Not Sure If I’ve Shared My Sweden Theory Here Before
June 12, 2010 11 Comments
People who like socialism, and Sweden, and cite Sweden’s (or other Scandi country’s) supposed socialism all the time as a great example of socialism, got this idea primarily because they think (or saw on TV/movies) that Swedish people are sexually attractive.
As a corollary, such people subconsciously think socialism (in particular note the obsession with government medical care) will make more people around them sexually attractive – and, in particular, sexually active. Thus increasing their (currently poor, we surmise) chances of having sex with sexually attractive people.
(UPDATE 6/14) Related: “Liberal” Matthew Yglesias fantasizes about colonialism, as long as it’s administered by “earnest Norwegians in association with an international crew of policy wonks”. Seems to me you have two choices when reading something like that: you can be utterly mystified and wonder what he’s been smoking, or you can read it simply as Matthew Yglesias’s deepest ‘desert island’ fantasy (i.e. that he would be one of the policy wonks, stranded and ‘administering’ the natives along with a bunch of hot, ‘earnest’ Norwegians). I know which one survives Occam’s Razor.
Socialism: Must be doing something right.
This post could really do with a pic of a hot Swedish babe, don’t ya think?
I really dropped the ball on that one, didn’t I?
UPDATE: Rectified, as you can see.
the way they’ll put happy families or sexy women in commercials, you mean?
It’s actually a very good point.
But.. devil’s advocate again: I lived in finland for a while and welfare works nicely there, unlike in england where it’s widely abused and the system is failing. Some say it’s about the homogeneity of the population. It’s also about (and this is related) to the degree people associate living off handouts as disgraceful or acceptable. Did some people in finland object to paying high taxes? Sure. But having a high standard of living all round feels good. Walking in london and seeing homeless people lying on the floor feels lousy and dangerous. It’s not all cut and dry. The standard of living in Norway, for example, is also high all round (and presumably it’s also a welfare state). Coming from outside the States, the idea of paying $50000 a year for education seems barbaric.
Are you against any kind of government taxes subsidizing anything like education/health insurance of any kind for anyone and or only of some particular kinds and is this regardless of whether it seems to work in any country, do you maintain that it doesn’t even apparently work anywhere and things are fucked in sweden (and not just, say in places like Malmo) or that it only seems to work in some countries but they’d be even better off without it?
I’m not clear about your opinion.
I lived in finland for a while and welfare works nicely there … Walking in london and seeing homeless people lying on the floor feels lousy and dangerous.
Ok so by ‘works nicely’ you mean ‘I don’t have to see poor people’. The criteria are primarily aesthetic ones. This is fairly concordant with my theory.
I’m sure the standard of living is high in Norway. But this is because Norway has oil, not because of Norway’s socialist policies per se. How high exactly would their standard be with the socialism but without the oil.
Anyway, the connection between welfare/socialism and ‘keeping homeless people off the street’, at least in the U.S., is not an obvious one in the first place. San Francisco has some of the most socialist welfare policies in the country – and tons of homeless people.
Most homelessness is not caused by insufficient socialism (just as most socialism is not aimed at homeless people): a large number of homeless people are folks that other countries would simply throw in the asylum. The U.S. simply can’t, which primarily traces back to the ‘patients’ rights’ movement of the ’70s. Another large number of homeless people (overlapping) are people who have chosen to devote their lives to feeding drug habits rather than living conventionally. They want to be homeless, essentially, because it affords them a certain type of freedom, to devote all their resources to pursuing the next hit, without ties or obligations. So once again, it’s not obvious how socialism or ‘welfare’ would make those people not be homeless. Again: ask San Francisco how well it works.
You ask about my opinion in general (that’s a first! feels weird). I wouldn’t say I’m “against any kind of government taxes subsidizing anything like education/health insurance of any kind for anyone”. I would say I’m against the government taxing and using the money to subsidize things that could generally be done better via other means (i.e. most things) and/or things that the government is not meant to be doing in the first place. (We have a Constitution which is among other things a list of things our government is meant to be doing.)
In cases where some government action isn’t warranted in the Constitution, yes whether something ‘works’ in other countries is irrelevant to me. But the real point is that saying something ‘works’ begs the question. What is the definition of ‘works’. If the definition is, ‘creates a society of attractive loose chicks who get medical checkups regularly and abortions if they want it thus increasing my chances of having no-strings-attached sex’, then as appealing as that may sound, it doesn’t add up to a compelling case for driving government policy for me. Which is not to say that anyone actually makes this argument overtly. My theory, after all, is that it is subconscious.
I’m finnish. And nordic countries are nice, as most countries have less trust. And trust is a beautiful thing to have.
I lived for a while in Northern Russia, Arhangelsk. There were no beggars in Arhalngelsk, no homeless people in the streets. So it is probably not the socialism that keeps finnish streets safe and clean. Though in Arhangelsk people freely drank beer in busses and while pushing their children in strollers, the professional drinkers were absent.
But i guess the theory of the original post was ridiculous. Some of the appeal of nordic countries is probably because the capitals are beautiful and people think that whole sweden is like stockholm. But in reality Sweden is filled with hicks and rednecks.
Some of the appeal of nordic countries is probably because the capitals are beautiful and people think that whole sweden is like stockholm.
I find this implausible, as most Western socialists who lionize Sweden probably don’t know anything about Stockholm: have never been there, never seen it, in many cases couldn’t state what country it’s in….
Pingback: dustbury.com » How Swede the sound
>If the definition is, ‘creates a society of attractive loose chicks who get medical checkups regularly and abortions if they want it thus increasing my chances of having no-strings-attached sex’, then as appealing as that may sound, it doesn’t add up to a compelling case for driving government policy for me.
