The research also delved into Iceland's religious homogeneity, which was postulated to have a large effect on the country's social welfare practices. Icelanders' religious beliefs value a strong work ethic and some other things I can't remember which made it less likely that the citizenry would see complete reliance on the safety net as a career path. It's interesting to think about, especially against the backdrop of ideas proposed by those like Max Weber.

At the end Denmark has high taxes, high unemployment benefits, strong unions, no minimum wage and lax labor market regulations – it is easy to fire and easy to hire. I read some time ago research (I think it was Spanish or French research), what asked is it possible to implement Danish system? The answer was “No”. The reasoning was that they dont have that special Danish culture. If you loose job in Denmark, it is not “nice” to stay unemployed and exploit all these benefits. It may be rational, but just not “nice” culturally. So danes are much more ready to accept new jobs even if it is not so good or pays less than older one. Working is valued in Danish culture from very young age.

Switzerland is a very decentralized federalist state, but corruption is quite rare. It manages this feat despite the fact that there is a lot of ethnic diversity (the three major native ethnic groups are German, French, Italian), religious diversity (Catholic & Protestant mostly), and that immigrants and resident foreign workers make up approx. 22% of Switzerland's population. Why isn't Switzerland corrupt?

“indian sex clips

February 23, 2009 at 6:03 am

[...] The Possibility of Big and Free [...]“

Be careful with your post titles! Scandalous.

Friedman was actually confused on that point, as I've blogged about before. What he's right about is that you have to separate benefits of citizenship, such as access to the welfare state, and the right to live and work in a place. Singapore and a number of other places does this well. If the U.S. can't handle guest workers with fewer benefits than citizens, then 2nd best case is lots of illegal immigration, which is basically what Friedman was implying.

“Big and Free” is technically possible. You are correct. However, it all comes with a caveat.

Countries like Denmark who fit the “big and free” label tend to be small and somewhat homogeneous….much like its Scandinavian siblings.

I cannot recall where I read about this but I did read an article once that pointed to the oft-overlooked dynamic of demographic composition when looking at nations like Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland in these matters.

The article analyzed this from psychological and social standpoint and found that “Big and Free” can work well when the country is truly behind the ideals that go into what you are talking about here with liberaltarianism. Of course, that statement I just made is rather tautological. The key is:

what makes a group of people willing to do this?

They found that when taxpayers know that the people drawing from the welfare dole are “like them”, they tend to be more tolerant and not rebel against the system. IOW, people tend to believe in and be less suspicious and wary of the work-n-pay-into-welfare game when they can truly empathize with the collectors socially, culturally, tribally and ethnically.

The article went on to show that once populations become more diverse and mixed, subconscious divisions, patterns and stereotypes begin to form and larger and larger amounts of “the native people” start to lose patience with the system and feel it's “unfair” and that they are being profited from.

Wow: They more easily tolerate more welfare when it's “for the group” but more difficultly tolerate welfare…even if it's less in total…when it's for “those other people”.

Mind you, there's no moral judgments being made here. It's simply observations with respect to human nature.

I believe the backdrop of this article was the issue of immigration and the size of the welfare state in Denmark and Sweden. If I recall, Denmark was more stringent in terms of immigration and foreign labor entry and this kept animosity about the dole in check. Sweden, OTOH, had been having more loose on immigration and that influence began to erode more and more of the public's support for the welfare state.

Maybe Friedman had a point all along when he said you either have to have open borders and no welfare state or closed borders and a welfare state. (I hope I'm not misrepresenting what he said)

Granted, I find this distressing. I'm with you, Will, on the idea of liberalized open borders and good safety net (with not too much of anything else). But according to this study…if it's to be trusted…you can't have it both ways.