"Healthy people cost less.
Educated people contribute more.
Housed people are more stable.
...in a healthy society there are no "undeserving".
There are just people."
"Healthy people cost less.
Educated people contribute more.
Housed people are more stable.
...in a healthy society there are no "undeserving".
There are just people."
@argals common sense feels like cool, clean water hydrating my face.
good faith social democracy is the only valid type of government. all other "government" types are inherently corrupt.
the crazy thing is... just do what these folks do.
@argals reminds me of:
“A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transport. It is where the rich walk and where they use bikes. We should create cities where rich and poor meet as equals: in parks, on the sidewalks, on public transport.”
― Meik Wiking, The Little Book of Lykke: Secrets of the World’s Happiest People
@kirch @argals The "MAGA" party of Norway (Framskrittspartiet) sees cyclists as "elitists" and seems to have stopping the building of bike lanes in favour of car routes as one of their founding principles.
(Swedish immigrant in Norway here, living in Oslo since 26 years and have not yet seen the need to own a car).
Was it Norway where some guy with a lot of money get a $200,000 (or similar) speeding ticket?
@Wintergr33n @argals
Probably Switzerland.
They may not be the only country to do it, but they are infamous for it.
As I understand, speeding fines are a percentage of the price of the car. Speeding in a Ferrari? That's going to be expensive. Speeding in a 2CV? Good luck with that.
@leeloo @Wintergr33n @argals In Finland speeding tickets (once the speeding is severe) are calculated based on income levels based on last taxed income (and additionally based on severity).
Other countries using similar arrangements are Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Mexico and Macao (according to wikipedia): https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A4iv%C3%A4sakko
Even the most selfish people benefit from everybody receiving what they need. Less poverty makes places nicer to live in for everybody, including those with wealth. The motivation seems to go even deeper than selfishness, people are willing to make their own lives worse, just so someone else doesn't get something they didn't "earn".
@argals Here in the UK we feel disgusted at the idea of the lower classes receiving anything they haven't earned by toil and suffering. Poverty is seen as a moral failing, proof of laziness, criminality and stupidity. The US inherited that from us.
The only thing that angers us more than benefits going to poor people is when benefits go to poor, non-white people.
@argals I've gotten to a point where I've started calling this "Norwegian Envyposting."
Where a person, usually white, basically posts "Look at how nice white People in Norway can be when there isn't a critical mass of Not White People upsetting them?"
And the problem is... They bury the lede on whether the problem is "White people in former colonies still don't want to give up the benefits that racism got their ancestors" or the problem is "This colony let too many not white people thrive"
@argals @argals because let me tell you: Democrats, Republicans, Fascists, Antifascists... They ALL want what Norwegians have.
But they have VERY different ideas of how to get there and who in the current society deserves it most.
And what is so scary is that now people are saying "The quiet part out loud" on the who and the how has been very upsetting for everyone involved.
But a good start is for well-meaning liberal types to stop posting a country of homogenous white people as the ideal.
'Where a person, usually white, basically posts "Look at how nice white People in Norway can be when there isn't a critical mass of Not White People upsetting them?"'
That's a really strange way to interpret the OOP...
"because let me tell you: Democrats, Republicans, Fascists, Antifascists... They ALL want what Norwegians have."
Not really though. Conservatives, and fascists especially, want there to be an underclass. Their ideology requires it. For society to be hierarchical, they need some people to be considered "more deserving" than others. Progressives want to dismantle those hierarchies, as the OOP said, there is no "deserving".
@argals - "We WANT our taxes to go to the 'undeserving.'"
Except my taxes go to (1) the federal government, (2) the state government, (3) the county, (4) the school district, (5) the city.
Maybe you can do this in a small, very rich, homogenous, unitary state like Norway, but it's not so easy in a very large, debt-ridden, ethnically diverse, multi-layered federal system like the U.S. where the "undeserving" is always some other level-of-government's problem.
"To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities."
— socialism in a nutshell