| Posted: 16 May 2008 at 5:19pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Michael, if you look at my original post:
"I think we Scandinavians might be a bit too welcoming of the results in studies like the book you mention, it is after all very flattering to be on the top of a "good" list. But the core issue of the argument you mentioned is that a certain economic freedom across the board guarantees personal freedom. The more people who have a decent personal economy, enough to improve not just standard of living but - indirectly- quality of life, the more people who are "free" (provided that the government supports those freedoms.) "
First off, as you can tell I have no problem admitting that it would be wrong to take any such study as an indication of "perfection" in our society.
Secondly, I explicitly stated that there need to be other freedoms, ones assured by the government, in addition to economic freedoms in order for people to be free. The issue isn't economic freedom as opposed to free speech and every other right in the Bill of Rights, but in addition to it.
"No, the original question was one regarding the notion of people in Norway being "the most independent people" on earth. "
I'm sorry. In my country we see no great distinction between independence and freedom. It is easy to forget that in other countries they are not the same thing.
If the question is specifically about independence it comes down to one thing (and this is going to sound weird, excuse the hyperbole) : We believe that we are gods, yet know that we are not. Sounds corny but there it is. If any man was ever an island, entire unto himself, that man would be a norwegian. This isn't about self-flattery, it's about perception. We like being left alone, and we detest authority. It is a very generalizing statement, but our entire history as a people is about knowing that we are all "equals". In our old norse mythology we are all blood relations of the gods. In more secular mythology, we are all descendant of the first two kings of our nation (famous for having about a hundred children each, legitimate and illegitimate).
Complete hogwash, and we know it. But it has shaped us as a people.
Our pre-christian history has us with parliaments and legislative bodies independent of the king's authority along the lines of the ancient greeks while the great nations of Europe were still getting their laws from Divinely Appointed Kings.
Socialism to us isn't about abject submission to some neo-feudal regime as it was in Russia and China. We don't play that game. It's about deciding that if we all want something we can all have it.
"No, isn't freedom, in the proper context of our discussion, simply...more honestly...the 'absence of constraint in choice or action'? "
Yes. Exactly. And we see economic issues as in some cases "causing constraint in choice or action." If you have to choose between letting your children starve or letting your wife die because she can't afford proper health care since you can possibly afford food or medicine but not both, what is then the value of your freedom to choose?
The issue isn't "sacrificing" rights but making the most of the rights you have. If your pursuit of your 100 percent freedom is blocked 100 percent by financial constraints, a man who has 50 percent of your theoretical freedom in this area, yet in practice enjoys those 50 percent fully, is still more free than you, though you in theory should be 50 percent freer.
Yes, there are rights that you have that we don't. Rights that we would like to have. (Although what rights may differ based on political affiliation). But do you get to use them?
You have a separation of church and state while we don't. Yet we've had atheist prime ministers (have one now, as a matter of fact) , cabinet members etc while in the US, any man who doesn't publicly declare himself a christian is all but barred from political office ( with perhaps a few exceptions, yet not so you'd notice) . Religious freedom in theory and practice. (OK, so that one isn't economical)
"Is a large segment of Norway no longer pushing for even greater immigration barriers? "
Oh. That would be the conservative, non-socialist parties. The socialist parties are the ones who are soft on immigration.
"If the measure of mans' freedom is the lack of worry or a guaranteed eight week vacation, why do you insist on drawing such distinct difference between Social Democracy and any of its sister ideologies?"
I insist on drawing a distinct difference between Social Democracy and Communism (or other forms of socialism) because there are still idiots (in the word's proper usage) out there who don't know that there is a distinct difference, even after a century. Social Democrats seek to promote change towards their ideal through political and democratic processes. It is separate from Communism in rejecting the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot's genocidal cultural purgings) and being, in some cases, so relentlessly pragmatic that it seems devoid of ideological fire. SocialDemocratic Scandinavian countries have created a mixed economy that tries to blend, as efficiently as possible, the good parts of both socialism and capitalism. Of course there are still arguments about where those dividing lines go.
And of course the underlying freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to counsel (by the way we get to pick any lawyer we want for free if charged with a crime. You can pick the country's top lawyer if you want to, the only obstacle being that the waiting list may be long. ) et cetera are all necessary components of freedom. Actual freedom isn't about the theory. It's about how we experience our freedom. The practical application of liberty.
"No more doctoral candidates working at the coffee shop because the workforce has been artificially saturated with candidates who would rather take advantage of the educational system on the backs of legitimate tax-payers, and train to be Philosophy majors rather than suffer the rigors of a more naturally derived labor pool?"
Where do you get your information? In my country (at least in the humanities) , part of the doctoral program is a mandatory teaching position at the department. If you work at a coffee shop, that's pure overtime.
And Philosophy majors? That's one of the smallest departments at the university I attended. the office is a glorified broom closet. If it wasn't for the fact that all entry level students are required to take a basic philosophy and methodology course, they wouldn't even have that. I had an english teacher (at university) who got his PhD in philosophy, but half of it was from the English Department because they only got half a doctorate position.
The biggest problem we have is that kids don't take higher education because you can make more money as a welder, plumber, carpenter or fisherman. I had a room-mate who was studying to be a lawyer, but he kept taking time off and postponing his degree in maritime law (with guaranteed employment at the end) because he was making too much money as an ordinary fisherman.
We need highly educated people, and we've made higher education almost free of charge to accomplish that. But our universities aren't handing out rubber-stamped nonsense degrees. They just don't have the resources. Do you realize that it took a personal appeal from the italian embassy to maintain the country's single university program in Italian language and culture? And you think these tightly budgeted departments would waste their time and resources on vanity degrees?
"Your current phrasing is merely a bastardized concept of freedom, and would seem to stem from the underlaying belief of all socialist thought, of whatever variety, that the end justifies the means."
Sigh. Which is why I point out that I'm talking about Social Democrats who are different from Communists specifically in that they do not believe that the ends justify the means, but that the means have importance on their own. Sheesh. Crack open a book sometime.
You seem to have this image of Norway as a repressed communist country. All stemming from your limited understanding of the nuances within applied socialism.
Our rights are limited in this country. This is true. However, many of the limitations on our freedom are kept in place by conservatives, not socialists. Blasphemy laws, the co-mingling of church and state and the religious requirement that follows with it that at least half the cabinet must be lutheran, school prayer and religious instruction, limitations on the right to bear arms, opposition to gay rights, limitations on abortion and reproductive rights etc are all conservative issues.
Mostly socialist incursions into "freedoms" are workplace health and safety standards, taxation, speed limits, alcohol and tobacco restrictions, toll booths, restrictions on private schools (which are 80 percent funded by the government), subsidies and other measures to guarantee norwegian jobs, ethical guidelines for the oil investment fund (such as trying not to fund child labor, slave labor and other morally or ethically challenged businesses. As far as they're able. ) and choosing not to privatize profitable government businesses.
Y'know. Pragmatic things.
|
Topic Closed)
