It looks obvious

“Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” — Albert Einstein

Another look at the decline of the west

Comments

Cato Unbound published yesterday Timothy Smith’s reply to Darlymple’s essay about the future of Europe. In his reply Timothy Smith accepting most of Darlymple’s analysis with one exception:

I have just one criticism of Dr. Dalrymple’s excellent essay: he charges that the British government "is in the process of destroying" the economy through "ever-closer regulation in the French centralist style." It is certainly true that taxes have increased on Blair’s watch, but Britain is still one of the most business-friendly environments in the rich world.

This is significant difference of opinion. While Darlypmle recognize the current social structure as a major reason for the European decline, Timothy Smith reduce it to the question how the state will create enough incentive to generate wealth that it then will redistribute.

Unlike traditional socialists, not recognizing the need to create wealth in order to redistribute it, Timothy Smith making an honest effort to solve the equation of generating wealth and centralize distribution. Leaving moral questions aside he suggests looking at the Scandinavian example:

If high taxes per se killed jobs, then how do the Scandinavian economies thrive? It’s not the level of tax that is crucial, it is the type of tax. Sweden has punishing income taxes but very low corporate taxes. Denmark and Sweden are ranked among the most attractive places to invest and build new businesses.

The problem with the model suggested is that it doesn’t resolve the social and moral problems Dalrymple addressed in his essay, it just buy time. The capitalism, in its core, isn’t only

…the virtues which made capitalist development possible in the first place—savings, hard work, innovation, risk-taking—were collapsing under the weight of capitalism’s comforts.

The core of capitalism is freedom, all other virtues are additional, and high taxation is heavy burden on this freedom. Timothy Smith’s ideas might buy the west’s economy time, but the problem isn’t the economy, the problem is the social structure and the cultural strength and these require much more painful treatment.

 

 

 

Written by Rogel

February 9th, 2006 at 9:45 am

Posted in Libertarianism, The Free Market

« Songbird is cool
Fighting for freedom of speech at home »

Viewing 8 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think so Taner. Both of them agreed that Europe has a problem with its immigrants mostly because of its own calture and because the immigrants might shake the social comfort they got use too.
    • ^
    • v
    . . .conflict is the method in which [immigrants] will resolve their very different and entrenched conceptions about the way life should be lived. This is particularly true when immigrants are in possession, as they believe, of a unique and universal truth, such as Islam in its various forms often claims to be.
    • ^
    • v
    "This loss of cultural confidence is particularly important at a time of mass immigration from very alien cultures, an immigration that can be successfully negotiated (as it has been in the past, or in the United States up to the era of multiculturalism) only if the host nations believe themselves to be the bearers of cultures into which immigrants wish, or ought to wish, to integrate, assimilate, and make their own."
    • ^
    • v
    treated. To me, that’s a significant difference. My sympathies are with Smith’s viewpoint.

    I just think it's funny that in an essay by (I suppose) a libertarian about the decline of Old Europe, Dalrymple feels the need to say (at length), "and we've got to start proudly asserting our own, distinctly European culture, or these Muslims are just going to keep on becoming a bigger and bigger problem." (I'm paraphrasing now, mind you.)

    I really don't think there's any other way to read Dalrymple's thought on the matter.

    And it doesn't strike me as a very liberal way of looking at things. My feeling is rather that there is no reason Muslim culture can't contribute to Europe in its own right - undiluted, proud, and vibrant. No assimilation programs necessary. No need for bleach-blonding. Just Muslim culture, as it is. (Pardon the sweeping generalities.)
    • ^
    • v
    These are good points Tanner, however I think that they are semantic because both of them recognize the problem with the immigrants (would they have been integrated/assimilated they would have been part of the Eropean society).
    More to your later point this is why i'm not a liberterian but an objectivist. When immigrated too Different country it was obvious too me that the least that required from me in the "Deal" is to accept the "rules of the game", it is so happened that the rules in my new country are easy for me to accept, but if they were not i would come here. The western culture embracing freedom, pluralism and tolarance. recent news demonstrate that the muslim culture isn't yet up to these values. You cannot ignore the problem of a large group of people that moving into your house and demand you to change your values. What Dalrymple did was to recognise that the weekness of the Eropean society is dangerouse when engage with different culture which doesn't accept the liberal values of the west. I don't think that Smith didn't agree with this conclusion.
    • ^
    • v
    their right to free religious expression (witness the controversy over Muslim girls’ head scarves in French schools.)

    I think you're right that our different perspectives on Smith and Dalrymple's articles stems from the fact that you are an Objectivist. Your hunch about me, by the same token, is correct: politically, I'm a libertarian. I really wouldn't mind seeing thriving, vibrant "Muslim" culture in Europe for the next 1,000 years. In fact, I think they have every right to it. Head scarves, demonstrations (peaceful ones) against Denmark and all.
    • ^
    • v
    We have here materials for several discussions, which I would be happy to have.
    1. The immigration "problem" (mind you I'm an immigrant myself)
    2. The differences between objetivism and Libertarianism (and why objectivism is the better approach :))

    I think that both issues "deserve" to be posted seperetly, do you agree?

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus