h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The socialist inside me is applauding wildly.

Leo, the thing is that programs funded with public money, although flawed, still deliver. I believe you would write a check for social programs, but most people wouldn't. Depending on private funds is too risky, too hit or miss. If the government told people that they could pay taxes to support the public good...or not...totally up to them, people would leave the tax rolls in droves. Taxes are actually a good thing.

It sounds to my like the Danish system is pretty near to perfect. Of course, not actually living there may give me a false idea, but doesn't Denmark have a very high quality of life?

I do that all the time. Forget to send when I've written a long post.

Lets see, if I can remember.

Elentari, yes the Danish, or rather Scandinavian, system is very good. Sweden, Norway and - I believe - Finland have similar systems. And yes, objectively we have a very good social system. (Social in the meaning of caring for each other and giving each other the fundament from which to obtain or pursue the same opportunities).

And yes, a lot of people moan about taxes, but in a recent survey, a majority have declared that they'd rather pay more taxes than let the schools deteriorate. And yes we are some people who think it can be done even better.

The problem with charity, in my opinion, is that when the source of charity dries out, the opportunities vanishes.

Tax paid help means a right and permanence. You can be sure that if you qualify/need compensation the opportunity, institution, help, right is there also in ten years' time when you - or other - need that help.

Lets take the work with prostitutes and traded women. (Yesterday I interviewed a woman/teacher/social worker). The work with female and male prostitutes are not part of the counties' (taxpaid) budgets. The money for this work is given by the state from funds for 'fragile citizens' (read: outcasts - homeless, psychiatric abusers etc). The funds are negotiated every year in parliament (the law of finance).

The projects helping the prostitutes can apply for money every year.

The woman I interviewed is out of money the 1st of July. She has done some great work among the most fragile (foreign) prostitutes. Has built up trust, knowledge, given out advice about rights and healthcare, communicated her knowledge and facts, developed educational material for teenagers (sexforsale - http://www.sextilsalg.info/). If the funds dry out, the experience, the knowledge, the contacts, the trust, the cooperation with similar project all over the country disappears. It is not economical. Criminality will flourish - and at least you US people know how expensive it is to punish rather to prevent. You must pay an enormous amount of taxes for your many, many prisons to keep, I believe, people with social and disabillity problems (ADD) under lock. And it is much more expensive than taking preventive actions and giving people opportunities to become contributing citizens. A third of your prisoners are ADD, I've read.

This aside it is also expensive to start over.

http://www.sextilsalg.info/ - without the )

I agree with Tartaronne, I do not think of charity as some kind of solidarity. For me charity is like the "crumbs from the rich mans table" something that you have to beg for and feel humble and greatful for. In the Danish (and swedish) system it something you are entitled to if/when you need it.

I think what we are talking about is something that hasn´t got anything to do eith pity. But equality and the simple fact of us being humans is a reason for solidarity. To see yourself in others


Izz.

i just read a new survey/statistic today showing that denmark is the third most peaceful country on . our fellow scandinavians norway tops the list, followed by new zealand. good for them

What does "peaceful" mean?

For all those people who think that every time I throw out a controversial idea I'm soapboxing, I'm not. So don't grit your teeth please. I just feel compelled to throw wrenches into backpatting arguments. I'd do the same if you were extolling the virtues of capitalism.


Charity isn't like that if you don't make it like that. I just finished "Things Fall Apart" by Achebe, and one thing that struck me most was the way that, despite having zero central government, everyone pitched in and helped other people because they were expected to. If someone's goats got loose they went out and rounded them up. They didn't pay the government to organize a goat catching brigade for them.

Similarly, giving is a personal thing - has to do with character. Figuring the govt will take care of things removes the personal responsibility from it. It's not "I'll take care of my neighbor," it's "The govt will take care of my neighbor. And my grandmother. And my brother. They had better - what am I paying taxes for?"

I have an interesting book on my shelf that I haven't read yet - it analyzes the charity giving in the USA by state, politics, climate, religion, etc. I picked it up after reading the chapter that demonstrated that though the people in South Dakota earn around $20,000 less than the folks in California, they give about twice as much charity. 'Nuff said.

Wouldn't it be worth it to cultivate caring directly, without the government forcing it on people? Because socialism does have economic ramfications which I probably don't have to list (economic sustainability with falling birthrate, lack of medical competition, blah de blah). There's one that most stands out, though, because it's so incongruous to the thread. For every Tartaronne who is feeling guilty for taking public dole when she doesn't need it, there are 12 who are gleefully collecting it as income replacement. You get what you pay for. If you pay people to not work, they won't.





...Then again, now that I think about it, that might be something we could use more of in workaholic USA.

Of course, Leo, you have a point. There is a fine balance between supplying a foundation for people who really need help and taking away people's responsibillity. Between doing your bit and complacently let other people support you.

Still I mean society indiscriminately should provide free education, healthcare and a foundation for life for the disabled in many ways.

I've met very few people, though, who actually enjoy being unemployed, not doing their bit (almost everybody wants to be needed or useful) and who don't dream of being independant of public help. Many of the young people with mental handicaps, brought up to appreciate their own value as humans, would rather work than be supported.

It is also my experience that 'poor' people give more to charity, or to help their neigbour (in percentage of their very small income) than rich people.

