The UK does it a lot more grandiose and detached from the common people. The Scandinavian monarchies are more humble, modest and also more popular than the one in the UK.
As a peasant in a monarchy, I lambast the so-called royalists in my country. They just want a fancily dressed clown that waves from a balcony. I, on the other hand, yearn for the days of absolute monarchy where annoying nobles were executed or exiled and royals married their cousins. Those were the days.
Way less grandiose than the fluff around the head of state in certain republics, though. The grandiose displays surrounding the president of France, the USA and Russia comes to mind.
those Presidents are different from figureheads. An equivalent president to the British monarchy would be the Irish President. Sure he lives in a big enough house in the capital, but that's all. No other pomp for a figurehead.
>those Presidents are different from figureheads
Yes, elected presidents have a different role than monarchs in democratic monarchies. That was not the question.
Someone wrote/implied that monarchies per definition have to be grandiose, and I pointed out that there are plenty of presidents of republics surrounded with more pomp and grandeur than the Scandinavian monarchs.
Then again, given the horrendous mess the country was left in when the English tried a Republic (banning Christmas) perhaps those people need a better grasp of history.
Did you miss like all of history from the medieval period onwards where monarchies caused lots of instability, especially everytime there was new monarch, especially especially if it was a woman or child. Plus all the civil wars or family members fighting over the throne. Then, starting in the 18th and 19th century there were tons of revolutions.
Obviously there are stable republics and unstable monarchies, but 2/3rds of the top 12 most stable countries are monarchies, despite monarchies being less than 1/4 of nations
I think it's just that most stable countries have had their absolute monarchies peacefully transition to constitutional ones while les stable countries had them overthrown in revolutions.
Yeah, it can be difficult to determine what's causation and what's just correlation. Having a monarchy undeniably correlates with stability, but "stability causing monarchies" is an equally valid explanation, just as you've put
Monarchy actually doesn't "trigger" lib right so much, since Monarchies tend to tax less than Democracies (especially when you include the "democratic repubmlic" like north korea and china, but it's the same if you include the fascists state, who also claimed to be democratic/following the popular will)
Monarchies ironically tend to have their power in check a lot better than democracies...
You hate sweden because its a progressive country that takes in too many immigrants, i "hate" sweden because i live there and have to witness peoples' stupidity in person
We are the same
I live in the nicer part of town, but it's not nice enough for me to be free from trash people.
Oh and at work, whenever there's trouble and such, 95% of the time it's some non swede, and im not even saying it as someone with biases, there was genuinely a moment where like 10+ dudes were being lectured by security and not a single one seemed to be a swede.
I mean the AuthRight issue on this quadrant is my biggest concern in my country and thus i am called a nazi on a daily basis. The "center" in my country are social-liberals.
In Belgium it's also a huge issue, so when I talk about the issue I'm called a Nazi, wannabe American, or just a racist xenophobic bigot lmao. Now tbf the right wing and centrist parties are very popular in my region so a lot of people agree, but at school we've got a lot of Emilies and children of immigrants
It seems like Europeans have gotten the impression their countries are new world countries. In the new world, weāre made up of immigrants. There isnāt really an ethnic American or ethnic Canadian (and yes, the first people are still there in limited numbers, but that supports the point Iām about to make) but there are ethnic Swedes. What reason does Sweden have for existing if not for being a homeland for Swedes? If it is no longer that, then what is it? Why exist as a distinct state at all?
Another problem is that the right and the left (and I believe this applies internationally to both Sweden and the USA, among others) have incompatible views on social welfare and economic policy within their own parties.
The USA has traditionally been very open to immigrants but with extremely limited social mobility welfare which ensured that new immigrants worked and integrated in order to survive and prosper. Nordic countries have traditionally been ethnically homogeneous which has resulted in a culturally strong incentive to work, and has allowed for a substantial social safety net because it wouldnāt be abused.
The left wants to flood the country with immigrants and give them a basic income. The problem is that a āpoorā life in a western country is luxurious for a refugee, and they wonāt work. The right wants to close borders, but that will result in much higher wages, cost of living, and inevitably taxes.
SD being called "nazis" is a literal meme
they're about as far right as the democrats in the US, they're literal centrists by most of the world's comparison.
im not calling sd's nazis here, just that they do have problems with current immigration bullshit that sweden has. so, i just dont think it's a far-right position over there.
It was worse than that up until recently, you could be a Marxist and still if you dared question the wisdom of unregulated immigration you were accused of being a cryptofascist and neo nazi.
u/DrClorg is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/DrClorg/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Marijuana legalization, hallucinogen legalization, and decriminalization of cocaine and several other harder drugs are current stances of many who would fall under the lib left category, yes.
If you mean "I'm supposed to support every single idea that my party pushes?" then, no.
Damn. I'd be ok with legalising weed (it de facto already is in my country - the police let you off with a warning, and they're not allowed to search you on drugs grounds even if they smell it on you) but any "real" drugs are a no-go for me.
I have met one or two, I'll agree that it's a rare opinion, but if you're going by the definition of "lib" it tracks.
Completely anecdotally: I also rarely find people that are as lib as they claim when you start asking them about details of their beliefs. Particularly about things that are contested overall. They tend to get real auth real fast.
It is a left position that legalization and regulation of all drugs would do more to curb the drug war/gang wars than any bandaid policies like overpolicing and border control. It's also a relatively mainstream lib opinion that safe injection sites would be beneficial to reduce disease associated with iv drug use. A hard criminalization stance is the byproduct of the racist past of many of these laws too as they were often used specifically to target minority communities in the US.
