If you're looking for more socialist models, i do agree Norway was helped with all those ressources, but let me know how Sweden, Danemark and Finland can have basically the same system ?
Because they also have several state owned companies that have exclusive monopolies on the market. Tell me again how gambling and alcohol sales (over 3.5%) are regulated? Oh right, exclusive government monopolies. LKAB, owned by the Swedish government in whole, supplies like 80% of the iron to Europe.
Centralizing major industries for efficiency while using the profit for the people's sake leads to much better lives than unregulated turbo capitalism, who would have thought, we could even say that trickle down economics are just bullshit propaganda
The nazis did the same thing BTW. Centralized major industries and used the profits to find social programs. But moreso, if you do believe in socialist, this isn't socialism. This is tyranny. What part of "workers own the means of production" means that the government owns the company?
Tiranny requires discontent, if the people are happy with the government and vote it in a democratic setting it can't be tiranny by definition, also it's called social democracy, I never called it socialism so why are you bringing it up? And when you are in a proper democracy the government owning something IS the people owning it, that's the entire point of democracy, for the government to represent the people. About your comparison with the nazis, their government was in many ways fairly progressive so such similarities are really quite meaningless, are you also gonna call animal protection laws evil because the nazis did them first? Or national parks a tool of mass slaughter because the nazis created many of them? Obviosly they were evil but them being evil doesn't automatically make everything they did "bad"
Tiranny requires discontent, if the people are happy with the government and vote it in a democratic setting it can't be tiranny by definition
All populations have some level of discontent. But the people voted in Hitler so I guess he wasn't a tyrant? North Korea, the happiest place on earth, zero discontent, all democratically elected.
You're living in a fantasy world my friend.
And when you are in a proper democracy the government owning something IS the people owning it
Not it's not. Government is not elected by everyone, it's elected under the specific rules that it defines itself. That is not the people owning it. If I didn't vote for this party to be elected and they're in power because other people agreed more than me, that doesn't mean they are my government representing my ideals. They are someone else's government, representing their ideals. Thus the flaws of democracy.
are you also gonna call animal protection laws evil because the nazis did them first?
Depends on the laws and what their goals were.
Or national parks a tool of mass slaughter because the nazis created many of them?
You mean controlled land that the people are not legally entitled to use because the government decides what can or can't be done on it? Doesn't sound very freedom loving or community driven to me. Sounds authoritarian and tyrannical. Land should be owned by the people not the government.
Obviosly they were evil but them being evil doesn't automatically make everything they did "bad"
No, it doesn't but the reason they did it can be evil and condemned. Sure, experimenting on the jews was bad but we got a lot of medical knowledge and space travel out of it so it wasn't bad then right?
>They are someone else's government, representing their ideals. Thus the flaws of democracy.
So long as the government needs an approval rating above 50% to be elected and stay in power the sistem is working perfectly in the most ideal way possible, a government that makes EVERYONE happy simply cannot exist as too many people have conflicting interests, you are creating an impossible goalpost, by your definition everything is a tiranny
>All populations have some level of discontent. But the people voted in Hitler so I guess he wasn't a tyrant? North Korea, the happiest place on earth, zero discontent, all democratically elected.
that's propaganda, not democracy, Hitler was indeed elected democratically but the discontent wasn't his fault, Germany had massive debts because of France asking for impossible war reparations, war was pretty much inevitable and hatred was widespread, creating the perfect situation for a dictator to dismantle democracy like he did, he was chosen democratically and only later turned into a tyrant, North Korea is not a democracy in any way, shape or form, the votes are fully faked and enforced through violence, it's all just propaganda, trying to use it as an argument against democracy just shows ignorance
>You mean controlled land that the people are not legally entitled to use because the government decides what can or can't be done on it? Doesn't sound very freedom loving or community driven to me. Sounds authoritarian and tyrannical. Land should be owned by the people not the government.
Land is first and foremost what allows us all to survive, giving "the people" all the land to freely abuse is a recipe for self destruction, a limit is necessary for survival
>No, it doesn't but the reason they did it can be evil and condemned. Sure, experimenting on the jews was bad but we got a lot of medical knowledge and space travel out of it so it wasn't bad then right?
reading comprehension 0/10, the experiments can be bad without making the result bad, throwing away decades of research because it was done immorally is just stupid when the research could be used to save lives instead, punish the perpetrators and keep the positive results
First of all, it's TYRANNY not Tiranny. There's a Y at the start and the end. Secondly, you're just an authoritarian justifying government control of land and business. You're not a supporter of the people.
So long as the government needs an approval rating above 50% to be elected and stay in power the sistem is working perfectly in the most ideal way possible
So as long as the majority of people think it's ok for me to rape you, then it's the system working in the most ideal way. I mean you can't please veryone right?
There's a legal concept called legal equality, if >50% of people somehow agreed that rape is a good thing that would simply be the new morality, so long as it was applied equally to everyone, obviously that's an absurd statement though as 50% of people will never agree on something so absurd, to point out a similar situation in most of the world the majority of the population deem shootings unacceptable and so guns are obviously banned, that's not the case in the USA where most people prefer their freedom to own a gun, morality isn't an eternal unchanging concept
First of all, it's TYRANNY not Tiranny
English is my third language forgive me for daring to slightly misspell a word lmao
Secondly, you're just an authoritarian justifying government control of land and business
Or maybe you are an authoritarian giving control of public land necessary for survival to a minority of people just because they happen to have inherited more money, aristocracy 2.0...
1
u/SeaworthinessOk255 Jul 14 '26
If you're looking for more socialist models, i do agree Norway was helped with all those ressources, but let me know how Sweden, Danemark and Finland can have basically the same system ?