Scandinavian society
Sep 12th, 2003, 11:13 AM
#22
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mother lives in Sweden and has done so for many years now. As much as I hate bursting people's rosy vision of Scandinavia, I can at least say that as far as Sweden goes, something is definitely rotten there and it's not in Denmark! For one thing, Sweden's open policy of admitting virtually anyone to its shores has resulted in such a great tax burden on its populace that many Swedes, many of them elderly, are suffering as the result. Also, making a living through your own enterprise is at least in some instances strictly forbidden. Many years ago, my mother was forced to sell the small condominium she was going to rent out to supplement a very modest pension. Apparently the Swedish government with their nanny state mentality thought her too greedy and would not allow this. Not being able to afford the mortgage on two condominiums she had to sell one and now subsists on a meager pension. Meanwhile I have heard that at least in the past the Swedes have paid (!) immigrants to learn Swedish all the while one can see the country's poorer citizens rummaging through garbage cans. I can mention other sad examples relating to health care and the elderly, too. So much for community values!
My mother has told me more than once that had she been allowed to keep and rent that apartment out, she probably would have been well off by now. But I guess in Sweden generating any kind of wealth is viewed as a criminal act. Don't think I'll ever forgive the Swedish government for this sort of insanity!
Please understand that there are many wonderful things I do like about Sweden, but government policy is not one of them.
My mother has told me more than once that had she been allowed to keep and rent that apartment out, she probably would have been well off by now. But I guess in Sweden generating any kind of wealth is viewed as a criminal act. Don't think I'll ever forgive the Swedish government for this sort of insanity!
Please understand that there are many wonderful things I do like about Sweden, but government policy is not one of them.
Sep 12th, 2003, 11:52 AM
#24
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice post, Elina.
Re: <i>He laughed and said
quot;On the contrary, I find Finns very religious, they just don't use the church to express it."</i>
By the same token, one does not need religion -- and specifically religious dogma -- to express one's spirituality, to have a belief in a higher power, or to be a good, kind, and loving person.
Re: <i>He laughed and said
quot;On the contrary, I find Finns very religious, they just don't use the church to express it."</i>By the same token, one does not need religion -- and specifically religious dogma -- to express one's spirituality, to have a belief in a higher power, or to be a good, kind, and loving person.
Sep 12th, 2003, 11:57 AM
#25
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I don't understand why Americans ALWAYS have to associate religion with values/morals/ethics/etc. They do NOT go hand in hand."
There are more than 230,000,000 of us . . . and you are . . . uh . . . wrong . . . sorry to be direct. Religion is all about values, morals and ethics. Perhaps you are referring to some other religion besides Christianity. Or perhaps when someone says "I think same-sex marriage is moral" and someone else says "I think same-sex marriage is immoral" you think that they are both correct.
There are more than 230,000,000 of us . . . and you are . . . uh . . . wrong . . . sorry to be direct. Religion is all about values, morals and ethics. Perhaps you are referring to some other religion besides Christianity. Or perhaps when someone says "I think same-sex marriage is moral" and someone else says "I think same-sex marriage is immoral" you think that they are both correct.
Sep 12th, 2003, 12:00 PM
#26
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and capo . . .
"By the same token, one does not need religion -- and specifically religious dogma -- to express one's spirituality, to have a belief in a higher power, or to be a good, kind, and loving person."
If you'd said "by the same token, one does not need hypocrisy . . . " I would agree. But I fear you've fallen into the trap whereby to you religion DENOTES hyprocisy.
"By the same token, one does not need religion -- and specifically religious dogma -- to express one's spirituality, to have a belief in a higher power, or to be a good, kind, and loving person."
If you'd said "by the same token, one does not need hypocrisy . . . " I would agree. But I fear you've fallen into the trap whereby to you religion DENOTES hyprocisy.
Sep 12th, 2003, 12:11 PM
#27
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Au contraire, my dear beagle, religion does not at all necessarily denote hypocrisy. It's just that one does not <i>need</i> religion -- any religion -- to be spiritual, to have a belief in a higher power, or to be a good, kind, and loving person.
Sep 12th, 2003, 12:18 PM
#28
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
au contraire right back at you my little device that fits on the neck of a guitar to change the base fret . . .
"to be spiritual, to have a belief in a higher power, or to be a good, kind, and loving person."
