norway does.
What is better, scrubbing toilets in America, living a longer healthier life while your children get educated and rise on the social ladder, or living in poverty with a shorter life span while your children have no hope of a better existance than your own?


How can you even claim to hold the moral high ground on this? Your anti Americanism is showing.

My grandparents came to America from Italy and Romania, one fleeing the facists, the others fleeing the nazis. I guess if they chose Norway I would be a lampshade now.
Both sets worked in a factory and lived in a cold water flat. Their sons all got educated and became craftsmen, and their children became proffesionals. Not bad for poor, uneducated toilet scrubbers.

Hmm...calling me anti-american is kind of weak, try to debate without labeling people. I am not anti-American, but I do have opinions on American policy, it affects me too, see.

I don't expect you to know much about Norway (I don't think that is required, we're pretty insignificant), but I could mention that Norway was a poor fishing nation until the late 70's, and that your grandparents wouldn't have moved here anyway, as we sucked.

I do see the appeal in a society where anyone can work their way up, but I don't think that is the reality in the US today. There is a significant border between the classes of American society. To get power and money,you need high education, and to get that, you need money and power. The immigration fills up the slots in the lowest classes, maintaining a steady supply of cheap employment.

As I said, I belive that welfare for a majority is better than full "freedom" to the vast minority. Freedom is more than the freedom to pursue money and power on everyone elses expense, in fact, I don't think of that as freedom at all. A famous Norwegian politician (Einar Gerdhardsen, leader of the Norwegian Labour, prime minister for a long period after WWII) once gave a word of advice: Do your duty, demand your right. First, you do what is required of you as citizen, then you demand your rights (as I write it down, I recognize how it matches Kennedy's "ask not what your country should do for you..."-quote a few years later). Anyways, it's pointless to compare Norway to the US, USA have always been a naiton of immigrants, and have based it's growth on it. Norway is just a former poor country, recently gaining independence and with a generally poor amount of resources and industry (we have 3% fertile landscape usable for farming, and most of our landmass are too rough, cold or high to support any industry). There are only so many oil rig workers needed, and the rest of us can't all work as artists and salesmen.

Hmm...here I go rambling on...I did at some point forget what we were debating, so....well hooray for a working social democracy anyway. Hope we can get one in Norway again some day.

So if social bettering doesnt work, how did I get educated? I mean I am only third generation from uneducated toilet scrubbers? Of four Grandparents, not one was born in America. All fled horrors of Europe, and not one could read. I guess you are right, people can not make it in America unless socialists tuck them in at night.

I didn't say social bettering never worked, it worked all right, but it has been weakened, to the point where I belive immigrants are being imported simply as cheap labour. Anyways, I don't care wether or not people are able to fight their way to the top, I support a society where everybody gets some basic needs filled. Education, healthcare, safety is not something you should fight for, it should be a basic benefit from your country.

I am sorry, English is my second language (as you might have percieved :P), and I didn't understand what you meant in that last centence :


Could you explain for teh english impaired?

Your english is excellent. I never would have guessed it is a second language.

Immigrants are working cheap. That is a fact. Is there anything wrong with that? Nope. They are getting benifits like living in a well protected nation. They are getting free education for their children. They can better themselves, and their children. That is what America is about, it is not, and should not be, a place where people come to get a handout. Why do you think otherwise, you never explained it. You are aguing without any evidence.

My last sentence was sarcastic. If I have to explain it, then it lost its meaning.

Heh, point taken, I guess I will have to miss out on that one...

You might be right, the differences between a huge federal republic like the US of A and a small (former) social democracy like Norway are beyond compare. This is also why I support smaller units of government, and why I oppose the megalomaniac idea of a united Europe (yes I am aware that I am responsible for a massive derail here).

To get back to somewhere within the original debate, I am opposed to the extreme marked-liberalism shown here, not from a moral view, but because I don't like theories with a minimal chanse of survival:
The whole model is basing itself on several factors which aren't reality. I don't believe consumers wants to play an active role in every bargain and service they aquire. Just take a look at the average Joe's involvement in their country's political scene. If they can't summon the initiative to vote, how could they ever summon the initiative to make all these decitions regarding their consumptions. Not only comparing prices, but also take enviromental and social issues into account. It won't happen!

In the new society, we are no longer citizens, but consumers, and as consumers, we all know what we want: easy products in the easiest way. To let people change their society through their wallets seems like a very bad approatch.

So you propose to let politicians make decisions for people to apathetic to do a modicum of research? The same politicians ELECTED by those apathetic persons? Sounds like compounding the error.
I however, think that people will rise to the occasion. In current American soceity, people are too quick to say "thats the governments job to fix that, or let the politicians sort it out." This attitude breeds laziness and apathy. And the only people that benifit are the politicians.

