So the secret is to be a country full of dour, responsible people who discover fabulously valuable natural resources, and can thus afford to subsidize even the most degenerate kinds of behavior?
I think the point here is that subsidies doesn't really matter for the big picture. It could be that some of these outrageous benefits wouldn't happen if it wasn't for a very wealthy state. The question is what you would be left with. It's probably a fair assumption to look at the countries around it.
What you find is that the real strength of these countries are in their culture, not in their natural resources.
Another thing to consider is how one would actually manage this kind of wealth if you actually obtained it. In my opinion, the way Norway spends huge amounts of money on foreign development projects, spreading progressive values such as gender equality, and promoting the role of the UN, are certainly better than building huge palaces or indoor ski slopes.
"Just around the corner from Norway’s central bank, for instance, Paul Bruum takes a needle full of amphetamines and jabs it into his muscular arm. His scabs and sores betray many years as a heroin addict. He says that the $1,500 he gets from the government each month is enough to keep him well-fed and supplied with drugs.
Mr. Bruum, 32, says he has never had a job, and he admits he is no position to find one. I don’t blame anyone, he said. The Norwegian government has provided for me the best they can."
Why should other people be forced to subsidize that kind of lifestyle?
The salient point is that even if I'm happy to subsidize that sort of lifestyle, I don't think the government should make the decision for me (especially not at the point of a gun).
Unless you're suggesting that the tax-rate be 0% then the "point-of-a-gun" argument is disingenuous. All taxes are at the point of a gun. You can't simply argue from this position when the target of the funds is something you don't support.
If you think all taxation is inherently illegitimate, that's fine, but such a position is not strengthened by your disapproval of the target of the tax funds, no matter how silly or frivolous you think that target is. If, on the other hand, you think some taxes are reasonable -- that is, it is acceptable to apportion according to a majority in some cases -- then your argument needs to address the inappropriateness of the target of the funds, not the legitimacy of the taxation itself.
smanek, putting aside moral considerations I think you are discounting the actual cost of leaving people like Mr. Bruum to fend for themselves and ultimately end up being incarcerated. Suppose you live in California where incarceration costs upwards of $3,500 a month. Cutting him off would end up costing you twice as much.
Um, no. Subsidizing an activity will get more of it. He's more likely to consider drugs a viable choice knowing that he won't have to "rob, pimp, or deal".
The other day a beggar was asking me for money and I thought "He's just going to spend it on drugs and booze". Then I realised that's exactly what I was going to do with the money - who am I to judge this poor guy?
I am all for charity (I give a fair amount myself). Any of us could fall on hard times. But I am against being forced to give money to these sorts of causes.
What if I, personally, feel like there is somebody else who is more worthy of my charity (those in the third world, those who were never given a first chance, those with genetic diseases, etc). It should be my choice who to help.
The problem I have with government welfare is that they tell me that if I don't contribute I will be thrown in jail (and if I refuse to go to jail, they will kill me). I don't like having that sort of threat hanging over my head - even if I was planning to do what they want anyways.
I have no intention of joining the KKK - but I would be just as angry if the government told me I couldn't do that.
