 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
2 users currently in General Chat:  Dark Vampriel |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - SWEDEN > AMERICA! |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
What do you think after reading this? Is Sweden or America a better place to live?| Sweden |
70.2%, 33 votes | America |
29.8%, 14 votes | Multi-voting is disabled.
| |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 124/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Been reading Ayn Rand recently, have you, hhallahh? Now, I usually launch into a rant about social contracts, why the government is slightly different to a pack of thugs that steals from you, etc, but I am tired and spent all my writing flair on a post about gun laws and the gun debate, elsewhere. Just assume I'm arguing that communities do exist, this objectivist selfishness stuff misses huge chunks of the picture - humans are social creatures as well as individuals, and governments and communal-good-minded notions are a natural and inevitable outgrowth of this every bit as much as ideas about individual liberty are. Assume I also make reference to how we tried it the other way in the 19th and early 20th centry, we tried it totally lessaiz faire, and it didn't work and life kinda sucked mostly, and lots of people fought to get to where we are today, with our "terribly unjust" minimum wages and our healthcare nets and our unemployment benefits and stuff, they didn't just spring up from nowhere - that "people don't die in the streets" is justification enough for all this, and that the radical libertarian/objectivist mindset needs to be tempered with some history. Griping about taxes is understandable but it's not a war of freaking liberation. Your argument that the ideals are incompatible flies in the face of manifest reality in every country in the developed world.The fact that we have market capitalism - I can go to the uspermarket and buy lots of different things - and that we also have socialistic programs even in America, pretty much is all the counter-argument I need. You say they're incompatable, I say look around you. (edited by Arwon on 09-10-04 08:36 AM) |
|||
|
The SomerZ Summer, yay! Level: 45  Posts: 524/862 EXP: 618182 For next: 41982 Since: 03-15-04 From: Norway Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon If I understand this the way I think it's meant that I should understand it, I agree wholeheartedly. As for the rest of the debate, I've had so many debates with Classic Liberals lately, that I am currently not in the mood for another one (besides, my relatively limited connection to the internet would make this debate rather hard to have). Some other time, mayhaps, but I'll just leave the debate to hhallahh and Arwon now. |
|||
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38  Posts: 345/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon Completely missed my point. First of all, I'm not an Objectivist. Although I'd agree with much of what Rand wrote, classic liberalism existed long before Objectivism. Second of all, as I've said many times before, I won't argue that a lot of people are better off under social democracies... similar to how a lot of people would be better off if I stole a billion dollars from Bill Gates and distributed it to the inhabitants of a poor city. But it doesn't make it right. Now, you can argue that some abstract concept of the "common good" makes things right... but that's socialism, and it implies that people are ultimately slaves to the common good, and their rights may be curtailed at the government's leisure to actualize it. Minimum wage laws are at odds with liberty. Universal health care laws are at odds with liberty. Simple fact. I personally do not believe all restrictions of liberty are bad, but I do believe it's completely indefensible when the restrictions are made for moral reasons - ie. the common good. Your argument basically comes down to your emotions, which is a common thing for "social Democrats"... "but it's just better this way!" Maybe it is, by your definition, but it isn't just! If you want to help the poor, here's a word: Charity. Maybe the government can even run a charity. For if man really was social and cared for "communal-good-minded notions", wouldn't he gladly donate a portion of his wages to charity regardless of the presence of coercive forces? Wouldn't I give my Porsche to the man who wanted a health plan so that he wouldn't steal it? If that's the case, why do you need taxes at all? And lastly, I never said that you can't have a government with both socialist and capitalistic institutions. I merely said that maintaining these institutions requires cognitive dissonance on the part of the citizenry. Anyone who believes that theft is bad cannot support government coercion of money from private citizens. I'd love to hear a social contract theory that could say otherwise that wouldn't be completely tyrannical. And you'll just reply, "Well, it's just better that way"... and I'd agree, it's better in a way, but it's not a way that you can justify on any principle that isn't completely socialistic. So throw your lot in with socialism, if you will. (edited by hhallahh on 09-10-04 11:06 AM) |
|||
alitnil Snifit Level: 27  Posts: 99/290 EXP: 107568 For next: 8591 Since: 07-16-04 From: Phoenix, AZ Since last post: 56 days Last activity: 44 days |
| ||
| *I didn't read anybody's post before i wrote this. o, and i am a filthy american pig dog.* While the Sweden vs America arguement is quite strong, I still would have to say that I'd rather live in America. to quote South Park: "America may have some problems, but it's our home. Our team. and if you don't wanna root for your team, then you should get the hell out of the stadium." |
|||
|
Legion banning people for no reason sure is fun Level: 101  Posts: 2070/5657 EXP: 10399737 For next: 317938 Since: 03-15-04 From: The Crossroads is under attack! Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
