My Country's Better than Your Country

What Jabba said.

ES

 

I don't care if its poorly run or not, though, which was a point I tried to cover. My point was the taxation rates are not an objective measure of a country being better, and I consider that to be a fault.
I think I even said already that it is a matter of perspective, but its a view that I think it will therefore be poorly run, but that I'm opposed to significant government involvement, period. Its efficiency doesn't enter into my view, because I consider the fact the government is doing that job alone to be a fault.
For that reason, as I'd said before, I view it as a reason against and not a reason for. It is a subjective distinction I'm making, but that in trying to say how good a country is, bringing up it pushing a concept that I disagree with doesn't work.

An example, if I made an arguement that the judicial system of Texas was more effective than that of California because, in part, of how many more people on death row actually get executed in Texas, someone that fundamentally disagrees with capital punishment isn't going to consider that a point for Texas, but a point against Texas.

 

"For that reason, as I'd said before, I view it as a reason against and not a reason for. It is a subjective distinction I'm making, but that in trying to say how good a country is, bringing up it pushing a concept that I disagree with doesn't work."

Then I'll have to try to convince you otherwise.
To me all people are equal, they are not born equal, they are equal from birth to death regardless of their deeds, therefore owning economic property is not a human right it is a tool to speed up progress in the society. I should be a human right to sleep under a roof, be able to dress properly every morning, not go hungry and healthcare, all for free. If the government can't guarentee every citizen these things it should be made a larger government so these goals can be accompliced. Sweden is not there yet, but it's working on it.

 

Have I already notced that me doesnt think that I my country is the best? .. actually I also like to live somewhere else maybe in the UK or so , even thlough theres a higher criminality rate...

 

I should be a human right to sleep under a roof, be able to dress properly every morning, not go hungry and healthcare, all for free. If the government can't guarentee every citizen these things it should be made a larger government so these goals can be accompliced.

Well, my original reply wasn't that serious, but it's interesting to see the discussion that has developed. The most intriguing point is that perhaps out of all the countries that have been mentioned, Sweden is the least likely to treat everyone equally from an institutional standpoint.

You mention basic needs like food, shelter, etc as the defining points of equality, but completely neglect higher concepts like social mobility, emotional well being and the like. I mean, at a basic level, cows in a slaughterhouse are given food, shelter, and antibotics. According to your narow definition, these cows just achieved the pinnacle of Swedish society.

After the famous labor reforms, immigrants in Sweden are practically locked out of any of the organized unions. Since the entire Swedish labor system is built around the union, it explains why these immigrant groups earn almost 50% less than Swedish citizens and have no practical chance to improve their status. You are correct, basic needs are taken care of through the institutional welfare system, but higher level needs are almost completely ignored, and reseult in a permament underclass.

It's also interesting that out of a total population of 9 million, roughly 2 million are on government support. I read an interesting article that didn't apply to Sweden specifically, but explored the possibility that Sweden could actually reach a point where there is a 1 to 1 ratio of workers supporting those who are on government support. What happens when 5 million workers are working to support 5 million welfare recipients?

So it does seem that everyone is equal in Sweden, it's just that some people are more equal than others.

 

What happens when 5 million workers are working to support 5 million welfare recipients?

Brings the idea of a worker's revolution to a whole new light.

 

"You mention basic needs like food, shelter, etc as the defining points of equality, but completely neglect higher concepts like social mobility, emotional well being and the like. I mean, at a basic level, cows in a slaughterhouse are given food, shelter, and antibotics. According to your narow definition, these cows just achieved the pinnacle of Swedish society."

Sorry, I didn't mean these points to be defining points of equality, I just think that those are the most important steps to the emotional well being of every individual in the society.

"After the famous labor reforms, immigrants in Sweden are practically locked out of any of the organized unions."

Sorry, I'm totally ignorant of these famous labor reforms and how they practically lock out
immigrants. I have sincerly never heard of this before please write more about it.

"It's also interesting that out of a total population of 9 million, roughly 2 million are on government support. I read an interesting article that didn't apply to Sweden specifically, but explored the possibility that Sweden could actually reach a point where there is a 1 to 1 ratio of workers supporting those who are on government support. What happens when 5 million workers are working to support 5 million welfare recipients? "

The progress in society will go a lot slower, there will also be problems with an increasing amount of people who think that people who're on welfare don't deserve their money.
And there is a big difference between a 3.5 to 1 ratio and a 1 to 1 and numerous problems will arise on the way. Still I would have nothing against the 1 to 1 ratio if Sweden economical situation were not declining and the 5 million on welfare could support their living and we still made technological progress.