I'm not sure what the definition 'peaceful' is in the survey Pierce mentioned. I haven't seen it myself.

'peaceful' in this study was defined by quite a lot of things. acts of violence, amount of organized crime, money spent on military to name a few

some 120 countries were compared. sudan, irak and israel were the most dangerous countries to live in, no surprise there

the us came in at #96

- - -

by the way, what we have in denmark can hardly be called socialism (even if it may seem like that to a us-citizen). i could name quite a few politicians who would resent being called socialists very much. starting with the danish government and its supporting parties

now were is that soapbox

You painted it , remember?

ah, yes. that's prolly why i have a hard time finding it now in these colourfull surroundings

So who, outside of some Caribbean islands, actually likes being called Socialist? Something about the name... But isn't socialism government sponsorship of important services? Or is socialized health care a misnomer?

I'll believe you're all peaceful up there. Isn't it too cold to get hot about things? It's no coincidence that the more dangerous locations are the ones closer to the equator. Seriously - there was some study about it. Cold places are supposed to have higher rates of suicide.

yup, we have had that world record for years

and the vikings were a cuddly and peacefull lot, actually. they just had a terrible bad marketing department

and quite a lot of danes would be terribly cross if one did *not* call them socialists. for decades (the 70's in particular) we had an ongoing competition about who of all the splinter parties were the most socialistic

call me a socialist, call me a taxi, call me what you want - i aint coming anyway

The study was of murder vs and academic vs something else. I had some trouble with it because it claimed there were no great academic discoveries made in warm places, which totally isn't true. But as a college student who spends all day writing essays that professors will hopefully like, I am used to presenting half-truths and dissembling information for the sake of making a point.

I'd call you the least fierce pirate I know - must be the chill in your bones.

i'm sure captain haddock would call me a 'skimmed-milk-pirate' (untranslatable joke )

it would seem that most academic discoveries actually were made in the northern hemisphere, somewhat north of equator...

...because that's were most people live on this

with the exception of southern africa, india and aussie-land there's only water down there

it is an astoshing fact that some of the most intelligent and peaceloving politicians came out of south africa: nelson mandela, desmond tutu and mahatmi gandhi

I'll give you Ghandi, but Mandela's gang used terrorist tactics to acheive the peace.

well, yes, that is more or less true - like most of the people who were later awarded with the nobel peace prize

however, there is a difference between terrorists and partisans: terrorists are your enimies, partisans are your friends

(nah, not really, there's more to it than that, of course - but i don't have the time for details now)

"For every Tartaronne who is feeling guilty for taking public dole when she doesn't need it, there are 12 who are gleefully collecting it as income replacement"

Do you have anything to back up this statement? Most of the people I have known on the dole are desperate to get a job and bring in some proper money. Personally, I don't see why 'socialism' should be such a dirty word. In the UK we have a socialised medical system. Compare and contrast that with the US system, which is (a) hideously more expensive (b) ramshackle and (c) the No. 1 cause of personal bankruptcy. Because the UK system centrally planned, it's cheaper as economies of scale kick in along with the bargaining power of the NHS. It's not perfect, but it's a bloody sight better than the alternative.

Socialism is a dirty word because of historical reasons.

Collecting unemployment is a game for many people. If you've ever done hiring for a small company or store, you'd receive around one or two pretty much blank CVs with inappropriately filled out applications from people who don't want to get the job because that would mean *gasp* working. But they need to apply to receive unemployment. You probably know respectable, upstanding citizens.

The U.S. system is definitely a mess, but most people receive insurance as part of their employment benefits. Lots of people in my age range who are healthy and single prefer to go without, because who cares?

Definite problems with socialized health care is that since medicine isn't very lucrative, the bright and ambitious aren't attracted to it. (That's why Americans who flunk out of med school here go abroad.) They also don't give a darn about the business aspect of their job, which leads to some interesting results, from long lines to weird referrals.

I've done hiring for a big company. So, I suppose, no I haven't been exposed to this aspect of the dole queue.

As for "Definite problems with socialized health care is that since medicine isn't very lucrative, the bright and ambitious aren't attracted to it..." Well, all I can say is that if you want to be a doctor in the UK you have to be pretty bright, mainly because people here tend to treat it as a vocation rather than a license to print money. Let's consider an example: my old alma mater, which has just opened a medical school, has no track record to speak of and is therefore competing aggressively for students. These are the entry requirements:-

"UK qualifications

•A-levels: AAB - one of which MUST be Biology – plus minimum grade B in fourth AS level subject, or

•Class II:i (2.1) undergraduate degree AND evidence of sound knowledge of biological science at A2 level or above, or

•Distinction in an approved Access to Medicine course, or

•Nursing diploma, or

•International Baccalaureate, 34 points to include minimum of 7 points in Higher level Biology and scores of 6 in two other higher level subjects, or

•Irish Leaving Certificate: AAAABB grades in higher subjects - one of which MUST be Biology, or

•Scottish Highers: AAAABB, one of which MUST be Biology - or Advanced Highers: AAB, one of which MUST be Biology, plus minimum grade B in a fourth Standard Highers subject. "

As for giving a darn about the business aspects, in the UK that's the job of the NHS managers. Doctors and nurses are left to get on with what they're good at doing.