Sweden: I am looking at the study I mentioned, it is really eyes opening and non tendentious whatsoever.
Mini: yes many companies, 95% of them founded before the social reforms of the 40s and 50s. Once all these companies were well established, the private sector, the labor movements, and the state joined forces to have a sweet welfare state. But remember that the first newspaper in History was first edited in Malmö (can't do the circular accent on the o!), meaning that Sweden has a tradition of freedom of consciousness. Once that tradition is established and for so long, they are able to be a little materialistic because the Swedes are already law-abiding, human sanctity abiding people, like most Skandinavians after they went trhough their pirate phase, wink wink.
Now back to the companies: What could be a better deal than to start a corporation under a free market, grow it until you can easily crush the competence and THEN, let the government enact so many regulations and 50% taxes making the rise of a new competitor almost impossible?
There's a funny saying about that:
"In America the middle class is Democrat, the upper class is Republican, and the millionaires are Communist"
Skype, Pïratebay, even Ikea I believe is new but I don't know, are not the exceptions that prove the rule, but just testimony that Sweden even with its taxes, its lack of corruption still makes it a free country.
On the "miseries" of the swedes, well this is from a Swedish friend of mine's pov: he referred to the kids that were born knowing that they had their whole life secured by the nanny state and so the lack of material problems is translated into a bounty of psychological problems.
On Rosengärd: I use it as an example of the concentration of muslim immigrants. A family is by definition a welfare government. A very extended family that forms an ethnically homogeneous country (like Sweden used to be, like Japan IS) can indeed buy the luxury of a welfare state. When foreigners begin coming the system begins to crack - for it was that cohesion, and that 300 year tradition that made it possible in the first place.
In other words: if you want a welfare state, then you gotta be Nationalist and live in the Old World. For the New World (ethically heterogeneous countries) freedom is the only proven way.
JP: Socialism is not the root of all -political- evils. Non-retaliatory coercion is.
I've made a point of this in my fascism post somewhere else:
It's not right or left: it's Statism (be it a Theocracy or a Majoritocracy) vs "Liberalism" .
In fact in that study I'm trying to find one can see how in fact it was the Conservative administrations in Sweden the ones that raised taxes AND spending the most! It's not right or left issue, it's an up and down issue.
Seeker: I agree, Argentina isn't and has never been Socialist. In fact I have another name for what it technically is. well a mono-partidist democracy... but if we looked a bit deeper....
This whole discussion makes me wonder: as more and more Americans dismiss the right and left booby-trap... what's going to happen to the current 2 party system? God save us from Lyndon LaRouche, and I don't see any Libertarian leader not worth laughing at.
So kneel before General Zod 2012