"So it does seem that everyone is equal in Sweden, it's just that some people are more equal than others."

This applies to every country trying to live up too equality. To me still the more important issue then equality is that every singel person are kept out of poverty.
I think that the definition of poverty is absolute and that is when you're constantly depressed over you economical situation.

The issue I try to push is that I believe we have the means to eliminate poverty, in Sweden, in the UK, in the US, in the EU (Also in the world but that is a much more difficult as we have no world state etc. etc.) and the welfare system is the way to go.

FRATERNITÉ!, egalité!, liberté!

 

The issue I try to push is that I believe we have the means to eliminate poverty, in Sweden, in the UK, in the US, in the EU (Also in the world but that is a much more difficult as we have no world state etc. etc.) and the welfare system is the way to go.

Not practical on a large scale. A world government would have to control and ration every resource to provide just enough for everyone, and it would basically be communism on a global scale. Interesting in theory, but I don't think it will ever come to pass with a "welfare state" solution.

Peace,

V-03

 

"Not practical on a large scale. A world government would have to control and ration every resource to provide just enough for everyone, and it would basically be communism on a global scale. Interesting in theory, but I don't think it will ever come to pass with a "welfare state" solution. "

Well, I don't the World State would have to control every resource to provide enough for everyone. I'm for the market, in which many or most of these problems are solved. The world state howewer I believe could guarantee a high lowest standard faster then the free market. i.e. elimate poverty. Anyways, the whole concept ofcourse is very diffuse and far ahead.

 

Sorry, I'm totally ignorant of these famous labor reforms and how they practically lock out
immigrants. I have sincerly never heard of this before please write more about it.

If you can find it, start with the Rosengard Housing Project Study. Or for a more general outline, look up the Swedish Million Program. The labor reforms occured in the 1980's/ 90's and were enacted to protect the status of the citizen union members.

Rosengard was an all encompassing social welfare program designed to cover the basic needs of its residents, much like you're detailing. But again, it seemed that nothing beyond basic needs were even thought about. Massive multi-story cubes (some up to 8 stories) where built in the middle of former farm fields. Right away, the location isolated the cubes, and unemployment soared up to 60-70% in some of the complexes. Literally, thousands of people have no other purpose but to sit around their cubes and collect a check from the government.

The second problem is that all of those costs are fixed. I believe that instituional welfare costs are 3x higher than anyhting else in the Swedish budget and are recurring in nature. What started off as a couple of hundred thousand on welfare in the 60's, has increased to 2 million in the present day. For a country with a population of 9 million, that's a lot to absorb.

Not all welfare programs are bad. Like anything else, they also come with their own limitations and aren't the magical solution to every problem.

 

"If you can find it, start with the Rosengard Housing Project Study. Or for a more general outline, look up the Swedish Million Program. "

I live in one of those million program areas in Sweden where the unemployment rate is as you say round 60 %, 50-70 % of my neighbours are immigrants. In fact the swedish million program is one of the swedish things I'm most proud of, the houses are beautiful and located as you say in former farm fields with nature around the corner. I like it here.

"The second problem is that all of those costs are fixed. I believe that instituional welfare costs are 3x higher than anyhting else in the Swedish budget and are recurring in nature. What started off as a couple of hundred thousand on welfare in the 60's, has increased to 2 million in the present day. For a country with a population of 9 million, that's a lot to absorb. "

But Sweden is doing it!

 

I forgot to mention:

We're also payed 200 $ a month to study at the universities for up to 5 years.

 

Thats an extraordinary apologistic view of the more lazy members of our society, and vaguely insulting and naive of human achievement.

If people are not born equal as you said, when exactly do they become equal? If you have a mass murderer on your left and a charitable philanthropist on your right who would give you the shirt off his back, by what measure are they "equal?" There are people who work their entire lives to better themselves through education and achievement, and those who seek to lay back and take advantage of the hard work of others and make no contribution to their society at all other than whine about how they dont have enough money. Under no circumstances could a fair minded man call these seperate induviduals "equal" unless he was acting as a deliberate advocate, and once again, apologist, for the lazy behavior. Which, of course, wouldnt make him fair-minded, now would it.

 

So the whole "all men are created equal" stuff you just gloss over?