That in and of itself is a form of religion . . . a sort of "malum in se" versus "malum prohibitum" kind of religion. You and I may not agree about what "malum in se" refers to.
"to be spiritual, to have a belief in a higher power, or to be a good, kind, and loving person."
That in and of itself is a form of religion . . . a sort of "malum in se" versus "malum prohibitum" kind of religion. You and I may not agree about what "malum in se" refers to.
Sep 12th, 2003, 12:32 PM
#30
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah bon, mon ami! Either a guitar player or someone who knows a bit about them.
<i>"Malum in se</i>": an innately immoral act, regardless of whether it is forbidden by law. Examples include adultery, theft, and murder.
Let's think about this, shall we? Why are theft and murder <i>innately</i> immoral acts? Because they involve doing something hurtful to someone else <i>without their consent</i>. (If one does something <i>non-hurtful</i> to someone without their consent -- like giving them a nice gift -- I doubt many people would see that as immoral, innately or otherwise.)
As for adultery, if that is defined as having sex outside of marriage <i>without the consent of one's partner</i>, then I -- and, I suspect, most others -- would consider that innately immoral. However, what about having sex outside of marriage <i>with</i> the consent of one's partner? (people do that, you know) Why would that be innately immoral?
Now take something that gets most conservative religious people all hot under the collar: same-sex relations. If there's <i>no consent</i>, it's rape, it's innately immoral and it's wrong, exactly the same as it would be with opposite-sex sexual relations. However, if there <i>is</i> consent, it's no more innately immoral than opposite-sex sexual relations.
Consent is a key principle when it comes to morals and laws; it's very important to bear that in mind.
<i>"Malum in se</i>": an innately immoral act, regardless of whether it is forbidden by law. Examples include adultery, theft, and murder.
Let's think about this, shall we? Why are theft and murder <i>innately</i> immoral acts? Because they involve doing something hurtful to someone else <i>without their consent</i>. (If one does something <i>non-hurtful</i> to someone without their consent -- like giving them a nice gift -- I doubt many people would see that as immoral, innately or otherwise.)
As for adultery, if that is defined as having sex outside of marriage <i>without the consent of one's partner</i>, then I -- and, I suspect, most others -- would consider that innately immoral. However, what about having sex outside of marriage <i>with</i> the consent of one's partner? (people do that, you know) Why would that be innately immoral?
Now take something that gets most conservative religious people all hot under the collar: same-sex relations. If there's <i>no consent</i>, it's rape, it's innately immoral and it's wrong, exactly the same as it would be with opposite-sex sexual relations. However, if there <i>is</i> consent, it's no more innately immoral than opposite-sex sexual relations.
Consent is a key principle when it comes to morals and laws; it's very important to bear that in mind.
Sep 12th, 2003, 12:34 PM
#31
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hyvaa Paivaa Elina,
No, my mother would hardly make something like that up. It was somehow illegal for her to own two condominiums and profit from one while living in the same city. So, had she decided to move somewhere else, she might have been able to keep it and rent it out. However, this was not a viable option for her at that time.
I should also mention that the reason she was able to buy these properties was that real estate values in Malmo were then very low, at least by today's standards. Considering how much property values have risen in Sweden since then, it really angers me to think how well she might have done.
By the way, my mother is Finnish and is now considering moving back to her homeland. From what I have heard I don't blame her one bit.
No, my mother would hardly make something like that up. It was somehow illegal for her to own two condominiums and profit from one while living in the same city. So, had she decided to move somewhere else, she might have been able to keep it and rent it out. However, this was not a viable option for her at that time.
I should also mention that the reason she was able to buy these properties was that real estate values in Malmo were then very low, at least by today's standards. Considering how much property values have risen in Sweden since then, it really angers me to think how well she might have done.
By the way, my mother is Finnish and is now considering moving back to her homeland. From what I have heard I don't blame her one bit.
Sep 12th, 2003, 12:56 PM
#32
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi everyone,
Very interesting discussion! I really enjoyed some of the enlightening posts. Anyway, this has been a subject at many a dinner table at our home. My husband is born and raised in Norway, and married me, so poor guy was "forced" to live in the U.S. Anyway, we have discussed this topic with in-laws in Norway and we each have a certain impression of the other society. Our kids are now teens and on several occasions we have gone to visit to Norway. My husband and I have noticed a great shift of U.S. values since the mid 1980's.
