Judgement Day

[Svenskaflicka]

It's election day in Sweden. According to the news, the conservatives are in the lead. The social democrats risk losing their hold on the government post. I'm going to go and vote in an hour, I just want to jump into the shower first.

If the conservatives win, they have promised to cut down on the amount of money you may get for being unemployed as well as the number of days you may receive this money. They have also promised to raise the fee for being a member of a workers' union AND take away the possibility of deducting this fee from your tax declaration, thus making it harder for people to organize themselves against employers.
My favourite is that they have promised that if you're unemployed for 1 year, you'll be forced to take a job that gives you only 60% of your previous salary - and if you refuse to take it, you'll loose all financial help from the government!

The conservatives think that if you're unemployed for more than a year, or if you're sick for more than a year, then all your problems will go away if you suddenly loose whatever meager income you have. Abracadabra! Suddenly you have a great job/you're healthy again!

From what I understand, a lot of people have decided not to vote for any party, because they're disappointed with the socialdemocrats but they don't want the conservatives either. I say we're pretty much screwed either way, because even if the socialdemocrats DO win, they are ruled by a fat old rich man who has become so corrupted by money and power that he acts pretty much the same way as the conservaties do. Whomever we vote for, we'll get a conservative politician for a leader.

I've said it once, and I'll say again: considering how often the government is screwing us up the ass, we should get government funds for lube...

 

[R. Richard]

Vote for the anti-social democrats instead!

 

[Liar]

Was just gonna post a thread about this.

In earlier years, I've followed the political discourse and debate before every election closely, seen all the tv debates and read as much of the party programs and info that I could get.

But this time...naah. Couldn't be bothered. Sure I voted, based on a vauge idea of where my ideology is, but I didn't really...you know...care. And I'm not hanging on the newswire for the outcome. Can read about it in the paper tomorrow or something instead.

it's strange, because in my current social position, as a student and a small-business starter in an uncertain market, I'm more affected by the different sides' policies than I've ever been before. I'm BOTH an entrereneur and a worker, I might enploy people in the coming four years, or I might be employed, I might become temporarily dependant on social aid, and I'm already dependant on student loans. All those thinfgs are stuff that will differ greatly for me depending on who is in power. I used to be a well paid employee. Well paid employees have no problem whoever runs the country. But now it's kinda important.

And still, I can't muster up enough energy to give a flying fuck.

Am I democratically challenged?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I wish we had your conservatives in the States. You may disagree with their policy preferences on economic matters, but those are matters on which reason and evidence can be brought to bear. (Those who have engaged with me on politicals will know which side I'm on, but we won't go into that here.) The "conservatives" in the states include a heapin' helpin' of intolerant Bible thumpers. Worse, actually - slimy pols who believe in nothing themselves, but pander to the intolerant. There's not much reason and evidence can do when the other side's argument is, "Because God says so."

"Slimy pols" - that's kind of redundant actually, in any party. I can think of one in the 535 members of the U.S. Congress who has no sliminess. (Ron Paul. Agree or disagree, he says what he believes and votes it without exception. There are more than a few 434-1 votes in the House.)

 

[Svenskaflicka]

We are so dead.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

OK, today I'm probably going to piss off most everyone in one thread or another here, so I might as well make a clean sweep of it.

In my previous post here I distinguished between those who base their public policy preferences on rational premises, logic and empirical data, vs. those whose views are based on "Because God says so."

In that context, why is it that in certain policy debates that should revolve around rational premises, logic and evidence, those on one side of the aisle feel justified in speaking as if there is absolutely no legitimacy to the views of those on the other side, who must therefore be motivated by malice and ill will toward their fellow humans? Isn't the expression of this kind of "political correctness" a form of intolerance?

I'm sorry if this appears to be an attack, I don't mean it to be. Although I know none of the details of Swedish politics, it's likely I would find myself more in sympathy with the "conservatives" there than the more socialistic parties. Nevertheless, I viewed Svenska's opening post not so much as an attack as an uncritical expression of the views of the circles she inhabits. I view the socialists as misguided, not evil. I would hope that at some level they have the same view of those who prefer more free market-based policies, but the rhetoric often does not indicate this. I would criticize such rhetoric from the free market side just as much.

 

[kendo1]

OK, today I'm probably going to piss off most everyone in one thread or another here, so I might as well make a clean sweep of it.

In my previous post here I distinguished between those who base their public policy preferences on rational premises, logic and empirical data, vs. those whose views are based on "Because God says so."

In that context, why is it that in certain policy debates that should revolve around rational premises, logic and evidence, those on one side of the aisle feel justified in speaking as if there is absolutely no legitimacy to the views of those on the other side, who must therefore be motivated by malice and ill will toward their fellow humans? Isn't the expression of this kind of "political correctness" a form of intolerance?

I'm sorry if this appears to be an attack, I don't mean it to be. Although I know none of the details of Swedish politics, it's likely I would find myself more in sympathy with the "conservatives" there than the more socialistic parties. Nevertheless, I viewed Svenska's opening post not so much as an attack as an uncritical expression of the views of the circles she inhabits. I view the socialists as misguided, not evil. I would hope that at some level they have the same view of those who prefer more free market-based policies, but the rhetoric often does not indicate this. I would criticize such rhetoric from the free market side just as much.

Basically, I agree with you.
My one problem is that I reckon most people are misguided.
Too many people believe that their political views are right. This is patently incorrect.
There are very few politicians who believe in their politics. Just having the job is enough, as they rub their hands in glee at the money they are receiving.
Labour!! politicians with two Jaguars!!

Tony Benn seems to be the exception.
I don't believe in his world view, but as a politician he is impeccable.

Thoughtful Ken

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Fuck the market! Fuck the free economy! All we hear is "the market doesn't like this" and "tha market won't like that" and "this will upset the market", like we're dealing with a cranky old aunt whom we wish to please so she'll remember us in her will!

I don't give a rat's ass about how stocks and bonds change, it's all speculation and guesses and grown men and women playing guessing games with other people's money - what interests me is loyalty and solidarity and people sticking up for one another.

WHat we have gotten now is a bunch of rich bastards whose only interest is to get more money - no, scratch that, they have TWO interests; money and power - but basically they like power because then they can make laws that makes it easier for them to make MORE money for themselves!

All their politics are about taking money form the poor and giving them to the rich, ie themsselves and their buddies. They want to make it more profitable to own a house - well, great, and where will they make up for the loss of taxes? From those of us who can't AFFORD a house in the first place! I'm supposed to pay for those who are rich enough to afford paying for themselves?
Whereas I myself will go to the social office and beg for a handout once school is finished; and the social office will demand that I take a shitty job that pays me in peanuts, and the social office will have to cover the rest of my needs, because the pay won't be enough to pay for food and rent?
I'll work my ass off at a job that will never be stupid enough to hire me when they can get a new worker for a reduced price each month; meanwhile I'm working my way to an ulcer without getting any more money than I'd get from staying home and watching the lottery draw?

 

[kendo1]

Yep, flicka. That's what I mean.
It really doesn't matter what political party is in power.
The be all and end all of political life is power and money. Fuck the voters! - the people who put them in power and pay taxes.

'It's for your own good', 'we know best'.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I understand that there is a dispute about the unemployment rate in Sweden, which the government claims is less than 5.5 percent. Others claim that many government subsidies and programs mask the true figure, which may be as high as 20 percent. In the rest of Western Europe the there is no debate that the rate has been over 10 percent for almost a generation. In the U.S. it is 5.1 percent.

"Fuck the market! Fuck the free economy!"

I take it that there is no debate in Sweden that society has a duty to provide for those who due to genuine mental or physical disability cannot provide for themselves, so that issue is off the table. Those on the right believe that high unemployment rates are the result of market-unfriendly public policies, and cite evidence to back this up. Further, they believe that the inability of large portions of the population to find real work (vs. government "make-work") is more destructive of human happiness than are less generous social welfare benefits for the able bodied.

You may disagree with these premises and evidence. You have that right. While a person of the right would believe that the outcome of your preferred policies is more misery and unhappiness, not less, he would be wrong to charcterize your views as illegitimate or based on malice. Like you, he has the right to think your premises are erroneous.

This tolerant acceptance of the legitimacy of those whose public policy preferences are based on rational premises that one may disagree with is the essence of civil democracy. It would be unfortunate to lose this. Again, I distinguish between those who argue from rational premises, vs. those who do so from religious convictions (or affectations.)

 

[R. Richard]

It's election day in Sweden. According to the news, the conservatives are in the lead. The social democrats risk losing their hold on the government post. I'm going to go and vote in an hour, I just want to jump into the shower first.

Its now official, the Conservatives have been declared the winners and the Social Democrats have conceded.