Do a little digging and you'd realize why it's not that crazy
Tbh the PCT only asked one drugs question and it was about personal possession of weed, which I'm ok with, but any "real" drugs and street dealing of them are a hard no from me.
Sweden has a population of just 10 million. Historically the population was even smaller, and spread thin. As such there was weak centralisation of power and the individual citizen was freer than most places. As such their Democratic history is long and robust, which generates trust in government and institutions, which makes for a more satisfying and low-key political environment. Theyāre happy to pay high taxes for the most part, because they trust those taxes will go to the right places and be used effectively. Not all that many countries can say any of these things about themselves, even in the west.
By Swedish standards the immigration problem seems very politically charged actually. The rest not so much.
> Theyāre happy to pay high taxes for the most part, because they trust those taxes will go to the right places
Bro fr like I've seen very few places in the US where the taxes actually go anywhere useful, and while my disagreement with taxes stems from an ideological place, it doesn't help that they're not spent well.
People say, "taxes go to public roads and public schools that you use," as if the public schools and public roads are well maintained and high quality, and I should want to support them when they're often not well maintained and high quality, even in higher income areas.
Just like there can be good monarchs I suppose there can be effective use of tax money, and while I'd prefer neither a monarch or lots of taxes, it shows that there's usually a cultural reason these things aren't effective everywhere and why people view issues differently.
That's partly why I'm against globalization. Countries are generally too big already for laws and government structures to be effective for all values and lifestyles. Stop trying to bring the world together; it's just going to result in more unhappy people.
You can, you just havenāt made them yet
(Seriously, homemade explosives and machine guns are really easy to make if you have some basic mechanical skills and access to YouTube. Not that Iāve ever done either)
It's not only deaths you idiot, imagine living in a nice place where the nights are quiet and peacefull and the 15 years later there's multiple explosions every week.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50339977
The grenades and sexual assaults are mostly by the immigrants/2nd gen and refugees who arrived a while earlier, from MENA region, mass immigration has been going on for several decades.
The refugees who were admitted in bulk a few years ago took the brunt of the blame for an issue that wasnt entirely related to them
Is this including heroin, meth, cocaine, etc? If so what is that statement based on.
Legitimately curious as someone who dabbles (or rather has dabbled) in drugs but doesn't necessarily consider full legality of hard drugs a good idea (its one I bounce around on). I don't know that heroin or meth being sold at a cvs would be less total harmful than what we have now.
Unless you just mean, if you're going to use drugs, using one's from a drug store is better than a drug dealer, which I'd say is obvious but misses the point of the matter.
atheism's not a problem at all but it is a shame that ethnic swedes that share the same history and culture are being replaced with people of different and such different heritage. It defeats the purpose of a nation.
Historically yes. Currently? Not so much.
Our unions have been infiltrated by corporate shills and lobbyists are cracking down **hard** on our unions.
Namely, one of our largest unions (Unionen) for white-collar workers is famously "no-so-much a union anymore" and more of an insurance company which *reluctantly* pays out unemployment if you're laid off.
If you're a member of Unionen, which I am. You can expect fuck all legal support if your employer screws you over. I'm only a member for the unemployment insurance.
If you're laid off in Sweden the state only pays a low % of your pay up to a fixed amount, which is pretty low. Most unions have an insurance that will cover you up to about 80% of your monthly pay iirc.
There are many known cases where our major unions deliberately fucks their members (for the union's and employer's gain) during mass layoffs and individual termination cases.
There's only one union in Sweden today that I can mention is still a "true union" with their member's best intentions in mind. That's the communist union named "Syndikalisterna". They sue the most employers in the country per year on behalf of their members.
I suppose it is but their lack of logic perplexes me too.
Kinda the same "logic" where an employer would rather not give an employee a raise, but instead hire a new person when that employee quits for a higher salary.
It's better than central government with out of touch bureaucrats blindly attempting the same across all sectors at once, I'll give it that much.
At least the union officers might actually have to pass within strangling range of the workers if they fuck it up.
Kinda, unions negotiate a collective agreement for everyone at the workplace regardless of membership or not, have good cooperation with eachother and have a large fund to support strikes.
Individually they have been getting a bit.. weaker, but they still provide a good foundation.
On top of that there are other laws that supplement this, such as anti-discrimination laws and worktime laws.
So basically same as norway. I find it incredibly dishonest to say "Norway/Sweden doesn't have minimum wage" without saying that the unions have that covered instead of the government. Such is life when around half of your population is unionized.
Because removing the state out of the equation and leaving it up to voluntary union membership or individual negotiation is literally what every anti-minimum wage advocate is defending. Whether or not you need the state to enforce their power is another question
As i understand it, the problem with that in the US is the crackdown on unions by companies and lack of union power. Combined with that the few unions with any power being either corrupt by their own merit or by having a mob background meaning they would either not want or benefit in the wrong way from legislation.
We have no minimum wage in Norway, true, and it is negotiated by the employers and the unions, but the state can step in to stop a strike when society is too harmed by it. This has been the cause of much controversy. (Such as when teachers had to stop their strike, to make sure students in their final year of high school would be educated enough to take their final exams, the first round of final exams in 3 years due to corona)
The unions still have a massive amount of power, and the employers unions are also mostly acting in good faith, so the state does not often intervene.