Tell me Boskone, should we forge inequality as a facet of the law - "You're clearly a murderer! No impartial jury for you! And no soup!"?

E_S

 

Society's goal should be too increase the happiness of as many people (and animals) as possible and as far as humans are concerned I think Hitler is entitled to as much happiness as Churchill.
If they both were alive to this day. (Hope they're both in heaven.)
This is a moral standpoint though, real life is a bit different.
Like we partially need different income levels and so on to acuire progress.
Like prisons which we have to keep the happiness level up by keeping crime low.

 

Hmm, if we're using the United States of America, the thread title should be "My country's dumber than your country, on average" considering the average adult in the USA cannot find a foriegn country such as Kazakstan on a map.

 

I hate geography, what's the point with knowing where things are situated, the last thing about kazakstan I would like to know is how to find it on a worldmap. you actually have to edit this trivia.

 

You missed the first question I asked him, about "not being born equal." What the freak does that mean? Just my asking him what he thought he meant should have clued you in that I am very much in favor of the alternative, in that we ARE born equal, and then over the course of a lifetime raise or lower ourselves due to the choices we make, choices of hard work and accomplishment vs sloth and greed. (So let me say that I am disheartened to see you charging in here to "get me," getting yourself in such a rush that you couldnt be bothered to understand what I meant before blasting away at your keyboard. Its called decaf Ender, and the fact you remember my other screenname despite my not having posted under it in months is a curious sign of your own choices in how personally you tend to take all these arguments).

Now your second statement is totally nonsensical to not only anything I even hinted at saying, but the topic of the board as well. But for the record you should already know without me having to tell you that our system already is based on inequality. CONVICTED individuals ARE treated differently than the rest of us, treated differently in their rights to freedom to walk around their prison cell and nonsuch. If you are against such inequality, and would prefer that we release all these poor innocent sparkling citizens whose only crime was that they stuck a knife in someones gut and watch as they dance out into a happy field of pink clouds and fluffy bunnys, well, it wouldnt surprise me. But I doubt you'll get much agreement. Suggest it at your own peril. But can you stay on topic with your next reply, and tone down the attitude a tad?

 

As a former high school teacher I am always interested in such stats (rest assured I never taught geography, for if I had the situation would be a LOT better), but have you run across a website here or there that gives accurate stats on the "dumbness" of which you speak, or just using Jay Leno's bit as a reference source? (Which isnt to say what Jay Leno does isnt informative, and I bring him up with my adult classes as a reason to pay attention "Get an A in here or Leno will find you and make you look like an idiot in front of millions). Since Leno has never done that bit of his in a foreign country, we have no point of reference as to how well they would do. But if these other countries were such sparkling examples of intellectual genius, they would have contributed more to the technological base of the world. Why is it that only a handful of countries have space programs for example?

 

Sorry a little side trip.

Hard work and accomplishment v.s. sloth and greed?

SLOTH AND GREED?

Greed leads to hard work, innovation and accomplishments. Haven't you ever seen Wall Street? Gordon Gekko's speech - Greed is good.

Greed should not and cannot be place on the same side as sloth. Greed causes the opposite of sloth.

The people who are on welfare by choice, the one's who are too lazy to work, they're not greedy. They have modest wants and needs.

The ambitious hard working ones are the greedy ones.

 

how come, in the US Everyone has access to a lawyer, but not to doctors?
think about that

 

While I do think I've heard that there is a control in place on the number of doctors (though i've no verification for that) I do disagree with the claim. I don't see the basis to say everyone has access to a lawyer but not to a doctor.

 

Those who CHOOSE to be on welfare because they are too lazy to work are slothful. Plain and simple. They are a burden on the rest of the tax-payers in the States, a pox, as it were.

The ambitious, hard-working folk are greedy? Hmm...obviously you've never lived below the poverty-line, and worked your butt off to get above it and never fall there again, have you?


I will be the first to say that the USA is no better than any other country on the planet. Nobody is better than anybody else because of all the problems inherent in any country, third world or not. Industrial states have people who live like they were in a third world country (homeless people in the USA) and others who live in invaritable luxury.

SpreadtheMuse, space programs are very, very expensive. Many countries can't afford to send a billion-dollar rocket into space. It takes a lot of funds, and some countries just cannot afford it.

 

Right. So just any bunch of idiots with alot of bucks can send a rocket into space?

 

Right to an attorney?