With that definition you set an impossibly high-bar. I suspect it’s precisely the reason you aimed so high since obviously it would (if only possible) be a very compelling reason for driving government policy.
San Fransisco might be more like London in the context we’re talking about. I knew plenty of people (most of my then flatmates) who came to London to plunder. Living off welfare with no plans of ever getting a job. It’s not a homogeneous population. It lends itself to a natural feeling that nobody has much to do with anyone else so taking their money is fine (of course this can happen in any fractured society).
Not seeing homeless people isn’t only aesthetic (which in itself is an excellent aim, isn’t it? Wouldn’t you rather see beautiful streets than ugly ones, for example?). And in this case, we aren’t talking about ‘looks’, we’re talking about things which introduce a certain emotional ugliness or beauty. If you don’t want to ‘see’ people walking up to you, begging, for example and if you won’t and not because they’re locked up out of sight.
It’s also a matter of safety and comfort. In short there’s a lot to be said for it.
There’s the issue of-course, of do we want the state to be our nanny. If you feel someone is pushy with their help and there are strings attached, you might feel you’d like as little to do with them as possible. This complicates things but one has to distinguish between that and between saying this sort of welfare achieves nothing good. At most one could say things would be even better without it, but would it in every country?
I take it that in America, school is free (ie subsidized). Should that be taken away then? And if not then why shouldn’t university be heavily subsidized as well? I don’t hold Finland up as some shining example, it’s just a country I know a little about. There, all university tuition is free. There are lots of silly degrees (and sillier people) out there amongst the rest but generally speaking, a well-educated population thrives more than a poorly educated one, does it not? It’s also more pleasant to live in. Mere aesthetics?
I suppose by ‘works’ I mean all manner of things to do with the above. ‘Works’ can refer to lots of things. For example, I’d say communism didn’t ‘work’ because in every country it was practiced, besides the tyrannical nature of the regimes, the economy failed (which is again, something ‘aesthetic’, in terms of what people saw around them and in their house). Subsidized schools/universities, unemployment money etc. could screw things up in some countries but don’t always do so.
I suspect it’s precisely the reason you aimed so high since obviously it would (if only possible) be a very compelling reason for driving government policy.
Heh
It’s not a homogeneous population. It lends itself to a natural feeling that nobody has much to do with anyone else so taking their money is fine
Clearly homogeneity plays a role, which is part of why it would be silly for one to advocate for country X to emulate “Sweden” just because (they heard) something seems to “work” there. But at a more basic level, it’s even dumber to advocate we emulate “Sweden” if you don’t actually really know anything about how things are in Sweden, other than having some vaguely sexualized perception/stereotype about “Sweden” being socialist and it “working” there. Which – according to my theory, anyway – is precisely the situation many Western lefties are in.
Not seeing homeless people isn’t only aesthetic (which in itself is an excellent aim, isn’t it? Wouldn’t you rather see beautiful streets than ugly ones, for example?).
Sure, all else equal, but in a face-off between aesthetics and rights, rights should win IMHO. Your desire to see “nice” streets, or things, or whatever, doesn’t create moral license for you to garnish my paycheck.
Regarding safety, I have lived in many places with lots of homeless people and never had a problem. “Looks unsafe” is not the same as unsafe
At most one could say things would be even better without it, but would it in every country?
I happen to think so, although I am certainly open to counterevidence. Repeatedly drooling over “Sweden” does not qualify….
I take it that in America, school is free (ie subsidized). Should that be taken away then?
The way school is funded in America is primarily through property taxes. This leads to a highly tiered system, where rich folks in giant houses in cushy neighborhoods (who therefore pay huge property taxes) have lavish/high-quality school districts..and vice versa. An effect which self-perpetuates, of course, as people choose neighborhoods and houses with a huge view towards which “school district” it’s in, and will pay a large premium for this “school district” over that. (which makes property values rise, which makes nearby schools better)
And then on top of that you have the possibility of (paid, i.e. $30k+/year) private schools to which many wealthy parents choose to send their children in order to differentiate them even further from the rabble. (Which would only have to increase, of course, if public schooling were truly leveled/equalized, and rich people had to work even harder to differentiate their special kids from the others)
It oversimplifies things greatly to describe this situation as “schools are free” and that if I am unhappy/dissatisfied/see problems with it, I want it “taken away”. Anyway, as it stands I have little practical objection to the current state of affairs (if only because I’m not sure I’d know how to make it ‘better’)…but a socialist probably does. To the extent schools are socialist, they are at least quite locally socialist (which makes things better in my view – but not in that of a socialist).
And if not then why shouldn’t university be heavily subsidized as well?
One reason university shouldn’t be subsidized (actually: I should point it out is, at least if you are talking about state universities, i.e. kids in state X typically get a discount for going to a state-school in their state) is because the benefits accrue mostly to those who are already privileged. In practice fully subsidizing universities in the U.S. would mean garnishing the paychecks of single truck drivers and plant workers so that spoiled-brat middle class kids can go play videogames and smoke pot with no responsibilities for four years (without setting their own parents back a dime), and then come out with a piece of paper that automatically gives them a salary advantage over people like truck drivers and plant workers. This is perverse.
So given that I think far too many people go to college as it is, the last thing I’d want to do is subsidize more college attendance, any more than I’d want to subsidize increased auto traffic, CDO issuance, TV broadcasts of “Jersey Shore”, or other things I find to have been wasteful, nuisances, and oversubscribed.
I do agree that ‘educated’ people tend to make for nice neighbors, communities, Starbuck’s patrons, etc (I actually like living in college towns even though I tend to hold a certain contempt for everyone in them
), but once again it’s a question of what wins the face-off…
best
Pingback: RWCG: The Crib’s Notes Version « Rhymes With Cars & Girls
Pingback: Ah, Sweden « Rhymes With Cars & Girls