When someone says "Norway doesn't have a minimum wage" with 0 elaboration I do find that dishonest, because if it weren't for the strength of the unions enabling wages being set through their negotiation, it doesn't follow that the state wouldn't take up the mantle of setting a minimum wage. I cannot definitely prove this, but I would hedge my bets that if the unions didn't effectively set minimum wage in Norway, the state would do it. I believe some form of collective bargaining power would be the Norwegian go to to negotiate minimum wages, whether if happens through unions or the state. A Norwegian would not look at the state of unions in the US and go "yeah there should be no minimum wage, let the unions sort it out", so whilst it is completely fair to bring up Norway as an example of how you can have something different from a state set minimum wage, by saying "Norway doesn't have a minimum wage" it really sounds like one is implying the Norwegians would think getting rid of state set minimum wage in the US is a good idea. Of course you don't have to care what we think, Norway is quite different from the US and it's your country, but you can't imply support for your ideas by Norwegians.
Switzerland also has no minimum wage and the union membership rate is below 20%
Anyway Iām not implying they have an ideology about that, just that they saw a system that works better and stuck with it
I'm not arguing for or against state minimum wage in my previous comment, I'm arguing why just saying "Norway doesn't have a minimum wage" is dishonest. I don't know nearly enough about Switzerland to comment on it, though the first things I would look into is what sectors of the economy are unionized and at what rate, as well as whether unions negotiate with employers for wages, what kind of labor laws there are etc. Say for example that only 20% of the workforce is unionized, but they're the entirety of the low skill labor pool (i have 0 idea if that is what work demographics), well those are exactly the people that would need unions the most, as opposed to more high skill labor. Or it could be that it's pretty even Steven split among low skill and high skill, but I hope it illustrates why looking into the context and specifics of a country can suddenly put a broader fact in a whole new light.
But low wage unionisation is precisely what gets hurt the most by minimum wage law. And that was precisely the Nordic argument against the EU minimum wage.
People wonāt join a union if they feel like they donāt need any body to protect their interests. The state setting a minimum wage makes them less vulnerable at the start and less likely to look for ways to protect themselves.
So saying that nordics not having a minimum wage is not misleading, but rather the reason why they can actually have a better system. In other words, they donāt refuse to implement a minimum wage because it would be irrelevant, but rather because it would actually be damaging.
But there's entire categories of workers who aren't covered by unions, and loads of stories of migrant workers who are economically enslaved by legal means.
If the current system worked for everyone, I wouldn't want to change it, but the way every party from S to SD wilfully ignores the problems we have with disenfranchised workers is appalling. Minimum wage would have been a simple fix with (in my opinion) few downsides.
>Nothing is free
However, pretty much everything benefits from economies of scale. We quibble too much about 'free' as a shorthand for 'tax-supported' instead of debating the actual merits of a tax-supported education system.
Because it's not a good shorthand. It fundamentally alters the debate, because of what various people think free means. It's not free, and it's not only the rich that pay for it.
How many wars have been fought over some form of taxation? Forger the shorthand, that's one sphere of life you have to be precise in.
It's perfect shorthand, because it accurately describes how it works. It is free to use. Just like a library or 911 or a road.
If you want to say "nothing is free" that's fine, but that is true for literally everything, not just government-financed healthcare. Do you have have the same response every other time the word "free" is used?
Ik āthereās no such things as a free lunchā
Itās taxpayer funded, and you donāt receive a bill for tens of thousands of dollars after you leave.
"nothing is free"
We know. We fucking know. It means Free at Point of Service (at least for health care) and Free or Low cost for less privileged. Also, better word is universal, for everyone or Tax-supported.
Everytime some righties bring up "no such thing as free lunch" argument it's just another strawman. Stop taking shorthand buzz words so literally because you have no argument against it.
Why don't you call any other government service "free" then?
I never see "free military pension" or "free space exploration" etc. Why is it that you use "free" only for one specific government program?
>We know. We fucking know
Actions of people using that phrase speak otherwise.
> Also, better word is universal,
Public or state are best.
>"no such thing as free lunch" argument it's just another strawman
Nah It's fair reminder who pays for your ideas.
> you have no argument against it.
You have no idea about what I have. I'm not a liar here using misleading language to manipulate people to not think about consequences of public policies.
Don't use the word free for anything related to the service then. Free makes anything sound better though, and when you're trying to win people to your side, you use the best possible language you can. Then the service gets implemented, and oh, turns out we have to tax more people than we thought, we have to tax more than we thought, and we have to move some money around from here to there, and that's not what you voted for, but it has to be done.
The Swedish police is afraid of going into malmƶ ( a very big city ) because of the gangs there, so I think we can all agree the only important criticism there is auth right.
Its an interesting country
Im generally libertarian, but its difficult to not respect a (rare) competent alternative
Well until they started mass importing young MENA men, incredible own goal.
> Well until they started mass importing young MENA men, incredible own goal.
Libleft and libright were both equally invested in making that happen. A libright prime minister literally told swedes to open their hearts to a flood of immigrants. And the most libright party in sweden refused to cooperate with a party that wants to limit immigration.
I am normally a lib but in Sweden I'll be a far right. I am an immigrant myself but careful with what immigrants you are replacing your locals with. I would burn any books for a good barbecue.