Originally posted by alitnil What about the visiting team? Can't have a game without them. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 125/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by hhallahh Well, sort of. Really it just means you believe there are lots of conflicting consierations which must be balanced. Believing that some form of government-provided safety nets makes you a moralist totalitarian to the same extent that advocating "individual liberty" makes you a gun-toting anti-government kook in Montana. If you want to help the poor, here's a word: Charity. Maybe the government can even run a charity. For if man really was social and cared for "communal-good-minded notions", wouldn't he gladly donate a portion of his wages to charity regardless of the presence of coercive forces? Wouldn't I give my Porsche to the man who wanted a health plan so that he wouldn't steal it? If that's the case, why do you need taxes at all? Uh, because while that sounds nice and reasonable, people are, broadly, lazy and not real nice? And it already didn't work that well anyway. (See also: the 19th century) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 347/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Well, sort of. Really it just means you believe there are lots of conflicting consierations which must be balanced. Believing that some form of government-provided safety nets makes you a moralist totalitarian to the same extent that advocating "individual liberty" makes you a gun-toting anti-government kook in Montana. You can argue that this is the democratic thing to do, but in no way can socialism and capitalism be "balanced" in one's considered judgements.. you can't (justifiably) believe A and ~A at the same time, which is to say that you can't believe people have property rights and that these rights can be violated simultaneously. And if you have to choose one or the other, then you'd find that a "balance" of both elements would be undesirable no matter what side you ultimately choose. (edited by hhallahh on 09-11-04 02:20 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 127/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Given that property rights are protected and enforced by the government and its law enforcement and legal systems (go on, try and protect your propety rights in a place with no government...), they're not so much being violated as paid for or bought-off. It's not so much a matter of choosing one or the other, but rather in believing in the maximum possible useful degree of both - individual freedoms and, let's call it, "social justice". And since modern western civilisation has managed to come up with a system that with some faults has both - that's pretty strong grounds for believing in it. Why do I have to pick one principle and apply it everywhere? That's just inviting inconsistancy and sloppiness and wrongness. I don't have much time for fussy, picky, absolutist ideologies for this reason - because they're all so simplistic and unworkable. (edited by Arwon on 09-11-04 05:43 AM) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 348/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| The "maximum possible useful degree of both"? I'm sorry, but you can't trade one for another as if on an economic indifference curve without basing the marginal rate of substitution on your emotions, which are based on your morals, which are contradictary. And just because the government protects your property doesn't give it the subsequent justification to take money from you for other purposes.. unless, of course, you simply argue that the government has the right to do whatever it damn well pleases, and the individual has no rights at all. I don't personally buy the libertarian mantra (my views are somewhat more nuanced), but the social democratic notion of supporting welfare for the sake of the "common good" should not be considered an advance of any form.. indeed, it creates a moral disequilibrium that restrains the growth of society as a whole. Such moralities, of course, fall to the wayside in a similar manner to communism when the gulf of power between the strong states and weak states become sufficiently large.  |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 129/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Well it ain't so much based on my emotions and morals so much it is based on the rough average of everybody's, kinda balanced out and stuff. At least, that's how democratic government is supposed to work... It's obviously a massively inexact science, laggy, and unevenly applied, but we didn't just arrive at the current set-up(s) arbitrarily. Again I'm gonna fall back on my conception of society consisting of a bunch of different people, elements, ideas and interests, pulling in all different directions, and the resulting morass being functional and more or less adequate. There is, of course, also a sound economic argument in favour of redistribution of income - that it aids higher economic growth. This is because the Marginal Propensity to Consume (spend) is higher for lower income earners - they spend a greater portion of their income than higher income earners who tend to save more. Thus, by reducing income inequality with redistributive policies (like pensions and welfare and youth allowance and u/e benefits, so the theory goes that you'll raise the total percentage of national income that is spent... and get a higher growth rate, as aggregate demand (GDP) increases faster. Obviously you can't take this to its logical extremes, but in moderation it's pretty sound, if you buy the whole "higher growth is automatically better" thing. There's also, I suppose, a productivity argument - healthy, non-exhausted workers are more productive workers, etc. I believe this (lower inequality leads to higher growth) can be roughly demonstrated by comparing third world growth rates and their Lorenz Curves/Gini coefficients (2 different measurements of the degree of inequality in an economy) though I'd hesitate