Possibly controversial political statement
In theory, Social Democracy should be vastly inferior to the classic American small-government model. The reason is that even your best friend has your interests less at heart than yourself, how much less an underpaid and frustrated bureaucrat in some cubicle far from your home. Even if by some divine intervention the bureaucrat - and the politicians that make his guidelines - loved you more than life itself, they would simply not have the necessary knowledge to make your decisions for you.
In practice, the difference is not all that big. People in Sweden and Denmark have on average smaller houses and cars. On the other hand, they have less crime and more free time, so the perceived quality of life is about the same. Measured in people who vote with their feet, there is very little difference for the last generation at least.
My theory is based on the observation that the overwhelming majority of people are stupid and half crazy. Thus, even when allowed to keep most of their money, they do stupid and half crazy things with it, rather than what is in their own best interest.
(Note that I do not try to define "best interests", I just say that even if you know them, you cannot necessarily follow them. If you are afraid of heights, you cannot fix your roof or paint your wall even if it is obviously in your best interests. Eventually you have to hire someone else, at a huge extra cost. If you are afraid of the dentist, you don't go there even if you know it is in your best interest. If you are stupid instead of just crazy, it gets even worse, since you will have no idea where your money went when the time comes to pay your bills. You know it is in your best interest to have the money, but you don't have it. This is completely everyday for a large part of the populace.)
For the small minority that are both smart and sane, there is a difference. For the rest, it is somewhat random. Sometimes they luck out, other times the nanny state is doing a better job. The minority is creating a moderate surplus, but for the ordinary worker there is not much in it. The ordinary worker probably thinks "a pox on those guys who think they are better just because they have money" and then buy a lottery ticket to become one of them.
Now, I happen to believe that freedom is in itself tremendously valuable, even if you end up poor or sick or dead because of it. If you don't want freedom, you should have the freedom to choose your own master. But I am far less of an optimist about the economic benefits of freedom than most of my fellow conservatives.
In practice, the difference is not all that big. People in Sweden and Denmark have on average smaller houses and cars. On the other hand, they have less crime and more free time, so the perceived quality of life is about the same. Measured in people who vote with their feet, there is very little difference for the last generation at least.
My theory is based on the observation that the overwhelming majority of people are stupid and half crazy. Thus, even when allowed to keep most of their money, they do stupid and half crazy things with it, rather than what is in their own best interest.
(Note that I do not try to define "best interests", I just say that even if you know them, you cannot necessarily follow them. If you are afraid of heights, you cannot fix your roof or paint your wall even if it is obviously in your best interests. Eventually you have to hire someone else, at a huge extra cost. If you are afraid of the dentist, you don't go there even if you know it is in your best interest. If you are stupid instead of just crazy, it gets even worse, since you will have no idea where your money went when the time comes to pay your bills. You know it is in your best interest to have the money, but you don't have it. This is completely everyday for a large part of the populace.)
For the small minority that are both smart and sane, there is a difference. For the rest, it is somewhat random. Sometimes they luck out, other times the nanny state is doing a better job. The minority is creating a moderate surplus, but for the ordinary worker there is not much in it. The ordinary worker probably thinks "a pox on those guys who think they are better just because they have money" and then buy a lottery ticket to become one of them.
Now, I happen to believe that freedom is in itself tremendously valuable, even if you end up poor or sick or dead because of it. If you don't want freedom, you should have the freedom to choose your own master. But I am far less of an optimist about the economic benefits of freedom than most of my fellow conservatives.