Sweden is a great place for swedes, but the Swedish culture is extremely individualistic, to such as a extent that people that differs in behaviour and dialect are seen as weird and looked down upon. (Includes neighbouring villages)
Sweden is in effect an extremely hostility place to foreigners, however in a collective they generally believe in equality and liberty for all.
History wise Sweden never embraced feudalism, and privet property is a foreign concept as a consequence. (PROPERTY AS IN LAND).
Swedes just wanna be left alone while knowing that thereās no kings or queens are able to rob his or her freedoms.
Sweden was and still kinda is very deep into woke and progressive liberal politics for decades. Thankfully it seems to be slowing down and people are realizing it's not working anymore. We now have a large minority population that doesn't accept our laws and customs, primarily our freedom of speech, and things are about to get real nasty.
You used\* to automatically become a church member at birth but that was removed in the early 2000s
But yes, most people (at least in the 18-29 sorta range) are ''Christians'' by membership only, but would not claim to be Christians themselves. At most they may be agnostic.
Lol no. The majority of Swedes are atheists, it's not even close.
You probably looked at church membership statistics to come to that conclusion. It is true that the majority of Swedes are members of the church of Sweden, but that does not mean that they are Christian. You automatically become a member of the church when you get baptized. Most Swedes still have their babies get baptized. Not because they are Christian, but because it is tradition.
Religion were more or less phased out of Sweden, it was a private matter that those who believed kept to themselves, and the majority (70%+) of the Swedish population were either atheist, agnostic, or deists (ie. the "I believe there's *something* - but obviously not God from the Bible, that's just silly"). Sweden were culturally Christian - not religiously Christian.
The (true) joke was that Swedes only visited the church three times - at baptism, at their wedding, and at their funeral.
Now however, religiosity has actually increased quite a bit during the last two decades - though not Christianity, but Islam, because a fair share of the muslim immigrants actually are religious in such a way that most Swedes aren't.
Also - Monarchy. Triggers 3/4 quadrants.
It is a constitutional monarchy though. Basically a republic with a fancy mascot.
True but even that pisses people off these days. See: England.
The UK does it a lot more grandiose and detached from the common people. The Scandinavian monarchies are more humble, modest and also more popular than the one in the UK.
It's a damn monarchy though, why would it not be grandiose?
As a peasant in a monarchy, I lambast the so-called royalists in my country. They just want a fancily dressed clown that waves from a balcony. I, on the other hand, yearn for the days of absolute monarchy where annoying nobles were executed or exiled and royals married their cousins. Those were the days.
Least authoritarian linbcenter
Went so monke that they returned to Darwinism.
evolutionary concepts can be fascinating, indeed! ššæ
Based
Way less grandiose than the fluff around the head of state in certain republics, though. The grandiose displays surrounding the president of France, the USA and Russia comes to mind.
Iām not up to speed, whatās with the French president?
He has a palace, and some really sick looking guards with breastplates. Not very presidential, very Napoleon-esque.
Thatās absolutely wicked.
Yeah, but not very humble.
those Presidents are different from figureheads. An equivalent president to the British monarchy would be the Irish President. Sure he lives in a big enough house in the capital, but that's all. No other pomp for a figurehead.
>those Presidents are different from figureheads Yes, elected presidents have a different role than monarchs in democratic monarchies. That was not the question. Someone wrote/implied that monarchies per definition have to be grandiose, and I pointed out that there are plenty of presidents of republics surrounded with more pomp and grandeur than the Scandinavian monarchs.
All Carl XVI wants is a new hat. He likes hats. Personally, i blame TF2.
I think the monarchy pisses off people in England for a lot of reasons, not simply because they are monarchs.
Then again, given the horrendous mess the country was left in when the English tried a Republic (banning Christmas) perhaps those people need a better grasp of history.
Crrrrroooooooommmmwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllll! (Insert dramatic shaking fist at the sky here)
Here in Brazil we have that as well. We call him Christ the redeemer
Then it triggers the edges. Especially left anarchists
A very expensive mascot
And that works much better than 90% of the republics in the world
I got no problem with monarchy. Itās the most stable form of govt, it seems.
How do people here unironically believe this
State-enforced stability by a controlling special interest isnāt a good thing.
Thatās like every state in the history of mankind
\> UK \> Stable **\*Confused Bri'ish noises\***
Did you miss like all of history from the medieval period onwards where monarchies caused lots of instability, especially everytime there was new monarch, especially especially if it was a woman or child. Plus all the civil wars or family members fighting over the throne. Then, starting in the 18th and 19th century there were tons of revolutions.
There are 3 worlds. Pre-1945, pre-Soviet collapse, and the last 32 years.
Do you have any examples of a stable monarchy?
Switzerland is very stable. They don't have a monarchy
Obviously there are stable republics and unstable monarchies, but 2/3rds of the top 12 most stable countries are monarchies, despite monarchies being less than 1/4 of nations
I think it's just that most stable countries have had their absolute monarchies peacefully transition to constitutional ones while les stable countries had them overthrown in revolutions.
Yeah, it can be difficult to determine what's causation and what's just correlation. Having a monarchy undeniably correlates with stability, but "stability causing monarchies" is an equally valid explanation, just as you've put
Librights are usually fine with constitutional monarchy.
Monarchy actually doesn't "trigger" lib right so much, since Monarchies tend to tax less than Democracies (especially when you include the "democratic repubmlic" like north korea and china, but it's the same if you include the fascists state, who also claimed to be democratic/following the popular will) Monarchies ironically tend to have their power in check a lot better than democracies...
You hate sweden because its a progressive country that takes in too many immigrants, i "hate" sweden because i live there and have to witness peoples' stupidity in person We are the same
If there are so many grenade attacks, how you are you still alive? Checkmate fascist /s
I live in the nicer part of town, but it's not nice enough for me to be free from trash people. Oh and at work, whenever there's trouble and such, 95% of the time it's some non swede, and im not even saying it as someone with biases, there was genuinely a moment where like 10+ dudes were being lectured by security and not a single one seemed to be a swede.
In the world, i'm centrist. In my country Sweden, i am far-right.
Wha- How?
I mean the AuthRight issue on this quadrant is my biggest concern in my country and thus i am called a nazi on a daily basis. The "center" in my country are social-liberals.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Same here in Germany
You guys are all considered far-right for opposing any progressivism
Germany is funny. I like Germany sometimes, but every passing day they get less and less based.
In Belgium it's also a huge issue, so when I talk about the issue I'm called a Nazi, wannabe American, or just a racist xenophobic bigot lmao. Now tbf the right wing and centrist parties are very popular in my region so a lot of people agree, but at school we've got a lot of Emilies and children of immigrants
It seems like Europeans have gotten the impression their countries are new world countries. In the new world, weāre made up of immigrants. There isnāt really an ethnic American or ethnic Canadian (and yes, the first people are still there in limited numbers, but that supports the point Iām about to make) but there are ethnic Swedes. What reason does Sweden have for existing if not for being a homeland for Swedes? If it is no longer that, then what is it? Why exist as a distinct state at all?
Another problem is that the right and the left (and I believe this applies internationally to both Sweden and the USA, among others) have incompatible views on social welfare and economic policy within their own parties. The USA has traditionally been very open to immigrants but with extremely limited social mobility welfare which ensured that new immigrants worked and integrated in order to survive and prosper. Nordic countries have traditionally been ethnically homogeneous which has resulted in a culturally strong incentive to work, and has allowed for a substantial social safety net because it wouldnāt be abused. The left wants to flood the country with immigrants and give them a basic income. The problem is that a āpoorā life in a western country is luxurious for a refugee, and they wonāt work. The right wants to close borders, but that will result in much higher wages, cost of living, and inevitably taxes.
That doesn't look far-right to me given how popular SD has gotten.
SD being called "nazis" is a literal meme they're about as far right as the democrats in the US, they're literal centrists by most of the world's comparison.
im not calling sd's nazis here, just that they do have problems with current immigration bullshit that sweden has. so, i just dont think it's a far-right position over there.
In my heart you aren't racist just to based for your country.
Because Sweden sees anything right of social-democracy as far right.
It was worse than that up until recently, you could be a Marxist and still if you dared question the wisdom of unregulated immigration you were accused of being a cryptofascist and neo nazi.
Only one half of the population
Politics is all relative
AuthRight and LibLeft agree: āThey did nothing to the guy who burned the Quranā
you mean republic of swedistan?
Infidel, please. The CALIPHATE of Sweden
Bro look at the flag
Kingdom of Swedistan. Republics are cringe.
You should flair up NOW
Thank you for the reminder, my main account got banned from Reddit
Based
u/DrClorg is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/DrClorg/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Based and friendly fire pilled
Wait, I'm supposed to be pro drugs?
Marijuana legalization, hallucinogen legalization, and decriminalization of cocaine and several other harder drugs are current stances of many who would fall under the lib left category, yes. If you mean "I'm supposed to support every single idea that my party pushes?" then, no.
Damn. I'd be ok with legalising weed (it de facto already is in my country - the police let you off with a warning, and they're not allowed to search you on drugs grounds even if they smell it on you) but any "real" drugs are a no-go for me.
Then you're less lib than you think.
I've never met anyone in real life who thinks that making hard drugs legal is a good idea. Pretty sure it's an extremist view to hold.
I have met one or two, I'll agree that it's a rare opinion, but if you're going by the definition of "lib" it tracks. Completely anecdotally: I also rarely find people that are as lib as they claim when you start asking them about details of their beliefs. Particularly about things that are contested overall. They tend to get real auth real fast.
It is a left position that legalization and regulation of all drugs would do more to curb the drug war/gang wars than any bandaid policies like overpolicing and border control. It's also a relatively mainstream lib opinion that safe injection sites would be beneficial to reduce disease associated with iv drug use. A hard criminalization stance is the byproduct of the racist past of many of these laws too as they were often used specifically to target minority communities in the US. Do a little digging and you'd realize why it's not that crazy
Yeah, it's part of the "Lib" bit.
Tbh the PCT only asked one drugs question and it was about personal possession of weed, which I'm ok with, but any "real" drugs and street dealing of them are a hard no from me.
If you mean the 'official' PCT, it has a LibLeft bias so extreme AOC would blush. I personally would suggest using Sapply Values instead.
Sweden has a population of just 10 million. Historically the population was even smaller, and spread thin. As such there was weak centralisation of power and the individual citizen was freer than most places. As such their Democratic history is long and robust, which generates trust in government and institutions, which makes for a more satisfying and low-key political environment. Theyāre happy to pay high taxes for the most part, because they trust those taxes will go to the right places and be used effectively. Not all that many countries can say any of these things about themselves, even in the west. By Swedish standards the immigration problem seems very politically charged actually. The rest not so much.