to do so because countries are all different and have different economies and stuff. Now, don't get me wrong here - I voted for America after all. But you seem to be arguing that Sweden should be collapsing from cognitive dissonance or something, which obviously isn't happening. (edited by Arwon on 09-11-04 11:45 AM) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 349/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Surely you've heard the term "tyranny of the majority". As Alexander Tyler famously wrote, A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. You can see the exact process happening nowadays, in America and I'd assume other nations as well. The "resulting morass" may be functional, but hardly adequate in any sense that focuses on a fact other than the democratic nature of the tyranny. And (American) liberals do face cognitive dissonance - you confront a liberal about how he can believe theft is wrong while supporting coercive redistribution policies, and the answers you'll get will be very vapid: "It's okay because it's for the common good" and whatnot. You hear that a lot, and that's about as far as the reasoning goes. Also, I'm somewhat loathe to engage in a macroeconomics debate, since macroeconomics isn't my specialty, but I'll point out that Marginal Propensity to Consume does not create long-term growth.. you can shift funds from investment to consumption and make your GDP look nice in the short-run via a multiplier, but this "growth" obviously comes at a price. |
|||
|
Jill In love with a dream.. Level: 36  Posts: 383/528 EXP: 296548 For next: 11562 Since: 03-15-04 From: Teh Sweden Since last post: 6 days Last activity: 14 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Alouette Since I actually read the backs of the milk packs I know stuff about this.. and we pasterize our milk too, that's how it stays nice for a week instead of a day or two. What your Belgian friends are doing is adding evil E-shit to the milk, try buying German milk at Lidl and you'll see. I vote Sweden for great broadband.. and food.. and no-commercials-tv-channels. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 130/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| See, I'm somewhat skeptical of this "growth obsession" myself, for the obvious reason that the opportunity cost of growth is environmental damage. Limited resources, exponential growth - it's absurdly unsustainable. "Unrestrained growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell" and all that. First thought upon reading that quote - people voted for Margaret Thatcher didn't they? |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 351/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| The tragedy of the commons (and certain other situations) is a legitimate reason for government intervention in certain cases... largely because investing in resource managament is a good policy for all parties involved. However, doing something merely because it's for "the common good" and not because it benefits the interested parties is never justifiable in my book, since it's tantamount to legislating a certain moral code. | |||
DurfarC Beezo Level: 33 Posts: 22/483 EXP: 218551 For next: 10628 Since: 09-04-04 From: Norway Since last post: 20 days Last activity: 12 hours |
| ||
My neighbours got the vote America has more crime and more poverty than Scandinavian countries. I didn't say that I don't like the U.S., I would like to visit America someday... It sounds like a lively place, and the Americans has created two great divensions: Coke and Computer  But I don't think I could live there (but I don't know until I have been there ). Anyway, Sweden has very little big problems... UN voted Sweden as the 3rd second best country in the world, the U.S was number 8 i think... (But Norway is number one!!! (Hi ho...) (edited by DurfarC on 09-15-04 09:41 AM) |
|||
|
Spinal Newcomer Level: 6 Posts: 9/9 EXP: 652 For next: 255 Since: 03-29-04 From: Sweden Since last post: 411 days Last activity: 339 days |
| ||
I doubt that anyone gets supprised when i vote for Sweden  (like most ppl)  didn't actully think more ppl would vote for Sweden here, but thats nice  |
|||
RoboticParanoia Cheep-cheep Level: 23  Posts: 132/184 EXP: 60582 For next: 7141 Since: 03-23-04 From: Texas Since last post: 150 days Last activity: 150 days |
| ||
| I'd rather stay here. All utopias crumble sometime. So will America one day. So will Scandinavia. So will every country. Location isn't that important. Oh, and I'm a capitalist. Mainstream. Yeah. |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 1334/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Spinal the facts don't lie. Sweden is a good, healthy and happy nation. |
|||
|
Jesper Busy, busy, busy. Level: 69  Posts: 920/2390 EXP: 2856000 For next: 13743 Since: 03-15-04 From: Sweden. Since last post: 176 days Last activity: 79 days |
| ||
Originally posted by AlouetteSaft is lemonade with way more sugar than needed. That's why it becomes syrupish. Saft is what's according to my british english coursebook once, way back in sixth grade, told me they call "squash" in UK. It's juice, but with more sugar, basically. Lemonade was probably the wrong way to put it.Originally posted by Jesper Originally posted by RoboticParanoiaa) Current governments are never utopias - utopias are by definition 'perfect' societies in the future. And for the love of god, Scandinavia is not one country, or run by one government. Do you also refer to the former USSR countries as Russia collectively, and assume that they're run by one government? For example, the Danish government and the Swedish government couldn't be more different - the Danes are way more hostile against refugees than we are, for one thing. (edited by Jesper on 09-20-04 04:51 PM) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 357/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Looks like Saddam has cast his vote |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - SWEDEN > AMERICA! |
| | |