Very interesting discussion! I really enjoyed some of the enlightening posts. Anyway, this has been a subject at many a dinner table at our home. My husband is born and raised in Norway, and married me, so poor guy was "forced" to live in the U.S. Anyway, we have discussed this topic with in-laws in Norway and we each have a certain impression of the other society. Our kids are now teens and on several occasions we have gone to visit to Norway. My husband and I have noticed a great shift of U.S. values since the mid 1980's.
Sep 12th, 2003, 01:12 PM
#33
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry, didn't get to finish...my mouse went on its own and hit the post my replay option.
Anyway, as more and more time passes we see that the beloved American way of life is quickly detriorating to greed and pseudo-moral values.
Scandanavian society relies on its citizens being educated and informed. They have more political parties than we do, they exercise their freedom to vote more than we do....the number of people voting in our society is dismal. Scandanavians don't get their news from 30 sec. soundbites on the evening news. They read 2 or 3 newspapers a day with differing points of view. They can probably discuss American politics better than the average American. We have fallen into the belief that our society is the best and everyone should learn from us. Forget about comparing religious attitudes and such. We need to compare the access to good education and the desire to be an informed society.
Anyway, as more and more time passes we see that the beloved American way of life is quickly detriorating to greed and pseudo-moral values.
Scandanavian society relies on its citizens being educated and informed. They have more political parties than we do, they exercise their freedom to vote more than we do....the number of people voting in our society is dismal. Scandanavians don't get their news from 30 sec. soundbites on the evening news. They read 2 or 3 newspapers a day with differing points of view. They can probably discuss American politics better than the average American. We have fallen into the belief that our society is the best and everyone should learn from us. Forget about comparing religious attitudes and such. We need to compare the access to good education and the desire to be an informed society.
Sep 12th, 2003, 01:15 PM
#34
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A recent article in The Economist adds an interesting twist to comparisons of Scandanavian societies with that of the US.
In an article on income inequality (pg. 28, Sept 6 2003 edition), a bar graph is used to display high-wage and low-wage income discrepancies for the US, Canada and various European countries. It is simply a plot of what the bottom 10% earn (on average) in each country versus what the top 10% earn. To no one's surprise, the US has the greatest spread in income range (i.e., high-wage earners make considerably more than low-wage earners).
What is very interesting, however, is that the low-wage earners in the US make only marginally less than their Scandanavian counterparts. In other words, the poorest Americans (at least those that are employed) earn a similar wage to the poorest Scandanavians. In contrast, the high-wage earners in the US make considerably more than their Scandanavian counterparts.
What I found most surprising was that the median US income was essentially at the 90th percentile for Finland and Sweden. In other words, half of Americans make or exceed a salary that only 10% of Swedes and Finns earn.
The mix is complicated by factors such as free healthcare in Scandanavia and a substantially reduced tax burden in the US. Yet this analysis poses an interesting social dilemma. What is more important -- a society in which everyone is more equal or a less equal society in which everyone is comparatively better off?
Quality of life comparisons are rarely simple.
In an article on income inequality (pg. 28, Sept 6 2003 edition), a bar graph is used to display high-wage and low-wage income discrepancies for the US, Canada and various European countries. It is simply a plot of what the bottom 10% earn (on average) in each country versus what the top 10% earn. To no one's surprise, the US has the greatest spread in income range (i.e., high-wage earners make considerably more than low-wage earners).
What is very interesting, however, is that the low-wage earners in the US make only marginally less than their Scandanavian counterparts. In other words, the poorest Americans (at least those that are employed) earn a similar wage to the poorest Scandanavians. In contrast, the high-wage earners in the US make considerably more than their Scandanavian counterparts.
What I found most surprising was that the median US income was essentially at the 90th percentile for Finland and Sweden. In other words, half of Americans make or exceed a salary that only 10% of Swedes and Finns earn.
The mix is complicated by factors such as free healthcare in Scandanavia and a substantially reduced tax burden in the US. Yet this analysis poses an interesting social dilemma. What is more important -- a society in which everyone is more equal or a less equal society in which everyone is comparatively better off?
Quality of life comparisons are rarely simple.