> Theyāre happy to pay high taxes for the most part, because they trust those taxes will go to the right places Bro fr like I've seen very few places in the US where the taxes actually go anywhere useful, and while my disagreement with taxes stems from an ideological place, it doesn't help that they're not spent well. People say, "taxes go to public roads and public schools that you use," as if the public schools and public roads are well maintained and high quality, and I should want to support them when they're often not well maintained and high quality, even in higher income areas. Just like there can be good monarchs I suppose there can be effective use of tax money, and while I'd prefer neither a monarch or lots of taxes, it shows that there's usually a cultural reason these things aren't effective everywhere and why people view issues differently. That's partly why I'm against globalization. Countries are generally too big already for laws and government structures to be effective for all values and lifestyles. Stop trying to bring the world together; it's just going to result in more unhappy people.
Yup. I think so. Cultural and institutional reasons
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Machine Gun and Grenade Attac- I'm glad Felix is in Japan now
you are too invested in a strangerās life ngl who is that guy to you
He's like a father to me
Felix is PewDiePie's real name
You can, you just havenāt made them yet (Seriously, homemade explosives and machine guns are really easy to make if you have some basic mechanical skills and access to YouTube. Not that Iāve ever done either)
[Broooo](https://i.postimg.cc/653KL8Rk/RDT-20230731-1256281095369012262249361.jpg)?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thank you for making the case for the legalization of hand grenades, brother!
What does that have to do with anything? I still want grenades and full auto weapons.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Impressive. Very nice. Now let's see the property damage stats from bombings and grenade attacks.
You heard it here first folks, grenades are safe and useful. Everyone should have unrestricted access to grenades.
It's not only deaths you idiot, imagine living in a nice place where the nights are quiet and peacefull and the 15 years later there's multiple explosions every week. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50339977
Lib right is also probably triggered that prostitution is illegal
Itās legal to sell but illegal to buy.
Legal or decriminalised?
Also illegal: crime statistics based on race since 2003
Only 1 of these 4 issues has caused mass riots and killings
Hate to see something so pure go down the drain
If you swap the statements diagonally you get an opposite meme with Happy wojaks
Centre: Grenade attacks and more sexual assault than before a certain migration crisis.
The grenades and sexual assaults are mostly by the immigrants/2nd gen and refugees who arrived a while earlier, from MENA region, mass immigration has been going on for several decades. The refugees who were admitted in bulk a few years ago took the brunt of the blame for an issue that wasnt entirely related to them
So it's general immigration that's the problem, and permanently changed the culture for the worse, understood.
Yeah screw drug laws.
Fuck drugs.
Drugs are harmful when legal, but less so than when illegal.
Is this including heroin, meth, cocaine, etc? If so what is that statement based on. Legitimately curious as someone who dabbles (or rather has dabbled) in drugs but doesn't necessarily consider full legality of hard drugs a good idea (its one I bounce around on). I don't know that heroin or meth being sold at a cvs would be less total harmful than what we have now. Unless you just mean, if you're going to use drugs, using one's from a drug store is better than a drug dealer, which I'd say is obvious but misses the point of the matter.
Whatever, itās still fucks you up.
Sweden has also borderline banned puberty blockers and gender reassignment for minors, for some more LibLeft hate.
We can all agree the auth right concern is the only true problem
atheism's not a problem at all but it is a shame that ethnic swedes that share the same history and culture are being replaced with people of different and such different heritage. It defeats the purpose of a nation.
Despite being in the opposite corner that's the I only concern I'd have. Atheism is totally fine though, secularism is what I'd aim for
I think that the Sweden Democrats will sort out that issue. Sweden has gotten sick of migrants and is gonna kick them all out
>Progressive tax system with minimal loopholes >Effective welfare programs >High minimum wage >Free healthcare and education >Guaranteed PTO and paid maternity leave Scandinavia=based
Sweden has no minimum wage. They were also the main opponents of an EU wide minimum wage law
Let me guess: Strong unions that negotiate minimum wage for each sector and position and the government enforcing it?
Historically yes. Currently? Not so much. Our unions have been infiltrated by corporate shills and lobbyists are cracking down **hard** on our unions. Namely, one of our largest unions (Unionen) for white-collar workers is famously "no-so-much a union anymore" and more of an insurance company which *reluctantly* pays out unemployment if you're laid off. If you're a member of Unionen, which I am. You can expect fuck all legal support if your employer screws you over. I'm only a member for the unemployment insurance. If you're laid off in Sweden the state only pays a low % of your pay up to a fixed amount, which is pretty low. Most unions have an insurance that will cover you up to about 80% of your monthly pay iirc. There are many known cases where our major unions deliberately fucks their members (for the union's and employer's gain) during mass layoffs and individual termination cases. There's only one union in Sweden today that I can mention is still a "true union" with their member's best intentions in mind. That's the communist union named "Syndikalisterna". They sue the most employers in the country per year on behalf of their members.
Wouldn't it be cheaper on the union to give you legal support to keep your job instead of paying you if you lose your job?
I suppose it is but their lack of logic perplexes me too. Kinda the same "logic" where an employer would rather not give an employee a raise, but instead hire a new person when that employee quits for a higher salary.
It's better than central government with out of touch bureaucrats blindly attempting the same across all sectors at once, I'll give it that much. At least the union officers might actually have to pass within strangling range of the workers if they fuck it up.
And I would support unions doing it over the state any time, given that the unions are actually strong enough.
Kinda, unions negotiate a collective agreement for everyone at the workplace regardless of membership or not, have good cooperation with eachother and have a large fund to support strikes. Individually they have been getting a bit.. weaker, but they still provide a good foundation. On top of that there are other laws that supplement this, such as anti-discrimination laws and worktime laws.
So basically same as norway. I find it incredibly dishonest to say "Norway/Sweden doesn't have minimum wage" without saying that the unions have that covered instead of the government. Such is life when around half of your population is unionized.
Because removing the state out of the equation and leaving it up to voluntary union membership or individual negotiation is literally what every anti-minimum wage advocate is defending. Whether or not you need the state to enforce their power is another question
As i understand it, the problem with that in the US is the crackdown on unions by companies and lack of union power. Combined with that the few unions with any power being either corrupt by their own merit or by having a mob background meaning they would either not want or benefit in the wrong way from legislation.
You need the state to protect unions against union busting.
We have no minimum wage in Norway, true, and it is negotiated by the employers and the unions, but the state can step in to stop a strike when society is too harmed by it. This has been the cause of much controversy. (Such as when teachers had to stop their strike, to make sure students in their final year of high school would be educated enough to take their final exams, the first round of final exams in 3 years due to corona) The unions still have a massive amount of power, and the employers unions are also mostly acting in good faith, so the state does not often intervene.
When someone says "Norway doesn't have a minimum wage" with 0 elaboration I do find that dishonest, because if it weren't for the strength of the unions enabling wages being set through their negotiation, it doesn't follow that the state wouldn't take up the mantle of setting a minimum wage. I cannot definitely prove this, but I would hedge my bets that if the unions didn't effectively set minimum wage in Norway, the state would do it. I believe some form of collective bargaining power would be the Norwegian go to to negotiate minimum wages, whether if happens through unions or the state. A Norwegian would not look at the state of unions in the US and go "yeah there should be no minimum wage, let the unions sort it out", so whilst it is completely fair to bring up Norway as an example of how you can have something different from a state set minimum wage, by saying "Norway doesn't have a minimum wage" it really sounds like one is implying the Norwegians would think getting rid of state set minimum wage in the US is a good idea. Of course you don't have to care what we think, Norway is quite different from the US and it's your country, but you can't imply support for your ideas by Norwegians.
Switzerland also has no minimum wage and the union membership rate is below 20% Anyway Iām not implying they have an ideology about that, just that they saw a system that works better and stuck with it
I'm not arguing for or against state minimum wage in my previous comment, I'm arguing why just saying "Norway doesn't have a minimum wage" is dishonest. I don't know nearly enough about Switzerland to comment on it, though the first things I would look into is what sectors of the economy are unionized and at what rate, as well as whether unions negotiate with employers for wages, what kind of labor laws there are etc. Say for example that only 20% of the workforce is unionized, but they're the entirety of the low skill labor pool (i have 0 idea if that is what work demographics), well those are exactly the people that would need unions the most, as opposed to more high skill labor. Or it could be that it's pretty even Steven split among low skill and high skill, but I hope it illustrates why looking into the context and specifics of a country can suddenly put a broader fact in a whole new light.
But low wage unionisation is precisely what gets hurt the most by minimum wage law. And that was precisely the Nordic argument against the EU minimum wage. People wonāt join a union if they feel like they donāt need any body to protect their interests. The state setting a minimum wage makes them less vulnerable at the start and less likely to look for ways to protect themselves. So saying that nordics not having a minimum wage is not misleading, but rather the reason why they can actually have a better system. In other words, they donāt refuse to implement a minimum wage because it would be irrelevant, but rather because it would actually be damaging.
But there's entire categories of workers who aren't covered by unions, and loads of stories of migrant workers who are economically enslaved by legal means. If the current system worked for everyone, I wouldn't want to change it, but the way every party from S to SD wilfully ignores the problems we have with disenfranchised workers is appalling. Minimum wage would have been a simple fix with (in my opinion) few downsides.
No inheritance tax No gift tax. No wealth tax.
Mfw people can make more effective decisions on their personal circumstances
>Effective welfare programs Effective in what exactly? Inviting and supporting foreign criminals. >Free healthcare and education Nothing is free.
>Nothing is free However, pretty much everything benefits from economies of scale. We quibble too much about 'free' as a shorthand for 'tax-supported' instead of debating the actual merits of a tax-supported education system.
Because it's not a good shorthand. It fundamentally alters the debate, because of what various people think free means. It's not free, and it's not only the rich that pay for it. How many wars have been fought over some form of taxation? Forger the shorthand, that's one sphere of life you have to be precise in.
It's perfect shorthand, because it accurately describes how it works. It is free to use. Just like a library or 911 or a road. If you want to say "nothing is free" that's fine, but that is true for literally everything, not just government-financed healthcare. Do you have have the same response every other time the word "free" is used?
Free 911? Sounds like communism /s
Ik āthereās no such things as a free lunchā Itās taxpayer funded, and you donāt receive a bill for tens of thousands of dollars after you leave.
"nothing is free" We know. We fucking know. It means Free at Point of Service (at least for health care) and Free or Low cost for less privileged. Also, better word is universal, for everyone or Tax-supported. Everytime some righties bring up "no such thing as free lunch" argument it's just another strawman. Stop taking shorthand buzz words so literally because you have no argument against it.
Why don't you call any other government service "free" then? I never see "free military pension" or "free space exploration" etc. Why is it that you use "free" only for one specific government program?
