Better if you would stop the circuitous arguments and try to keep attention on the original idea - that government can work for the people.
Well, yeah, it certainly helps if we know what topic were discussing. I thought we were talking about this from Rambi:
"This is why I get frustrated when people criticize America based on comparisons with other far more homogeneous and smaller countries. We are unique AND huge.
We have to figure out the system that works HERE based possibly on ideas from other countries, but not modelling after them. "
Which was an extension of our discussion on socialism where you introduced Norway as an example of socialism. You said they are more successful than we are. Specifically that they have a higher income. And went to the moon, or some such.
With the point about tribalism I was trying to explain why "socialism" would naturally work better there but that Norway isn't a good model for the US. Collectivism is more suitable to small, cohesive groups of like people than to the US where we lack common cultural values and think of each other as near aliens. That's generally recognized in the literature. In addition, Rambi and I each mentioned that, even in the Scandinavian countries, there are signs that it is starting to deteriorate. So why do we think it will be successful here?
You are now saying that the topic is not Norwegian socialism but that the government in Norway "works for their people." A couple of posts upstream you said "In Norway they believe the government is there for the people - they expect government to accomplish projects that benefit their citizens." I will assume that those are two different ways of expressing the same point. It strikes me as a change of subject from socialism but I'm up for it.
I'm not sure, though, what it means. Do you mean that their government is more effective or more responsive to the people? On the effective front, I would agree. Our government has trouble getting anything done and what they do they usually screw up. As for responsiveness, I think they give us pretty much what we want (or deserve <g>). The problem is that we aren't homogeneous, like Norway, in what we want so what we get is a mishmash that satisfies no one. If we gave our government clear, unified signals, it would likely be much more efficient in delivering it. If we gave the government a mandate on infrastructure, which seems to be of interest to you, it would likely deliver infrastructure. I haven't seen any sign of that mandate. It gets the occasional mention but then so do war, abortion, taxes, campaign reform, Guantanamo, the debt, mercury in fish, oil, greed, pill prices, etc., etc. I haven't seen a mandate on anything other than fixing this financial mess.
Does that mean they are not "scalable"? I sure never said they were and would add that it has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
It may not have anything to do with your new point about government effectiveness/responsiveness. It has everything to do with the installation of socialism. Socialism may work well enough in a small, tribal environment like Norway but not in a big, amalgamated place like the USSR or the US. |
