Funny thing when I went to the store, they had redecorated it. It shocked me a bit actually and...why do you want to know what I bought there? That's none of your business! Alright, alright, I bought some chocolate, are you happy now? I know I'm weak, okey *sob*. I have a hard time with all the tests and whatnot, and it's f***ing dark here and overall depressing. *Sob*
Ahem, we move on. The last couple of days have seemed to stir a hornets nest with the Sd article I mentioned last time. Red shirts from their party seems to have overrun the news sites and commenting on all articles with any hint to further there goals. Those often proves there lack of knowledge in many fields. There was some debate about foreign aid and the usual Sd supporters show up claiming that Sweden made it from a poor back-ward economy in the 1870 to one of the top 10 richest in 1970 (before the oil-crisis I believe) without a single cent/pence/öre from anyone. No matter that the early 1900-centuary meant food-relief aid from Argentina and that we were participant in the marshall aid from the US after WW2 without being directly involved in the war. Now I get a smug face on me for more or less trashing that argument (yeah, I can be quite a jerk in these kind of situations). Would our politicians be able to answer that in a live discussion? I hope so, otherwise I will be very freightened.
Coincidence of the day is that I stumbled upon a debate about owning guns and now they are showing a film about a case against guns or whatever. Of course I'm very biased in this question for being European and Swede foremost. I don't see the need for owning a gun or weapon of any kind (unless for sport and hunting as I can accept). Some would probably call me naive as people can't always be trusted. And I swallow the argument that if you restrict the amount and availability of guns you decline the violence in society. Now for the most theoretical and philosophical answer to way this is. The need for owning a gun only exist if you feel unsafe. In the old contracts theories only one force in society was allowed to own weapons, the state so it could protect it's citizens from themselves and other states, particular in Hobbes ideas of the state, kinda fascist but some of them makes sense. Being a follower of more democratic ideas that have been inspired by Hobbes like Locke, I prefer that guns only lies in the hand of the state.
Of course no American can believe this, but that's because we have different cultures. As described to me the Americans have built there whole country on the idea that governments can't be trusted by experience of the colonial rule of England and that most settlers fled from oppressing regimes back in Europe, therefore the 2nd amendment to own guns so that they could defend themselves once again. In Sweden we trust our government out of experience of the King in the old days ruling with the support of the farmers and the low-aristocracy against the high-aristocracy, saving them from serfdom and from enemies like catholics, Polish, Danish and Russians (supported by the fact that the "evil" aristocracy was kinda idiotic and sellouts for money) and then during our democratic state it took care of us in the welfare systems and kept us out of wars in almost 200 years. That trust is diminishing now to some healthy level of questioning if there is no other way than the way of the state, but we are far from the open distrust shown in the American society.
Of course there are nut cases here as well like some conspiracy theorist that believe the Swedish government is out to get us, you know like in the American movies where the state kill anyone against it (*irony on* I blame the American culture for spreading state distrust out in the world *irony off*). Especially in these flu times, where we are gonna be injected with mercury that kill us, which is equal to the amount we get from a portion of fish from the Baltic. Have I taken it? No, I wait until I'm being summoned...when it finally gets here, in this pace the flu will be over until we get the damn vaccine over here.
Ahem, we move on. The last couple of days have seemed to stir a hornets nest with the Sd article I mentioned last time. Red shirts from their party seems to have overrun the news sites and commenting on all articles with any hint to further there goals. Those often proves there lack of knowledge in many fields. There was some debate about foreign aid and the usual Sd supporters show up claiming that Sweden made it from a poor back-ward economy in the 1870 to one of the top 10 richest in 1970 (before the oil-crisis I believe) without a single cent/pence/öre from anyone. No matter that the early 1900-centuary meant food-relief aid from Argentina and that we were participant in the marshall aid from the US after WW2 without being directly involved in the war. Now I get a smug face on me for more or less trashing that argument (yeah, I can be quite a jerk in these kind of situations). Would our politicians be able to answer that in a live discussion? I hope so, otherwise I will be very freightened.
Coincidence of the day is that I stumbled upon a debate about owning guns and now they are showing a film about a case against guns or whatever. Of course I'm very biased in this question for being European and Swede foremost. I don't see the need for owning a gun or weapon of any kind (unless for sport and hunting as I can accept). Some would probably call me naive as people can't always be trusted. And I swallow the argument that if you restrict the amount and availability of guns you decline the violence in society. Now for the most theoretical and philosophical answer to way this is. The need for owning a gun only exist if you feel unsafe. In the old contracts theories only one force in society was allowed to own weapons, the state so it could protect it's citizens from themselves and other states, particular in Hobbes ideas of the state, kinda fascist but some of them makes sense. Being a follower of more democratic ideas that have been inspired by Hobbes like Locke, I prefer that guns only lies in the hand of the state.
Of course no American can believe this, but that's because we have different cultures. As described to me the Americans have built there whole country on the idea that governments can't be trusted by experience of the colonial rule of England and that most settlers fled from oppressing regimes back in Europe, therefore the 2nd amendment to own guns so that they could defend themselves once again. In Sweden we trust our government out of experience of the King in the old days ruling with the support of the farmers and the low-aristocracy against the high-aristocracy, saving them from serfdom and from enemies like catholics, Polish, Danish and Russians (supported by the fact that the "evil" aristocracy was kinda idiotic and sellouts for money) and then during our democratic state it took care of us in the welfare systems and kept us out of wars in almost 200 years. That trust is diminishing now to some healthy level of questioning if there is no other way than the way of the state, but we are far from the open distrust shown in the American society.
Of course there are nut cases here as well like some conspiracy theorist that believe the Swedish government is out to get us, you know like in the American movies where the state kill anyone against it (*irony on* I blame the American culture for spreading state distrust out in the world *irony off*). Especially in these flu times, where we are gonna be injected with mercury that kill us, which is equal to the amount we get from a portion of fish from the Baltic. Have I taken it? No, I wait until I'm being summoned...when it finally gets here, in this pace the flu will be over until we get the damn vaccine over here.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar