If I lived in Sweden, I would have a huge problem with being forced to pay for other people to have and raise kids (among other things). Maternal and paternal leaves are 18 months per child; half is paid by the employer and the other half, by the state. Why should individual citizens be forced to subsidize your decisions (or anything, really) – especially when the upshot is the creation of another generation of mooching?
If I lived in Sweden, I would have a huge problem with being forced to pay for other people to have and raise kids (among other things). Maternal and paternal leaves are 18 months per child; half is paid by the employer and the other half, by the state.
To the west, they also have barnetrygd, a payment of about $150 a month until the child is 18, just for having a child. That’s about $33,000 additional, or $2.25 billion in annual welfare payments. Plus you have to put up with their spawn.
Why should individual citizens be forced to subsidize your decisions (or anything, really) – especially when the upshot is the creation of another generation of mooching?
You’ll never receive a satisfying answer to that question from a Marxist.
That’s a fairly good summary, but I severely doubt that our “guest” is the least bit interested in doing anything but trolling.
Thanks. : ) As to trolls, eh, I don’t write primarily for my audience anyway. ; P
I was under the impression that only Objectivism has the epistemological right to call their theory of values an objective one.
Ack, I wish you hadn’t chosen those words, after I worked so hard defining legal “rights.” Just so that no one’s confused–everyone has a legal right to say whatever they want [edit: with the exception of words that are actually an initiation of force, such as a threat or an order to have someone attacked, or famous yelling “fire” in a theater scenario, etc], since the right to free speech is a derivative of the right to liberty. As to this sentence, which uses the word “right” in a quite different context and meaning, I agree that only Objectivism can properly call it’s theory of values “objective”–by the Objectivist definition of “objective.” But, supposing that Utilitarianism could call its theory of values objective according to its definition (which really, it ultimately failed to do, which is one reason it ended up collapsing into something that could advocate socialism) it could be possible for both to do so at the same time, since they do not accept the other’s definition for “objective.” And the reasons for that are not derived directly from their theory of values (i.e., their ethics), but primarily from their theories of knowledge (epistemology; and also their metaphysics, theory of the nature of reality). According to Objectivism, “objective” doesn’t mean “disinterested.” According to Utilitarianism, “objective” doesn’t mean “corresponds to objective reality.” But it’s not an arbitrary semantic decision; in order to determine which definition is correct, the premises that give rise to the definitions must be checked (which is more complicated a task than I have time to elaborate on this morning).
Anyone else remember reading pages 320-22 in “The Capitalist Manifesto” where Bernstein brings up the topic of Sweden?
I haven’t gotten a chance to buy and read it yet, so thanks for the quote! I’m looking forward to reading it eventually.
To the west, they also have barnetrygd, a payment of about $150 a month until the child is 18, just for having a child. That’s about $33,000 additional, or $2.25 billion in annual welfare payments. Plus you have to put up with their spawn.
We have the same thing here. I think it only works up until the 4th child, but I can’t say that I’ve been paying very much attention to it. In fact, I had completely forgotten about the practice until I read this. :lol:
If the only system that can work to a satisfactory level is Laissez Faires Capitalism, why is one of the best countries in the world in terms of standard of living and general life satisfaction Sweden, which is a socialist hybrid?
Calling sweden one of the best countries in the world is, a lie. Plain and simple.
The welfare system is falling apart, and it has been this way for as long as I can remember. However, alot of people are fooled by the government telling us how good things are(the socialist party are no better than in the old communist countries when it comes to propaganda, they are just a lot more subtle).
Crime rates only get higher for every year. If it´s not murder, rape, (serious) assault or avoiding taxes the police wont care. They only have resources to focus on more serious crime(and, of course, handing speeding tickets to help their finances…).
More and more people fail school. There are not enough teachers, and the whole educational system is crap.
Healtcare is a sad joke. The elders are, quite literally, rotting away in retirement homes. People are dying waiting in line to recieve treatment, and in hospitals theres not even enough resources to stop infectuous diseases. In case of an emergency you often get to wait for hours in the emergency room.
Suicide rates get higher and higher.
Taxes are over 70% for regular people.
The government is so big noone knows how big it really is, with all the different insitutions.
Of course, everyone in sweden knows this, but the facts are often ignored and everyone has been taught that the sollution is more socialism. The situation is not completley hopeless though. I mean, most people can live their mediocre lives quite happily. We are not starving… yet.
Crime rates only get higher for every year. If it´s not murder, rape, (serious) assault or avoiding taxes the police wont care.
From what I hear, they won’t care even if the crimes ARE that serious. Especially if they are committed by Muslims.
From what I hear, they won’t care even if the crimes ARE that serious. Especially if they are committed by Muslims.
I dont think it matters much wether it´s comitted by a muslim or not. I think they do care about more serious crimes. However, from there it´s a long way to solving the crime and actually having someone arrested. And, even then, there wont be much of a punishment(after all, we can´t have it like you guys in america where criminals are locked away in small cells for a long time - that´s not very nice y’know :lol: ).
Riding a bike without lights and a helmet could be pretty expensive though. So it´s good to know that the police care about our safety.
Why didn’t I find this thread sooner? You guys represented Objectivism superlatively, though, so my two cents would be superfluous. The things that should have been said were said. Cheers to you guys! :whistle: