GameBanshee Forums

The inspiration:

You may think whatever you want about Swedish politicians, they certainly aren't my favourite people either, and if you wish to discuss that I would be happy to post in another thread. However, there is no denying that they are leaders of Sweden... ~ Dottie

A good leader is a person who takes a little more than his share of the blame and a little less than his share of the credit. ~John C. Maxwell

First, the definitions. Can’t do without definitions.

Head of state or chief of state is the generic term for the individual or collective office that serves as the chief public representative of a monarchic or republican nation-state, federation, commonwealth or any other political state. His or her role generally includes personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state and exercising the political powers, functions and duties granted the head of state in the country's constitution.

National leader - a man who is a respected leader in national or international affairs.

Statesman -
1. a person who is experienced in the art of government or versed in the administration of government affairs.
2. a person who exhibits great wisdom and ability in directing the affairs of a government or in dealing with important public issues.


Do you feel that slight difference between a "national leader" and a "head of state"? Do you agree? Do we elect someone because we perceive him/her to be a true national leader? Better than all other contenders? What qualities are we looking for, really? Is a "good guy" next door good enough to lead your country?

What makes a head of state a national leader? Do you consider your country's Chief Officer the national leader? Why? Why not? Can a dictator be a true national leader? Can you?

I think that the second definition is the one that hits the nail on the head. One could easily say that while movie stars are certantly not in places of Government athourity, (Cept for Swarchenegger ) they are national leaders. I mean look at how many magazines there are that talk about what Brad Pitt is doing. He has become a national icon not through any great political act, but simply by acting. He has the attention of the nation, because the media choses to focus on him.

I see people are reluctant to discuss Great Wisdom of their national leaders. Hmm... Nothing much to say, eh? That is probably why we always discuss American politics, here.

@Cartell
I don't think Brad Pitt can be called a national leader, but perhaps I am mistaken. He is enormously popular (and very wealthy) and could be elected a governor or even a president if he decided to go into politics. Reagan was an actor and so was Arnold.
I remember a porn actress Mary Carey made her bid for California Governor a few years ago. Why not? Italian Parliament has a former porn star as a member.
Carey had some... interesting ideas. I looked her up in Wiki and that is what she promised in 2003 if elected:

1. Legalize same-sex marriage
2. Tax breast implants
3. Make lap-dances tax deductible
4. Wire the California Governor's Mansion with live web-cams
5. Create a "Porn for Pistols" program to reduce the number of handguns
6. Be a goodwill ambassador to attract business to the state
7. Make those drawing unemployment insurance do jury duty for their pay
8. Fight the attacks on the porn industry by John Ashcroft and the U.S. Department of Justice
9. Allow bars to stay open until 4:00 A.M.
10. Address the AIDS epidemic
11. Help the over crowded and mis-managed prison system.

I'm not sure I understand the question actually. Do you mean that a leader have to be popular to be a leader? I can't really see the relevance of my quote either...

Cartell wrote: He has become a national icon

Brad Pitt isn't a national icon, he is a celebrity.A national icon is someone who represesnts something about the country, someone who is a mirror of the countries values and culture. Also he isn't a national leader, he doesn't lead the nation, he entertains it.

Dottie wrote:I'm not sure I understand the question actually. Do you mean that a leader have to be popular to be a leader? I can't really see the relevance of my quote either...

There are several questions in the original post, actually. Your quote is related to the definition of national leader vs. head of state. If you feel that your head of state fits (or not) the description of a national leader, please elaborate.
About popularity: I was answering Cartell. Leaders can be popular for many reasons, including totally ridiculous. But they really need to be popular to be elected. Politicians achieve popularity by various means. How one can hope to be elected if he/she promotes unpopular ideas or looks too ugly and too smart (important issues for brain-dead)?

I'll give it a try then. If you feel I'm misunderstanding you please say so.

Lady Dragonfly wrote: National leader - a man who is a respected leader in national or international affairs.

The only thing in that definition that isn't a tautology is "respected", so I'll assume that when you ask about national leaders you ask whether a particular leader is respected. (I'll still use the word leader in it's true sense if you don't mind? Redefining words is imo a good way to create confusion)

Do we elect someone because we perceive him/her to be a true national leader? Better than all other contenders? What qualities are we looking for, really? Is a "good guy" next door good enough to lead your country?

I try to elect a party which says it will institute changes that I believe to be positive. The qualities of the party leader is only important as far as they effect the policy of the party. That means I can completely lack respect for a person I help get elected.

Even if I lived in a nation with more focus on the persons I could still lack respect for a leader I vote for if I perceived that this particular leader is the least bad alternative.

I don't think that simply being kind is enough to be a good leader if that is what you are asking. In fact I believe kindness is completely irrelevant.

What makes a head of state a national leader? Do you consider your country's Chief Officer the national leader? Why? Why not? Can a dictator be a true national leader? Can you?

Most leaders that are wildly respected are charismatic people who have a clearly visible just cause and live by their own principles. Of more importance to me personally is that they should have positive effects on the state of the world. If they have that then it's usually enough for me to respect them.

The president chief of state here isn't respected by me. He is quite an ordinary politician and behave like politicians usually do. Historically there are some that I do respect though, at least partly.

Of course a dictator can be respected. King Hussein of Jordan was a good example of that, and there are many more.

I'm not a charismatic or hard working person, so no.

How one can hope to be elected if he/she promotes unpopular ideas or looks too ugly and too smart (important issues for brain-dead)?

Göran Persson, the previous chief of state of Sweden was never popular. Not even when he got elected. Despite this he reigned for 10 years.

@Dottie

Thank you for your reply.

The only thing in that definition that isn't a tautology is "respected", so I'll assume that when you ask about national leaders you ask whether a particular leader is respected. (I'll still use the word leader in it's true sense if you don't mind? Redefining words is imo a good way to create confusion)

By all means use the word. The definition of national leader (and the percieved tautology) belongs to a dictionary (Prinston University).

I try to elect a party which says it will institute changes that I believe to be positive. The qualities of the party leader is only important as far as they effect the policy of the party. That means I can completely lack respect for a person I help get elected.

In other words, you don't vote for a particular leader, only for a party platform that supposedly addresses issues in a way you believe to be positive. Fair enough.
I assume there are many parties in Sweden. How different are their platforms?
Another question: How many % of votes a single party needs in order to win general elections? Does a winner represent the majority of voters?
Yet another question: can an independent candidate enter the race?

Even if I lived in a nation with more focus on the persons I could still lack respect for a leader I vote for if I perceived that this particular leader is the least bad alternative.

So, you choose a lesser evil... Can you explain why there is a shortage of worthy charismatic leaders on the Swedish political horizon?

I don't think that simply being kind is enough to be a good leader if that is what you are asking. In fact I believe kindness is completely irrelevant.

It is irrelevant. The most important things are competence and honesty, IMO. And a competent leader deserves respect, even if he represents a party you did not vote for. The problem is how to get elected first. So, a prospective leader (or his team at least) needs to be insightful, needs to understand what the broad majority "believes to be positive" and create a perception that he is a better choice for the country's majority. Fun to watch, really.

Most leaders that are wildly respected are charismatic people who have a clearly visible just cause and live by their own principles. Of more importance to me personally is that they should have positive effects on the state of the world. If they have that then it's usually enough for me to respect them.

Sometimes a just cause can be clearly visible as such only to those who share the ideas of a particular charismatic leader. For example, Osama Bin Laden's cause is percieved as "just" by millions of people in Muslim word while other millions call it terrorism. It often depends on the point of view.
The positive effect on the state of the world? It can mean a lot of things. Many leaders probably believe they affect the world positively. Can you name a few leaders (in modern history, preferably) and their positive effects?

Of course a dictator can be respected. King Hussein of Jordan was a good example of that, and there are many more.

King is not exactly a dictator.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:In other words, you don't vote for a particular leader, only for a party platform that supposedly addresses issues in a way you believe to be positive. Fair enough.

Yes, exactly like that.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:I assume there are many parties in Sweden. How different are their platforms?
Another question: How many % of votes a single party needs in order to win general elections? Does a winner represent the majority of voters?
Yet another question: can an independent candidate enter the race?

7 Parties managed to get enough votes (>4%) to gain seats in the parliament last election. If you look only on these parties the variation is quite small, I don't know how to quantify it in a good way. If you look at all available parties the variation is larger.

The closest thing to winning an election is to be able to form the cabinet. It's rare that a single party gets more than 50% of the votes, so usually multiple parties cooperate to form the cabinet. Sometimes a single party with less then 50% of the votes form cabinet alone. The only thing that is required is that they have a realistic way to get support for their ideas. It's risky business since you might find yourself in a situation where you are unable to gouvern efficiently.

You can start your own party should you wish, but you can not enter as only a person if that is what you mean.

So, you choose a lesser evil... Can you explain why there is a shortage of worthy charismatic leaders on the Swedish political horizon?

First a clarification: When I spoke of charisma I was talking about what seemed to internationally earn people respect. Charisma is nothing that I, or i believe most people here, vote for. Mostly because the personality of the leader is unimportant to most people here.

The reason i frequently have to choose a lesser evil is not due to sub standard Swedish politicians, but rather because my political views aren't common enough to be accurately represented by any party.

Sometimes a just cause can be clearly visible as such only to those who share the ideas of a particular charismatic leader. For example, Osama Bin Laden's cause is percieved as "just" by millions of people in Muslim word while other millions call it terrorism. It often depends on the point of view.

Again, I don't care much for just causes either. But I believe that it can make you respected in the world, or rather the part that perceives your cause as just.

The positive effect on the state of the world? It can mean a lot of things. Many leaders probably believe they affect the world positively. Can you name a few leaders (in modern history, preferably) and their positive effects?

Sure, they believe that. The question for me is whether or not I agree. I think a good way to measure positive effects is the health of the world population. If your decisions means the death of many people it's a negative effect. If it means that many people can live healthy lives then it's a positive effect. Nelson Mandela had for example a positive effect when he helped put an end to the apartheid system. Per Albin Hansson had a positive effect when he helped construct the welfare system here, should you want a Swedish example.

King is not exactly a dictator.

I thought you meant any ruler who assumes sole power over the state. If not, then what do you mean?

I thought you meant any ruler who assumes sole power over the state. If not, then what do you mean?

According to a dictionary,

DICTATOR
1. a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
2. (in ancient Rome) a person invested with supreme authority during a crisis, the regular magistracy being subordinated to him until the crisis was met.
3. a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct, usage, etc.: a dictator of fashion.
4. a person who dictates, as to a secretary.

Apparently I was not talking about ancient Rome, fashion or secretaries, so I would stick to #1. A dictator is someone like Pinochet, al-Qadaffi or Noriega.

In modern times kings do not seize thrones by coup d'etat, besides in most countries the so-called constitutional monarchy is purely ceremonial, decorative. They reign but do not rule. How much power does the Swedish Royalty wield? There are few surviving absolute monarchies in the modern world, and Jordan is not among them. I suppose the population of these countries habitually expresses love and admiration for their respective supreme rulers but does it really have a choice?
BTW, what would happen to you if you choose to publicly ridicule your king? Are you going to be dragged to jail?

Per Albin Hansson had a positive effect when he helped construct the welfare system here, should you want a Swedish example.

I gather you like your welfare system? There is a fragment of an article I’ve found online:

As the cost of regulations and big government grew, entrepreneurship dropped. In the 2002 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey Sweden ranked in the 31st place among 37 countries when it came to start-up of new companies. None of the large Swedish companies were established later than 1970. It is not a coincidence that Sweden has gone from being the fourth richest country in the world in 1970 to being the fourteenth richest in 2002. Today the average American has 37 percent higher purchasing power and almost twice as high private consumption as the average Swede. More than 30 percent of the Swedish population falls below the American poverty line.

Is this true?

The reason i frequently have to choose a lesser evil is not due to sub standard Swedish politicians, but rather because my political views aren't common enough to be accurately represented by any party.

What are your political views?

Lady Dragonfly wrote:In modern times kings do not seize thrones by coup d'etat, besides in most countries the so-called constitutional monarchy is purely ceremonial, decorative. They reign but do not rule. How much power does the Swedish Royalty wield?

None, but then I didn't talk about Swedish royalty either.

There are few surviving absolute monarchies in the modern world, and Jordan is not among them.

Jordan was not a constitutional monarchy when Hussein ruled.

I suppose the population of these countries habitually expresses love and admiration for their respective supreme rulers but does it really have a choice?

There was nothing habitual about the love for Hussein, and many people express this love voluntarily.

I gather you like your welfare system?

I certainly like parts of it, yes.

As the cost of regulations and big government grew, entrepreneurship dropped. In the 2002 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey Sweden ranked in the 31st place among 37 countries when it came to start-up of new companies. None of the large Swedish companies were established later than 1970. It is not a coincidence that Sweden has gone from being the fourth richest country in the world in 1970 to being the fourteenth richest in 2002. Today the average American has 37 percent higher purchasing power and almost twice as high private consumption as the average Swede. More than 30 percent of the Swedish population falls below the American poverty line.

Is this true?

I can't respond in an accurate way when it comes to average purchasing power and entrepreneurship, but the values seem suspect since purchasing power should be relatively lower then private consumption in a welfare state. However, I don't believe that they are very useful in measuring how well a society is doing.

The claim that 30 percent of Swedish population lives below the American poverty line is ridiculous. The poverty line for 2005 is as far as I can gather about 10000 dollar/year for a single person aged less then 65. You are entitled to subsides worth more than that.

Other then that whoever wrote the article have a rudimentary understanding of Swedish history, if you want to flatter him. The construction of the welfare state started after the second world war, not in the 70's. It was partly dismantled during the recession in the 90's, mostly by the social democrats.

What are your political views?

I don't have the energy to explain them here. Not unless I see a point in doing so.

Would you mind telling me what the purpose of this thread is? I'm still quite fuzzy on that point. If there is a specific issue you wish to discuss it would be nice to know.

Lady Dragonfly wrote: I gather you like your welfare system? There is a fragment of an article I’ve found online:

As the cost of regulations and big government grew, entrepreneurship dropped. In the 2002 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey Sweden ranked in the 31st place among 37 countries when it came to start-up of new companies. None of the large Swedish companies were established later than 1970. It is not a coincidence that Sweden has gone from being the fourth richest country in the world in 1970 to being the fourteenth richest in 2002. Today the average American has 37 percent higher purchasing power and almost twice as high private consumption as the average Swede. More than 30 percent of the Swedish population falls below the American poverty line.

Is this true?

I don't want this to come off as aggressive, but it seems like you're cherry-picking your information. After googling your article, it turns out it's from Lew Rockwell, who happens to be a very outspoken libertarian. Of course, he'll bash Sweden. I only googled the snipped you posted because, well, it sounded like it was written by someone with an axe to grind. I honestly expected it came from Free Republic or Ann Coulter's personal blog, and I wasn't too far off the mark.

Sweden is doing better than the OECD average on pretty much every economic indicator. The CIA factbook says "Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits.". A cursory glance at The Economist's website (hardly a bastion of leftism) reveals the following:

In recent years defenders of the European social model—capitalism tempered by a generous and interventionist welfare state—have taken to praising Scandinavia to the skies. The Nordic region, to go a bit wider, has the world's highest taxes and most generous welfare benefits. And yet Sweden, Finland and Denmark (Norway's oil sets it apart) have delivered strong growth and low unemployment, and rank among the world's most competitive economies. Nordic companies are strong in technology and research and development. Their health-care and educational systems are much admired. And, unlike other European countries, most Nordic states run healthy budget and current-account surpluses.

Sweden is doing great, relatively speaking.

In the 'Can Leaders Be Personally Poor?' thread, you posted

Small countries with pro-socialism system, high taxes and extensive welfare (Big Brother "welfare states") are not doing very well politically and economically, according to Forbes.

Calling countries with high taxes and extensive welfare Big Brother "welfare states" aside - though I honestly don't see the what welfare has to do with civil liberties - this is either flat out wrong, or strongly misrepresented. What small countries with a socialist systems, high taxes and extensive welfare are you referring to anyway? Maybe our definitions of those three concepts differ, but I can't think of any outside Scandinavia. I don't really think ex-Eastern Bloc and South American countries make the cut.

edit: FWIW, I didn't address the original question in the thread because, to be perfectly honest, I don't get it either

@Dottie

Would you mind telling me what the purpose of this thread is? I'm still quite fuzzy on that point. If there is a specific issue you wish to discuss it would be nice to know.

I refer you to the original questions:

Do you feel that slight difference between a "national leader" and a "head of state"? Do you agree? Do we elect someone because we perceive him/her to be a true national leader? Better than all other contenders? What qualities are we looking for, really? Is a "good guy" next door good enough to lead your country?

What makes a head of state a national leader? Do you consider your country's Chief Officer the national leader? Why? Why not? Can a dictator be a true national leader? Can you?

Yes, it is a wide topic, intentionally so. Your personal political views would affect your answers, and that is fine. What is good for you may be not so good for somebody else, and that is fine as well. I invite people to share their own, however uncommon or biased, point of view, without anger. If you don't feel comfortable to share yours, that is OK. But I am genuinely interested. We always discuss America. Let's discuss Europe and Asia. And any other continent if you please.

There was nothing habitual about the love for Hussein, and many people express this love voluntarily.

How do you know?

...whoever wrote the article have a rudimentary understanding of Swedish history, if you want to flatter him. The construction of the welfare state started after the second world war, not in the 70's. It was partly dismantled during the recession in the 90's, mostly by the social democrats.

I've never said the quoted fragment was a gospel. I merely asked whether it was true, in your opinion. Apparently, the answer is NO.

@Vicsun

I don't want this to come off as aggressive, but it seems like you're cherry-picking your information. After googling your article, it turns out it's from Lew Rockwell, who happens to be a very outspoken libertarian. Of course, he'll bash Sweden. I only googled the snipped you posted because, well, it sounded like it was written by someone with an axe to grind. I honestly expected it came from Free Republic or Ann Coulter's personal blog, and I wasn't too far off the mark.

I don't read Ann Coulter's personal blog (or whatever else she writes), so I wouldn't guess that easily.
Why would "a very outspoken libertarian" "of course" bash Sweden? Perhaps my question would show how little I know about the Scandinavian politico-economical situation. Thus, the curiosity.

Calling countries with high taxes and extensive welfare Big Brother "welfare states" aside - though I honestly don't see the what welfare has to do with civil liberties - this is either flat out wrong, or strongly misrepresented. What small countries with a socialist systems, high taxes and extensive welfare are you referring to anyway?

"Welfare state" is a common name for countries like Sweden, and it is not a derogatory term. I've also encountered the expression "Swedish model of socialism". Big Brother comes to mind because a big government plays a major role, there. Does it not? I hope I clarified the etymology.
I am confused about civil liberties... Did I mention them in connection with the welfare states? I honestly don't recall doing so.

Sweden is doing great, relatively speaking.

At the same time Dottie does not sound very enthusiastic and chooses "a lesser evil". That is why I asked about Dottie's political views.
And what about your country and its leaders, Vicsun?

Lady Dragonfly wrote: I don't read Ann Coulter's personal blog (or whatever else she writes), so I wouldn't guess that easily.
Why would "a very outspoken libertarian" "of course" bash Sweden? Perhaps my question would show how little I know about the Scandinavian politico-economical situation. Thus, the curiosity.

Libertarianism claims that government intervention of any sort is inefficient and should thus be avoided. Sweden boasts an exceptionally successful welfare state which should be impossible. People who are extremely set in a view that does not match reality (Ann Coulter, et al.) are likely to attempt to misrepresent reality so it matches their views as opposed to changing their view. I'm talking about blatantly false statements such as "more than 30 percent of the Swedish population falls below the American poverty line".

Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of libertarian ideas. It's just that Lew Rockwell strikes me as a... "hack".

"Welfare state" is a common name for countries like Sweden, and it is not a derogatory term. I've also encountered the expression "Swedish model of socialism". Big Brother comes to mind because a big government plays a major role, there. Does it not? I hope I clarified the etymology.
I am confused about civil liberties... Did I mention them in connection with the welfare states? I honestly don't recall doing so.

"Welfare state" is not a derogatory term, however "Big Brother welfare state" is. Big Brother is a term for an authoritarian government that suppresses civil liberties, which is why I mentioned them. George Orwell wasn't writing about the free medical care in Oceania.

At the same time Dottie does not sound very enthusiastic and chooses "a lesser evil". That is why I asked about Dottie's political views.

Dottie is just hard to please

And what about your country and its leaders, Vicsun?

I like some things they're doing and dislike others. On the whole I believe them to be relatively competent, and I do mean relatively. Having lived in Bulgaria for twelve years of my life, Danish politicians are just rosy.

Libertarianism claims that government intervention of any sort is inefficient and should thus be avoided. Sweden boasts an exceptionally successful welfare state which should be impossible. People who are extremely set in a view that does not match reality (Ann Coulter, et al.) are likely to attempt to misrepresent reality so it matches their views as opposed to changing their view. I'm talking about blatantly false statements such as "more than 30 percent of the Swedish population falls below the American poverty line".

I suppose the Libertarians don't like the idea of giving a (big) government a lot of power...
(We can argue about reality and what matches it and what does not. How often do you change your set of views? Who is to determine whose view matches the reality better? Which reality?)
I agree, that fragment was funny. That is why I posted it without any comments. It does not belong to Rockwell himself. The author is Nima Sanandaji, an Iranian, a 25 years old Cambridge student who posted his little masterpiece at LewRockwell.com.

Sweden, Capitalism, and the Welfare State by Nima Sanandaji

About the American poverty line...
For one person -- $9,800
For two persons in family unit -- $13,200
For three... -- $16,600
For four... -- $23,400.
So, if an American family with two children makes less than $23,000, it is considered below poverty line. 37 million American people are in this category. The whole Sweden is less than 9 million.

I know nothing about family income in Sweden.

"Welfare state" is not a derogatory term, however "Big Brother welfare state" is. Big Brother is a term for an authoritarian government that suppresses civil liberties, which is why I mentioned them. George Orwell wasn't writing about the free medical care in Oceania.

Perhaps. But Big Brother nickname fits a big government imposing incredibly high taxes (the highest in the world) and handing down various wonderful benefits and thus controlling the masses and their attitude. One of the side effects of this policy is described below:
Cato-at-liberty » The Welfare State Causes “Sickness”

Sweden suffers from the world’s highest reported disability rate. This does not mean people there are actually sick, to be fair, but it does show that the welfare state creates bad incentives. People with weak values learn that they can feed at the public trough instead of doing something productive with their lives...
(According to Wall Street Journal) ...In Europe, roughly 20% of the working-age population — or 60 million people — depend on various government benefits as their sole or main income, compared with 13% in the U.S. That’s a major economic handicap. …Assar Lindbeck, one of Sweden’s best-known economists, says the lenient welfare state has changed the country over the past generation. In place of the old Protestant work ethic, it has become acceptable to feel unable to work and to live on benefits, he says. “I would not call it cheating,” Prof. Lindbeck says. “I would call it a drift in attitudes and social norms.”

Lady Dragonfly wrote:I suppose the Libertarians don't like the idea of giving a (big) government a lot of power...
(We can argue about reality and what matches it and what does not. How often do you change your set of views? Who is to determine whose view matches the reality better? Which reality?)

I'd like to think I change my views as soon as a compelling argument is presented against them. For example if I claimed that a welfare state can under no circumstances function well, and someone countered that by pointing out a welfare state that has the fifth highest HDI, a GDP growth at around 4%, an unemployment at around 3%, a huge current account surplus, an inflation at around 2%, a low Gini coefficient, and one of the highest ranked education systems in the world, I would probably concede. Views matching reality are usually those that don't lead to a logical contradiction when coupled with empirical data. After all, economics tries to be a science, and in science when a model doesn't match the facts the model is to be either thrown away or amended.

As for 'which reality?', last I checked there was only one of them and it was the exact same one for each and every one of us by the very definition of the word.

Perhaps. But Big Brother nickname fits a big government imposing incredibly high taxes (the highest in the world) and handing down various wonderful benefits and thus controlling the masses and their attitude.

No it doesn't.

dictionary] big brother: the head of a totalitarian regime that keeps its citizens under close surveillance.[/quote] High taxation/spending are not indicative of a totalitarian regime. [quote]One of the side effects of this policy is described below: [url=http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/05/09/the-welfare-state-causes-sickness/]Cato-at-liberty » The Welfare State Causes “Sickness”[/url] [i]Sweden suffers from the world’s highest reported disability rate. This does not mean people there are actually sick wrote:

This is not seeing the forest for the trees. If Sweden's economy wasn't doing as well as it is, its welfare system could be a palpable culprit. Seeing as that's not the case, however, I fail to see the relevance.

Lady Dragonfly wrote: Yes, it is a wide topic, intentionally so. Your personal political views would affect your answers, and that is fine. What is good for you may be not so good for somebody else, and that is fine as well. I invite people to share their own, however uncommon or biased, point of view, without anger. If you don't feel comfortable to share yours, that is OK. But I am genuinely interested. We always discuss America. Let's discuss Europe and Asia. And any other continent if you please.

The problem is that it isn't much of a discussion if I have nothing to discuss. I can of course try to satisfy your curiosity, but these kind of topics does IMO often end up with a discussion about everything and nothing.

How do you know?

If someone express love and admiration for a leader without facing any negative consequences should he decide not to, and also does not express the same love and admiration for another leader from the same nation then I believe it's safe to assume that he does this for the same reason you and I would choose to state our respective opinions.

Lady Dragonfly wrote: Perhaps. But Big Brother nickname fits a big government imposing incredibly high taxes (the highest in the world) and handing down various wonderful benefits and thus controlling the masses and their attitude.

In what way do you mean that they control the masses?

One of the side effects of this policy is described below:
Cato-at-liberty » The Welfare State Causes “Sickness”

Sweden suffers from the world’s highest reported disability rate. This does not mean people there are actually sick, to be fair, but it does show that the welfare state creates bad incentives. People with weak values learn that they can feed at the public trough instead of doing something productive with their lives...
(According to Wall Street Journal) ...In Europe, roughly 20% of the working-age population — or 60 million people — depend on various government benefits as their sole or main income, compared with 13% in the U.S. That’s a major economic handicap. …Assar Lindbeck, one of Sweden’s best-known economists, says the lenient welfare state has changed the country over the past generation. In place of the old Protestant work ethic, it has become acceptable to feel unable to work and to live on benefits, he says. “I would not call it cheating,” Prof. Lindbeck says. “I would call it a drift in attitudes and social norms.”

I think this warrants a more elaborate response. It's true that excessive sick leave, and other types of cheating is a problem. This is however not a result of the welfare as such, but a result of the poorly designed procedures for affirming the need for different benefits.

This is caused by an unfortunate polarization of the discussion about preventing cheating. The liberal faction believes that widespread cheating is best cured by reducing the mount of money handed out, for entirely ideological reasons. The leftist faction believes that the cheating problem is overestimated and hardly exists, for entirely ideological reasons. None of these groups have any real arguments or facts to support their views, instead they are deducted from a general idea about how they would like societies and humans to behave. This has put a stop to effective and practical solutions to the cheating problem.

IMO it's a very bad situation primarily because it prevents the money to be effectively distributed to where it is needed the most, not because it is impossible to combine with a decent economic development.

Sorry, I was extremely busy yesterday, up until I collapsed at midnight.

The problem is that it isn't much of a discussion if I have nothing to discuss. I can of course try to satisfy your curiosity, but these kind of topics does IMO often end up with a discussion about everything and nothing.

We had a "Political thread" a week or two ago. Sure, this one is not so all-encompassing.

Perhaps, before asking you, I should clarify something about my own political views.
First of all, I am not affiliated (and never have) with any party, organization, society, brotherhood, club or gang. All my membership is strictly professional. I truly dislike crowds, meetings, and "campaigns" of any sort. I would not attend a political event for any reason. I've never contributed a single dime to any political cause. I mind my own business.
I succumb only to voting. Sometimes.

I used to believe to social propaganda when I was young... umm... younger, yes, younger sounds better. I don't believe any more. I still give to charities: some habits die hard... My soft spot is children.

If I have to label my current views, I would say that I partially share libertarian values concerning political and economical liberties and strong ethics (especially work ethics and personal responsibility). I strongly oppose welfare state as a corruptive means of subsidizing parasitism. That is the strongest and the meanest definition of welfare state I am able to come up with (Vicsun, it is my own, don’t even try to google it. ).

Fable mentioned "unwed mothers of two" and "print shop owners" in his thread about poor politicians. Working hard all my life, I sympathize with print shop owners as well as with all other hard-working people. I don’t sympathize with “unwed mothers of two”. Not because of “unwed” (I could not care less). Because of “two”. Every girl can make a mistake and end up with a child. But “two” suggests rather irresponsible behavior. “Three” and "four" mean a blatant intention to collect "rightful" social benefits from “the government” (meaning from the tax money paid by hard-working print shop owners). Good if the father(s) is at least known and no drugs and alcohol are involved in the delightful breeding process.
Needless to say that in my book, the only reward the careless "fathers" -- unwilling or unable to honestly support the "byproduct" of their unprotected sex -- deserve is sterilization, not encouragement.

In my book, I don’t go on a shopping spree if I don’t have money and I don’t breed like a rabbit if I can’t afford to raise my children, period. In my book, I don’t expect government to solve all my problems while I collect my “rightful” check and relax my 300lb persona in front of TV, with a beer in hand. The welfare mentality permeates our society like cancer. The working middle class is squeezed between the welfare recipients and the corporations, really.

Now, back to Sweden. Following my own principle of non-participation and individualism, I respect political views of the other individuals; as long as they don’t cost me and my country too much (Bush costs me a lot so he is as good as dead). I confess that in spite of my European origin and my interest in the European affairs, I don’t really care what political formula the European countries adopt to solve their problems. Any political formula is fine by me, as long as it is a peaceful formula (and you spend your own money anyway).

However, following my other principle of freedom of opinion (speech if you will), I dare to maintain a heavy doze of skepticism about “welfare state”. When I hear these two words, I think about heavy tax burden and sprawling, all-powerful bureaucracy redistributing wealth as they please. I think about “caring” politicians using populist slogans to manipulate voters with promises of handouts to win the elections. I think about thousands of lazy people on the receiving end, happily abusing the system. I am so biased.

It's true that excessive sick leave, and other types of cheating is a problem. This is however not a result of the welfare as such, but a result of the poorly designed procedures for affirming the need for different benefits.
...
IMO it's a very bad situation primarily because it prevents the money to be effectively distributed to where it is needed the most, not because it is impossible to combine with a decent economic development.

Again, you are talking about the "bad" and "good" Government redistributing the money (and benefits) according to this government's idea of what is good for you and your family, what you deserve and what you don't.
I am not saying it is not a sustainable system. However, I think it is doing somewhat better because of some free market adjustments implemented several years ago.

I don't pretend to be an economist. I have to rely on opinions of other people, preferably people whose values I (if only partially) share. Not that I am totally deaf to all other opinions.

Here is an article by Stefan M.I. Karlsson (yes, it is Ludwig von Mises Institute ), an economist, written a year ago:

The Sweden Myth - Mises Institute

I feel where you're coming from, Lady D, since I did follow the libertarian mantra for a little while. I have since slightly altered my opinion - I still very much like the libertarian stance on privacy issues and foreign policy. I'm also an advocate for market liberalization, which is something libertarians should in principle also agree with, though I don't hear it often. I support things like the elimination of the minimum wage and the neutering of trade unions (it's worth pointing out that both have been done in Denmark so we're not as socialist as we're given credit for ).

The orthodox stance on social issues is what's a concern for me. The arguments against high taxes/high spending seem twofold - the first is that it subsidizes parasitism (in your words) and discourages work. The second one is that it's ethically wrong to redistribute wealth, as the poor/handicapped don't deserve handouts and any any money they receive should be handed out by private charities funded by the rich and not the government, so even a perfect welfare system which no parasites would still be unacceptable.