Sep 12th, 2003, 01:21 PM
#35
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
capo,
I think your "with or without consent" argument is a little tenuous because you can't apply that to sex with a child, for example. And there's all sorts of problems with the state when you bring up assisted suicide where both have consented. My point about "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum" have to do more with malum prohibitum - wrong because we say it's wrong - like running a stop sign. There's clearly nothing immoral about running a stop sign in the desert when you can see for miles in any direction that there are no other cars coming. However, there are some who would argue that simply breaking a law, any established law, is immoral.
Whether or not people agree on the content, it's very easy to understand malum prohibitum -- maybe you think the speed limit should be 65km\h and I think it should be 80km\h. We'd both agree that someone caught going 240km/h has a fast car . . . uh . . . is guilty of malum prohibitum. The concept of "malum in se" is where religions begin to establish their own boundaries and typically, religions don't have malum prohibitum - type rules.
I think your "with or without consent" argument is a little tenuous because you can't apply that to sex with a child, for example. And there's all sorts of problems with the state when you bring up assisted suicide where both have consented. My point about "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum" have to do more with malum prohibitum - wrong because we say it's wrong - like running a stop sign. There's clearly nothing immoral about running a stop sign in the desert when you can see for miles in any direction that there are no other cars coming. However, there are some who would argue that simply breaking a law, any established law, is immoral.
Whether or not people agree on the content, it's very easy to understand malum prohibitum -- maybe you think the speed limit should be 65km\h and I think it should be 80km\h. We'd both agree that someone caught going 240km/h has a fast car . . . uh . . . is guilty of malum prohibitum. The concept of "malum in se" is where religions begin to establish their own boundaries and typically, religions don't have malum prohibitum - type rules.
Sep 12th, 2003, 01:39 PM
#36
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Scandanavians don't get their news from 30 sec. soundbites on the evening news. They read 2 or 3 newspapers a day with differing points of view. They can probably discuss American politics better than the average American."
I can't let "Bash America First" comments stand without argument. 105 million Americans voted in the 2000 General election. That's more than 5 times the COMBINED TOTAL population of Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Aside from Finland, how much voting really gets done by the population in a Constitutional Monarchy?
What the heck is an average American? And why do you think that the average one knows anything less about his own government than someone from, say, Norway? Perhaps you are talking about the millions of Americans that didn't vote and you may be right about their grasp of politics, but I'd be willing to wager that when it all comes down to good old fashioned double ledger accounting there's NO difference between the Average Dane, The Average Swede, The Average Finn, the Average Norwegian, and the Average American . . . whatever the heck those things could possibly be.
I can't let "Bash America First" comments stand without argument. 105 million Americans voted in the 2000 General election. That's more than 5 times the COMBINED TOTAL population of Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Aside from Finland, how much voting really gets done by the population in a Constitutional Monarchy?
What the heck is an average American? And why do you think that the average one knows anything less about his own government than someone from, say, Norway? Perhaps you are talking about the millions of Americans that didn't vote and you may be right about their grasp of politics, but I'd be willing to wager that when it all comes down to good old fashioned double ledger accounting there's NO difference between the Average Dane, The Average Swede, The Average Finn, the Average Norwegian, and the Average American . . . whatever the heck those things could possibly be.
Sep 12th, 2003, 01:49 PM
#37
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, interesting discussion.
Bill, the observations noted in your original post are IMO, due in part to differences in racial diversity between the societies. Even in the absence of religion, I suspect small-town middle-America would function much as you observed in Scandinavia.
And as to the connection between religiosity and care/concern for community, I believe most Christian religions since the church of Acts 2 have tragically missed the mark.
Bill, the observations noted in your original post are IMO, due in part to differences in racial diversity between the societies. Even in the absence of religion, I suspect small-town middle-America would function much as you observed in Scandinavia.
And as to the connection between religiosity and care/concern for community, I believe most Christian religions since the church of Acts 2 have tragically missed the mark.