True enough, but I guess that is the curse of the representative democracy. We elect people to do all the decition not neccecarily because they are über-mench with superior judgement, but because the decitions are too many and too versatile for any citizen to care about. The society we have created are simply too complex for any citizen keep track of every detail, so we appoint people to work as professional decition-takers. It's not a very good system but it shure as hell beats living in caves.

If we really are to achieve this liberitarian model or any other "perfect" the perfect system, we would probably have to decentrealizethe power to such a degree that the current system of nations would be useless.

My belief is that big and powerful nations or federations will never be able to adopt systems which preserves democracy and freedom for all. If the goal really is democracy, then you would have to aim for smaller, more easily-manageable societies. If the goal, however, is purely progress without a cause (as I believe FEL endorsed when he claimed that the US is superior on basis of their scientific achievements), then larger, less democratic nations are useful. As far as democracy is conserned, I read somethign a while ago about humans and happiness. Some scientists had stated that humans were at their peak in the bronze-age, when it came to happiness. There were enough rescources, few wars (they had the rescourses, why fight?), and people lived in peaceful communities. Now I am not saying we should try to go back there, but It's not granted that progress will always be the soloution. So far it mostly gives us chanse to breed more humans, until new problems arise because of the growht.

Jesus, that was long. Hope anybody cares to read.
Tl;dr: that's what you get when you drink too much coffee, son.

I read a lot about The Trojan War, The Assyrian Atrocities, The Babylonian Wars, which all happened in the Bronze Age, so I very much doubt your theory.

Second, I believe in democracy for a large nation like the USA. I believe that people can make the right choices when they have to. Just they dont have to cause liberals dont think that the masses are capable of doing anything with out them to show them the correct way.

And the US has more than just science over Norway, MUCH more.

Like what? Remember that we are debating within a social/democratic perspective

You telling me that American movies arent popular all over the world? Are Norweigan? What about American music? American clothes? The American Dollar? American food? American buisness...etc

*sigh*

As i said, in a social/democratical perspective. American culture is of course bigger, as well as American business. I am talking about living standards and freedom. Norway is of course not a great contributor to global culture, nor a big factor in the global economy (exept for the rucus we make together with OPEC now and then). What we were discussing (before the derail I probably created), was personal freedom etc with regards to govermental system. I don't expect you to have great knowledge of Norwegian standards (not many non-Norwegians have), but I will be surprised if you can find any rights or benefits given to Americans which Norwegians lack.

And I am sure that what ever rights and freedoms you have, We as Americans also enjoy, plus all the 0ther stuff on top.

I have been to Norway, and I think the culture there is great. The only right that I think Norway lacks is the right to relatively free immigration into Norway. Norway seems a bit Xenophobic to me, with the reluctance to join the EU and the very generous incentive to women to have children in order to keep Norway from having the immigrant problems that Germany and France have.

Not that Norway's policy is better or worse than the USA, but it is an area in which the USA and Norway differ. In almost every other way (other than perhaps weather) I found Norway to be much better run than the USA.

Also, Oslo is absolutely beautiful.

The reason why Norway have restrictions on immigration are mainly because of strong unions and xenophobic right-wingers. The fact is that Norway isn't able to support that many jobs (our unemployment rates are increasing heavily nowadays), and the last thing the powerful unions want, is a massive import on foreign workers who can live on lower wages and remove jobs from Norwegians. It's not too nice, but it's not easy to say what is worst.

We can import a lot of poverty and unemployment to burden our welfare system, thus reducing our common welfare, or we can stick to admitting political refugees and other forms of "charity-immigration". Unions are massive in Norway, and they have a great impact on the governent, so it's not an issue easily resolved.

I am not sure what to think...there are only so many jobs to create in this little mountain-country. Anyways, I am in favour of more immigraition, but not if there aren't any jobs to offer the immigrants. We have been known to accept immigration when we had jobs for them (ecpeccialy the 70's), so it's not really that related to xenophobia.

So again, back to the Idea that Norway is for Norweigans. If Americans say that, they are called racists, but you guys can say it and then slander American for accepting immigrants and letting them better their lives.

Well, in my eyes neither of the systems are very good. It's not good closing your borders and letting the rest of the world suffer, but importing a lower class to do your dirty work sucks as well.

Could we stop arguing wether or not Norway or the US is utopia, and try to focus on the original theme regarding liberalism? I posted some opinions on that, but got no response.

I think accepting people from any country and letting them better themselves by living in a stable nation and getting free education so their children can improve their lot is a lot better than xenophobia and isolationism.
"Norway, the rest of the world can go to hell"

Sure, you may put it that way if you wish, but it's not really too close to reality. The situation of Norway and the US is in almost every aspect different, and to believe that we could at any time swap level of immigration etc isn't too wise. As previously stated, I think it would be great if we could finish this nationalistic pissfight and return to the original subject.