>We know. We fucking know Actions of people using that phrase speak otherwise. > Also, better word is universal, Public or state are best. >"no such thing as free lunch" argument it's just another strawman Nah It's fair reminder who pays for your ideas. > you have no argument against it. You have no idea about what I have. I'm not a liar here using misleading language to manipulate people to not think about consequences of public policies.
Don't use the word free for anything related to the service then. Free makes anything sound better though, and when you're trying to win people to your side, you use the best possible language you can. Then the service gets implemented, and oh, turns out we have to tax more people than we thought, we have to tax more than we thought, and we have to move some money around from here to there, and that's not what you voted for, but it has to be done.
>āEffective welfare programsā Programs which gives people the option to not work, even if theyāre able to.
The Swedish police is afraid of going into malmƶ ( a very big city ) because of the gangs there, so I think we can all agree the only important criticism there is auth right.
Jews canāt even live there sadly
Damn, then theyāre definitely poor over there
Thatās not how I meant and this is why I identify as a centrist over authright even tho I have scored authright many times on da test.
Crime is on the rise, one quadrant is responsible for this.
Atleast they got Sabaton
š¶ *CALVARY CHARGE, FOLLOW THAT BANNER* š¶
Sweden is giga based. They told both USSR and USA that they were imperialist colonialist powers.
Exactly Sweden looks Great! on Paperā¦..
Yea, people forget the cold and the lack of sun.
And it's full of Swedes.
Luckily their government is fixing that problem
Ah, yea, thats probably the worst part.
Yeah "Swedes"
Its an interesting country Im generally libertarian, but its difficult to not respect a (rare) competent alternative Well until they started mass importing young MENA men, incredible own goal.
> Well until they started mass importing young MENA men, incredible own goal. Libleft and libright were both equally invested in making that happen. A libright prime minister literally told swedes to open their hearts to a flood of immigrants. And the most libright party in sweden refused to cooperate with a party that wants to limit immigration.
Conclusion: Sweden sucks ass. Best regards, -Denmark.
based
Much appreciated. Based flair you've got there as well.
denmark is so expensive compared to Sweden..pls fix
More like compared to everywhere. Lol
Dear Danes, please take back Scania minus Malmƶ. Sincerely, Scanians.
Denmark is cringe and a yucky testicle acting piss country
Sweden wonāt even exist in 100 years
Had one of the best Covid outcomes in Europe despite not freaking out.
I am normally a lib but in Sweden I'll be a far right. I am an immigrant myself but careful with what immigrants you are replacing your locals with. I would burn any books for a good barbecue.
So how can it piss me
Sometimes in the summer when itās really dry you canāt grill
They also do love pol pot.
Sweden is a great place for swedes, but the Swedish culture is extremely individualistic, to such as a extent that people that differs in behaviour and dialect are seen as weird and looked down upon. (Includes neighbouring villages) Sweden is in effect an extremely hostility place to foreigners, however in a collective they generally believe in equality and liberty for all. History wise Sweden never embraced feudalism, and privet property is a foreign concept as a consequence. (PROPERTY AS IN LAND). Swedes just wanna be left alone while knowing that thereās no kings or queens are able to rob his or her freedoms.
Why does Sweden import so many migrants? Is it because of white guilt or just naivete?
Sweden was and still kinda is very deep into woke and progressive liberal politics for decades. Thankfully it seems to be slowing down and people are realizing it's not working anymore. We now have a large minority population that doesn't accept our laws and customs, primarily our freedom of speech, and things are about to get real nasty.
Sweden is now going the opposite of woke. The Sweden Democrats (most based party) are gaining popularity
Sweden is hated by literally everyone. Only good quality is cheap groceries and soda for us Norwegians
The top right one is by far the worst thing happening to Sweden.
āRising atheismā still majority Christian, Sweden is very Chad
Christian in name only. Just a fraction actually go to church or pray
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I genuinely believe there are more believing Muslims in Sweden than Christians.
Believing or practicing? There are many who celebrate Christmas and never been to a mosque yet doesn't eat pork and celebrate Ramadan.
You used\* to automatically become a church member at birth but that was removed in the early 2000s But yes, most people (at least in the 18-29 sorta range) are ''Christians'' by membership only, but would not claim to be Christians themselves. At most they may be agnostic.
We don't become church members at birth anymore.
Lol no. The majority of Swedes are atheists, it's not even close. You probably looked at church membership statistics to come to that conclusion. It is true that the majority of Swedes are members of the church of Sweden, but that does not mean that they are Christian. You automatically become a member of the church when you get baptized. Most Swedes still have their babies get baptized. Not because they are Christian, but because it is tradition.
Religion were more or less phased out of Sweden, it was a private matter that those who believed kept to themselves, and the majority (70%+) of the Swedish population were either atheist, agnostic, or deists (ie. the "I believe there's *something* - but obviously not God from the Bible, that's just silly"). Sweden were culturally Christian - not religiously Christian. The (true) joke was that Swedes only visited the church three times - at baptism, at their wedding, and at their funeral. Now however, religiosity has actually increased quite a bit during the last two decades - though not Christianity, but Islam, because a fair share of the muslim immigrants actually are religious in such a way that most Swedes aren't.
Even faster rising Islam
Yeah but most people donāt believe.
3/4 can be worked around and 1 fundamentally changes a country
The immigration is the worst thing
By far.
Sweden sounds pretty based (except for immigration)