I struggle to understand why a contract that is voluntarily agreed upon by two mentally capable individuals would be deemed invalid, except for perhaps contracts that result in direct physical harm (or are made under threat thereof). Is this to protect individuals from their own bad decisions? — Tzeentch
It’s basically a matter of one’s power to contract (or not) being inalienable. Nobody has the power to agree to agree (or not) to any change of rights or ownership, such as by agreeing not to enter into other contracts (as in non-compete agreements), or agreeing to accept whatever terms the other party later dictates (as in selling oneself into slavery, or as in the "social contract" sometimes held to justify a state's right to rule), or agreeing to grant someone a temporary liberty upon certain conditions ("selling" someone the temporary use of your property, as in contracts of rent or interest; letting someone do something is not itself doing something).
In short, the power to contract must be limited to the simple trade of goods and services, and cannot create second-order obligations between people that place one person in a position of ongoing power over another person. — Pfhorrest
(In Hohfeldian terms, a liberty is something that you are not prohibited from doing. It is the negation of the obligation of a negation, and so it is equivalent to a permission. A claim, conversely, is a limit on others' liberty: it is something that it is forbidden to deny you, which is just to say that it is obligatory. A power is the second-order liberty to change who has what rights. And an immunity, conversely, is a limit on others' power, just as a claim is a limit on others' liberty.)
At first glance, one would think a maximally libertarian society would be one in which there were no claims at all (because every claim is a limit on someone else's liberty), and no powers at all (because powers at that point could only serve to increase claims, and so to limit liberties). But that would leave nobody with any claims against others using violence to establish authority in practice even if not in the abstract rules of justice, and no claims to hold anybody to their promises either making reliable cooperation nigh impossible. So it is necessary that liberties be limited at least by claims against such violence, and that people not be immune from the power to establish mutually agreed-upon obligations between each other in contracts.
But those claims and powers could themselves be abused, with those who violate the claim against such violence using that claim to protect themselves from those who would stop them, and those who would like for contracts not to require mutual agreement to leverage practical power over others to establish broader deontic power over them. So too those claims to property and powers to contract, which limit the unrestricted liberty and immunity that one would at first think would prevail in a maximally libertarian society, must themselves be limited. — Pfhorrest
started with Finnland, and the article came from BBC, then went over to Sweden, and the search term brought me this wonderfully infomative response:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden
It's really good, informative, I believe what it says. — god must be atheist
We're lucky to be living in the US, at least compared to other nations. Other states are not so kind. — BitconnectCarlos
Could you elaborate? — BitconnectCarlos
Remember that you are talking to Americans and for them a bad crime situation is something totally else than in Sweden as there bad crime areas are really bad (if the US homicide rate is about 5, in Chicago it's 23).Believe me, the situation is very very bad, has worsen dramatically last years. — Ansiktsburk
Historically, rape has been defined as forced sexual intercourse initiated against a woman or man by one or several people, without consent. In recent years, several revisions to the definition of rape have been made to the law of Sweden, to include not only intercourse but also comparable sexual acts against someone incapable of giving consent, due to being in a vulnerable situation, such as a state of fear or unconsciousness. In 2018, Sweden has passed a new law that criminalizes sex without consent as rape, even when there are no threats, coercion or violence involved.
Does this example help you understand? — praxis
... the state - with its centralization of power - is a major, major vulnerability if it falls into the wrong hands. — BitconnectCarlos
Does this example help you understand?
— praxis
Understand what? — god must be atheist
If it falls into the hands of the wrong individuals. This is why democracy is the best form of government for the people because it tends to be resistant to the concentration of power. — praxis
You're kind of arguing more in line with a perspective associated with the right/libertarian side of the coin here when you describe events more as individuals acting as opposed to groups/organizations. I'm not saying that you're wrong; anyone can describe events in various different ways. — BitconnectCarlos
Notice where the US and Sweden are on this statistics: — ssu
Having spent last 20 year in the nicer part of towns and with substantial contact with people from different "better" families, actually married into such a family(which one may say, I should have had this conversation done with years ago but... my new relatives do not want to talk about it. Their leftness is God given...) , it is definitely more sublime. Neighbours that run their own businesses, resents immigrants and taxes are highly scolared, and can take part in any intellectual discussion.n my opinion, the more educated tend to lean left because their priorities are different compared to those who hold more conservative views. For example, academics are less likely to own or manage businesses directly, so they are less concerned with having lower taxes and less regulations that would make it easier to start and sustain a business. — AntonioP
What makes the Swedish system so terrible is the fact that this hugely popular nationalist party has it founding members were neonazis, and hence all the other parties flatly reject the party and have nothing to do with it. This might sound great, but isn't. If the populist cause and criticism against the lax immigration policies of is only driven by one "fringe" party, it obviously makes things worse.This is very old data. Death by shootings has increased dramatically. But what really make people jam into the nazi-root nationalist party(SD) is the robberys, harrassment, explosions committed by immigrant root people. The political situation is terrible. — Ansiktsburk
I don't see how. — praxis
Ssu, I guess we are neighbours on the world map. Your post is most intereresting. And what you say is in line with my observations from the other coast of the Baltic Sea.What makes the Swedish system so terrible is the fact that this hugely popular nationalist party has it founding members were neonazis, and hence all the other parties flatly reject the party and have nothing to do with it. This might sound great, but isn't. If the populist cause and criticism against the lax immigration policies of is only driven by one "fringe" party, it obviously makes things worse.
Here I have to say that luckily Finland has avoided this inability trap, at least for now. Here the "True Finns" rose to popularity and did join the previous administration and got ministerial posts, starting from the position of foreign minister and defence minister. And then came the European Migrant Crisis. Once Sweden started to shut down it's borders, then a wave of immigrants landed in Finland from Sweden. I can just guess what would have politically happened if the True Finns party wouldn't have been in the government back then, but in the opposition and the administration had been made of a leftist-centrist government: even if the policies would have been exactly the same, the public outcry would have been naturally worse. Still, just being in the government at this crucial time made the True Finns to divide into two, with the old leadership starting a new party, which ended in disaster for them in the next elections for them. Yet unlike in Sweden (I guess), the anti-immigrant agenda wasn't treated as outrageous and totally politically-incorrect discourse by other parties from the start, even with the Social Democratic Party accepting that there have to be limitations on immigration and immigration had negative consequences. — ssu
Let's remember that the first huge wave of immigrants and migrant workers that Sweden endured came from here and something well over half a million or so people in Sweden are of Finnish heritage. I've always have thought that the Swedish acceptance to an open doors policy came from this era as influx of foreigners, many of whom spoke Swedish as their mother tongue, didn't create huge social problems, but was great for the economy. Only the last decade with the European migrant crisis that open door policy was changed.To connect to the subject: It is not only in the immigration question Finland has outperformed Sweden this millennia. Also in handling of education, schools, teachers appreciation Finland is famous for its good education while Sweden goes down the drain PISA result wise. — Ansiktsburk
Well, still Sweden is the land of European social democracy, where the socialists are happy to milk the cow of capitalism and while they do that keeping the cow in a leash, they do also take care of it that it doesn't die. Right wing rule for some time doesn't change the institutions. It is something that Americans have a trouble to understand, because it's basically what the Bernie Sander's version democratic socialism (a.k.a. social democracy) would be about. It wouldn't result in Venezuela, but Swedenization of the US. Pro's and con's with that alternative, objectives achieved for some, horror for others.Sweden had Right wing government during the 00-s and some really neo-liberal projects were launched. — Ansiktsburk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.