Sep 12th, 2003, 01:55 PM
#38
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smueller,
You are right, comparisons are difficult when "statistics" are not equally created. The income of U.S. poorest workers may not be a correct number. There is a huge underclass of laborers that don't report W-2. i.e. our cheap gardners, nannies, busboys, washers, and other that have under the table income (below minumum wage). The Scandanavians don't have a significant number of under-class workers as far as I can see. We may think we make more money in this country, but have you totaled how much of your income goes to healthcare (premuims, out-of=pocket, etc.), out of control auto insurance, life insurance, disabilty insurance (which most American's don't have), tuition for school (for yourself or dependents). Most Scandanavians don't need to have a second or third car because of a good public transport system paid by their taxes. So in effect we pay our "taxes" to private enterprise to do as they wish...let's look how we lost out on Enron, World Comm, enery companies, health products, etc...On the other hand I would hate to pay more in taxes when we have a government that spends frivolously on arms, corporate bail-out and ignores collecting taxes on money earned by offshore U.S.companies.
You are right, comparisons are difficult when "statistics" are not equally created. The income of U.S. poorest workers may not be a correct number. There is a huge underclass of laborers that don't report W-2. i.e. our cheap gardners, nannies, busboys, washers, and other that have under the table income (below minumum wage). The Scandanavians don't have a significant number of under-class workers as far as I can see. We may think we make more money in this country, but have you totaled how much of your income goes to healthcare (premuims, out-of=pocket, etc.), out of control auto insurance, life insurance, disabilty insurance (which most American's don't have), tuition for school (for yourself or dependents). Most Scandanavians don't need to have a second or third car because of a good public transport system paid by their taxes. So in effect we pay our "taxes" to private enterprise to do as they wish...let's look how we lost out on Enron, World Comm, enery companies, health products, etc...On the other hand I would hate to pay more in taxes when we have a government that spends frivolously on arms, corporate bail-out and ignores collecting taxes on money earned by offshore U.S.companies.
Sep 12th, 2003, 01:57 PM
#39
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: <i>I think your "with or without consent" argument is a little tenuous because you can't apply that to sex with a child, for example.</i>
Oh, please. We're talking about consent between adults.
Re: <i>However, there are some who would argue that simply breaking a law, any established law, is immoral.</i>
Laws are, of course, not necessarily moral. At one time it was legal to own slaves in the southern U.S. states. Did that make it moral? Of course not. Was it moral when women, or blacks, were forbidden by law from voting? Of course not.
On the other hand, things that are legal are not necessarily moral. It's perfectly legal for tobacco companies to market and sell their addictive, destructive products. Does that mean that their actions are moral? Certainly not in my opinion.
Is it moral for Canadian bishops to do what they did just yesterday, to encourage Catholics in Canada to lobby against the Canadian government's drafting of a new law defining marriage as being between "two people" by claiming -- in a phrase that gets the George Orwell doublespeak award for September -- that they are doing this "in a spirit of love and deep respect for all people"? Not in my opinion. In my opinion, what they are doing is deeply immoral, under the pretense of morality.
Oh, please. We're talking about consent between adults.
Re: <i>However, there are some who would argue that simply breaking a law, any established law, is immoral.</i>
Laws are, of course, not necessarily moral. At one time it was legal to own slaves in the southern U.S. states. Did that make it moral? Of course not. Was it moral when women, or blacks, were forbidden by law from voting? Of course not.
On the other hand, things that are legal are not necessarily moral. It's perfectly legal for tobacco companies to market and sell their addictive, destructive products. Does that mean that their actions are moral? Certainly not in my opinion.
Is it moral for Canadian bishops to do what they did just yesterday, to encourage Catholics in Canada to lobby against the Canadian government's drafting of a new law defining marriage as being between "two people" by claiming -- in a phrase that gets the George Orwell doublespeak award for September -- that they are doing this "in a spirit of love and deep respect for all people"? Not in my opinion. In my opinion, what they are doing is deeply immoral, under the pretense of morality.
Sep 12th, 2003, 02:05 PM
#40
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Oh, please. We're talking about consent between adults."
capo: I think you missed my point: So . . . if two adults agree that sex with a child is not immoral . . . ?
Kikster: I couldn't pass up this remark: "Most Scandanavians don't need to have a second or third car because of a good public transport system paid by their taxes"
How about . . . most Scandinavians dont even have a car because of the (in Denmark) 100% tax on non-commercial vehicles and the fact that gas is 4 times more per gallon than in the US.
A friend of mine making his first trip to Denmark said "Look how many people ride a bike in Denmark and you don't see very many overweight people either." The Danish Policeman standing right next to him said "Who in Denmark can afford a car or afford to buy gas? And the reason you don't see fat people is because they are at home eating."
