Quote from RCG Trader:
Mav88---Sweden like.
Last I checked, Sweden was one of the most homogeneous countries on this planet.
Please explain their rampant liberalism...thanks.
The size of our government is Sweden-like, I did not say that the population is.
The steaming pile of shit known as diversity is a consequence of liberalism in a country with a split racial makeup, it is not a pre-condition for liberalism. Europeans have rejected multiculturalism as a workable doctrine, probably because it threatrens their welfare state. We will not because of a much larger racial minority and the inability of blacks to compete on a level field. Sweden is however busy creating diversity hell with its muslims.
back to the original question, why did Sweden destroy themselves with modern liberalism? They were right next door to the massive failure of marxism, so why did they feel it necessary to harmfully adjust a highly successful free enterprise economy?
The leaders of the left, the ones I am talking about specifically here, created the so called third way social democracy. The producers still owned the production but this time the government just took the profits instead of the entire enterprise. The word around Sweden from 1970 to 1980 was egalatarianism and flat incomes. People on disability made as much as engineers, and profits were a dirty word. It was the old dream of Marxian government paradise that would lead all to the promised land. Then came the collapse and it was either fall into the abyss or make conservative reforms. These days Sweden is moving to the right as we move to the left. We will most likely keep going off the cliff, only a small homogeneous exporting nation can make the kind of U turn Sweden did. Here such things would be racist.
Empathy, sympathy, envy, greed, hate, and the need to feel that the world is conforming to your expectations - or a sense of fairness and order. The original idea of egalitarian outcomes derives from a mixture of the above depending on exactly what kind of redistributionist you are. Union types are different than university types etc. and again right here I am just talking about the elites since they set the national agenda (although unions get a close second). The better angels would be empathy and sympathy, but they are not the primary movers. Real empathy and sympathy means a person would normally give all they have first before demanding others chip in, there is no evidence that elite liberals impoverish themselves first for charitable causes. No, they typically demand that others must âdo somethingâ and get some vicarious sense of satisfaction, then Obama says âwe did thatâ. When the delusion proves unreachable then it turns to hatred towards those they see as in their way. When wealthy people for instance say that they are already paying their fair share, then the hissing-Hillary-fangs and all the mean spirited clichés come out. I reject egalitarian outcomes on moral grounds, and that really chaps their ass since it is a direct offense to their religion. Union types, and welfare recipients are a bit different. A greedy sense of entitlement and class envy drive the bus there.
If thatâs why it starts, then why does it fail? Since the agenda is emotional and not a scheme for material prosperity, you should not expect anything else. There is no economic multiplier when paying for someone else to lie in a nursing home bed, or paying someone else's rent, especially given the staggering government overhead rates. I get absolutely nothing out of knowing I help pay someone's nursing home care, in fact I think they are hell holes and I would rather die. You canât build an economy around equal outcomes because unequal inputs and unequal wants are unavoidable, and
outcomes themselves are subjective. Most of us are probably like me, I would rather have the money now to enjoy my life with, yet the liberals make us buy nursing homes....