The first criticism is valid enough: the goal is, after all, to better society as a whole and anyone living off welfare by choice is detrimental to society. Thing is, there are ways to discourage parasitism other than completely dismantling welfare. If you can place your 300lbs persona in front of a TV with a miller lite in hand and wait for the government to write you a paycheck every month, the system is broken and should be fixed. That's no argument for tearing it down completely down, though. The example of a mother of 2, 3, or 4 children you bring up is even easier to address: most European countries have uncomfortably low birth-rates, so a mother giving birth to several children because she knows she can take care of them due to welfare benefits is an example of the welfare system working as intended.

The second criticism - that the poor don't deserve handouts, wealth redistribution is unfair and taxes are theft - is, well, outright dumb. You haven't said anything to that regard, so until you do I'll refrain commenting on it in more detail since I'd feel like I'm putting words in your mouth

Steering the Big Ship in Sweden

Great idea for a thread, too bad no one rose to the bait.
Until now, that is.
As it happens, I live in Sweden, and I shall do my best to sate your apparent curiosity for our aquilonious land.

As concerns our national leaders, there are a few things I think need to be appreciated before your initial question might be answered. First, the question whether we elect our leaders on a personal basis is ill put, since we cannot do so; people may think they do, but they're wrong. By tradition, the leader of the party which can assemble a majority of the votes of parliament (in effect the greatest party of the greater of two "blocks" of parties) proposes a cabinet.

This is the order of things: this leader of one of the major parties hand picks a cabinet, and the party leaders are in their turn appointed by the respective heads of the party districts, and to be head of a party district, you're pretty high up the ladder. So you see, the answer to the question "what does it take to become the prime minister of Sweden" is another question: "What does it take to reach that clique of men and women, initiated into all the secrets of State and how the Big Ship operates, where you can possibly hope to be a candidate for party leadership."

Well, first and foremost, you need to join a youth section of a political party at an age when middle-class kids start thinking about their education. Then, just as importantly, when all the middle-class children spend their time at the University reading books, you devote all your waking hours to take turns with your friends in the Rostra, playing the hypocrite, calibrating the inclination of your head, fine tuning the puppy eyes, finally mustering such a superhuman air of piety as being worthy of a cardinalship; in short, making perfect the art of talking nonsense in such a way as to make people think you talk sense. Forget drunk driving with your Texas friends, forget having any fun at all: an unpaid fine is enough to scandalize you for life (and there have been a few such incidents only recently). It's like joining a monastery; I'd be surprised if they can even smoke.

So, as an aside, I can give you the answer to a question posed in another thread: you don't have to be born with money to be successful in politics in Sweden; on the contrary, if you are born with money, you're practically barred from this sort of politics, and most surely couldn't be bothered anyway, since you would be part of the much more influential club making all the big plans.

But we were discussing charisma, and you see, as all pecking orders go: Who do you think gets pecked the worst? Well, it's the finest specimens who get screened out first; the most charismatic, most intelligent, most creative, most erudite, in short, the most threatening to their superiors get trampled underfoot along the way. The end result is quite often unbelievably horrific. We had a prime minister for twelve years who's guts everybody, including his own party members, hated, but no one could make him leave unless he wanted to. I happen to think this guy was quite fit for his job, but the point is that nobody else did.

A brief summary of our present state of affairs:

Every twenty years or so, the public gets naughty and votes for the "other party," i.e. the non-socialist, supposedly "right-wing," bourgeois coalition of parties. For this to happen, the socialists will have to have pretended they were all dead for several months before the election, while the bourgeois will have shouted for an equal amount of time that they are really socialists, they too, only nicer and plus, they have a solution for all Sweden's problems and then they are going to lower taxes for the very poorest as well, just as a bonus. They get elected, and then, lo and behold, they turn out to be the same old scum they used to be. They proceed to sell all the state's assets at throwaway prices to their friends, give themselves a few tax reductions, and sit back and await the next election, which they are sure they are going to lose. So I guess it's just another instance of the old "good cop bad cop" game: the bourgeois make all the though moves, get paid, and then the socialists can move in again and seem all the more the safe bet for another twenty years.

Nevertheless, we now have a non-socialist prime minister, who recently went to the U.S. and met with Georgie and Arnie. He invited Arnie, who was delighted to meet a fellow European, to Sweden. Just imagine this guy, Sweden's highest official, who looks more as if he has just been released from the Truman Show than anything else: from what I gather from the look on his face, his only concern is that he has no recollection of becoming prime minister at all. So, anyway, he sits with Bush for an hour (no cameras allowed), and afterwards, he claims that he devoted that whole hour to expressing his deeply felt concern for the climate. I just pray, for the safety of our nation, that is not true.

I've attached a picture of him for those of you not entirely familiar with Swedish party politics.