Why is Norway so rich? Part 2. Liberalism in Norway, Work ethic and Climate

In part 1, we learned that Norway is often misunderstood as a country that went from dirt poor to ultra-rich just because of oil. In this chapter I want to talk about liberalism in Norway, work ethics, community and climate.

The Norwegian Constitution

Written in Eidsvold 1814, the Norwegian Constitution was strongly characterized by liberalistic ideas. When it was approved, it was one of the most progressive and enlightened constitutions in the world. The Constitution says that no one should be judged without a trial, similarity to the law, prohibition against torture, freedom of speech and the abolishment of the nobility.

However it also contained some not so liberalistic moments, such as the idea that Norway should be a Kingdom, restricted immigration (Jews and Jesuits had not access to Norway), mandatory conscription(military) and that the state could collect taxes.

Law of Concession

Pre world war 1, a significant proportion of Norway's income came from electricity from waterfalls. A big question became; "Who owns these waterfalls?" A public report from 1906 showed that 77% of all the electricity produced were in foreign hands. Even in woodworking 44% of the stocks were in foreign hands, and in chemical industry as much as 85%. Many of the stock owners were swedish (Norway claimed it's independence from Sweden in 1905) Even though there were liberalistic powers in Norway, who had no desire to let the state intervene, the "Castbergske" concession-laws of 1918 went through.

The Kalmar Union

Even though Norway throughout it's modern and free history have had people and organizations and even partially libertarian parties, nationalism and collectivism has had the strongest rooting. It is not strange to imagine that, taken into consideration that Norway as early as 1319 came under inter-scandinavian regime. In 1380 we were part of the "Kalmar union" and all the way up until 1905, we've been under the rule of either Sweden or Denmark.

During the years between first and second world war, the ideas of collectivism was so wide spread, not only in Norway, but in all of the western world, that there were almost no individualistic movements or thinkers. But before the first world war, liberalism was far from unknown ideals in Norway.

Climate, collaboration and work ethic

Imagine Norway (or any other country with freezing cold winters) in the 13th or 16th Century. You have a couple of months to chop wood, fish and catch big game before total darkness sets in. In order to survive in those days, you had no choice but to harvest as much as you could during the pleasant months. People mainly lived rural, and your neighbouring farms were usually also your family members. Meat and fish was dried and smoked, and people helped eachother when it was needed. The word "dugnad" can be traced back to the viking age (dugnaor) which means; "help or good deed" and is based on voluntary unpaid work either for a community or an individual. In my opinion this is a very libertarian idea. A lot of people attach collectivism to it, but they seem to forget the most important part of it - voluntaryism.

This generational pattern, probably as imprinted in us as our language, of preservation and planning ahead is a good marker of societal success. When you look at countries where there is no need for this type of long term thinking and patience, where food always was plentiful and the climate comfortable, that particular mindset is not groomed. And tactical thinking in order to survive also gives incentive to create, to adjust, to innovate, to be more effective - basically in order to be more comfortable, or at least to not freeze to death.

Homogeneity and trust

This is obviously controversial in a debate climate where most people embrace the idea of multiculture. But I argue that one of the main reasons why Norway has had so much success is because of exactly that - homogeneity. Just as we humans prefer known faces and are attracted to them, and naturally are sceptic towards strangers (strangers could steal from us or even kill us or our family). We are also to a certain degree uncomfortable in a restricted area with only strangers - let's say you're at a big party, you automatically start scanning for known faces. A friend, or someone you know.

Strange faces starts a process in our brain where we go into a more defensive mode. The more you know someone, the more you trust that person. And when there are few people around you, like there has been in Norway all through history, it is much easier to trust each other. Even trust in Government is easier. There are more connections and everyone knows everyone. I suspect that is one of the main reasons why the welfare state has worked so well up until this point in Norway. You care for your community, you felt like a part of the community, and you wouldn't want to betray your community. So most people trust you when you come down with back pain or another illness.

The idea of mulitculturalism is based upon marxist ideals, basically that as long as you are not party of the "tyrannical capitalist elite" you are all the same, no matter race or cultural background (cultural relativism) as long as you are "the people" so to speak. So obviously there would not be a problem packing everyone together, wherever it might be. If you put an afghan into a rural norwegian town, surely both the norwegian and the afghan will assimilate into a happy rainbowy new culture, because culture is just whatever it is, and to change it is not a problem and all is well.

Well, I'm not going to dive into that whole thing in this series, but as we all know, culture, identity and even (I know..I'm probably literally Hitler now!) race or biology or even IQ are important factors. But of course, these issues have become so malignant to speak about. I can understand that IQ is a touchy subject, but when people don't even seem to know the difference between "race" and "species" then we are too touchy. No one is arguing about the fact that we are all the same species. If we were dogs, we are all dogs. However, some are labradors, some are German Shepherds, and some are mixed. So race obviously exist for other animals, but for some magic reason not for humans.

Misunderstand me correctly, I am not against diversity. I enjoy all sorts of cultures, from food to music, history and friends that I have that come from different places. The point that I'm making is when the state gives incentive for people to come to a certain place because there is "free" money, you will attract the wrong people. If people came here because they thought it seemed like a great society which they would like to participate and contribute in, well, I am the first one to welcome you in. I am after all a Liberterian, and if there is no state, or if it is a minarchy, I am all for free travel for everyone to wherever they want to settle down.

 

In part 3 I'm going to talk about the welfare state in modern days Norway, and why it will decline and eventually collapse.

That's going to be fun