4 ms·

From someone of a Norwegian/Australian background, what the whole article describes is simply alien. People just aren't that selfish on a grand scale in either

From someone of a Norwegian/Australian background, what the whole article describes is simply alien. People just aren't that selfish on a grand scale in either of my home countries. Clearly, none of the non-voters ever read Matilda. Or understand that ultimately, the lack of public services will put everyone back.

Spooky23 9y ago
These areas need to be dis-incorporated. They serve no purpose. Ultimately, things like this are probably for the better.
- thescribe 9y ago
  If the residents are happy with the change isn't it serving a purpose to them?
oceanghost 9y ago
As a Norweigan, you may not be in possession of certain facts about the US politics. 1. Almost all media in the US is severely biased. 2. This to me at least looks like something called the "national parks strategy." This is when the government funds its unpopular pet projects (frequently theft), and underfunds popular programs such as national parks, roads and the like then threatens the public with their closure if they do not pass tax increases. Frequently, if the tax is passed, they do a show project and misallocate the rest of the money. Over the time citizens have become wise and vote--entirely rationally-- for the safest option which is, no new taxes. California is in the midst of such a battle now: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/11/californians-rebel-against-gas-car-tax-hike/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/11/californians...
- sundvor 9y ago
  Interesting, thanks for that information.
  - ojbyrne 9y ago
    Just so you know, the washington times is a radical right wing publication. I live in California, and the tiny tax increase on vehicles is both a. well below the rate of inflation and b. not enraging people.
    - oceanghost 9y ago
      Well, this only proves my point I suppose. I did not know that-- but amnusingly... I live in Orange County, and believe me the recall is real and it is going to happen.
- Sanddancer 9y ago
  The media isn't biased as much as you think. It's anti-confrontational, which means stories about things people are upset about often get minified. However, the Washington Times, which you linked to, is fantastically biased. It's owned by the Unification Church, and has been repeatedly criticized for its pro-Moon stance. If you want to know what's really happening, don't read the washington times.
  - throwaway7312 9y ago
    US media is biased. Try this experiment: find a conservative friend and a liberal friend. Ask each of these friends which of the two papers in the parent and OP is more biased and which is more fact-based. Your conservative friend will tell you the Washington Times is more fact-based and the New York Times is heavily biased. Your liberal friend will tell you the New York Times is more fact-based and the Washington Times is heavily biased. Your first conclusion might be that one of your friends (whichever one whose beliefs oppose yours more) is insane or uneducated on what you know is true. The more likely conclusion, however, is that each of these papers weaves heavy amounts of opinion, spin, and perspective on the "facts" it conveys, and that opinion and spin is invisible to those who share the same biases, while being conspicuous and grating to those who do not.
anigbrowl 9y ago
For perspective, some parts of Oregon are populated by people who moved there from the Old South because they wanted to live somewhere whiter and more conservative, so there are pockets of very strong ideological opposition to any sort of public institutions. As a fellow Euro I really recommend the book American Nations by Colin Woodard (actually also from Oregon) if you want to understand the strange contradictions of US politics. One of the best history books I've read.
Lazare 9y ago
There's another point you're missing: The American government is incredibly poorly run. People would probably be much more supportive of paying for government services if they were getting the level of quality and efficiency Norwegian taxpayers get. :)
- merpnderp 9y ago
  If it weren't for the train wreck that is the VA, and the problems with medicare/medicaid, a lot more people might be in favor of single payer/government health care. But if the government can't correct the VA problems after years of effort and billions in extra funding, how can the government suddenly fix the same problem only 100x larger?
  - Lazare 9y ago
    Yep. A fairly large chunk of the US would quite love to have, eg, the British NHS. Nobody wants to have the VA. Moving from the US to another country it's amazing how well-liked government institutions are, even including the local equivalent of the IRS. And with good reason; they're well run too. In the US, the DMV is a punchline and a staple of standup comedy; a shorthand for the towering, malevolent incompetence of government, but most parts of government would work just as well. You could go years without a positive interaction with the government. It was quite an interesting surprise to learn there are parts of the world where the government functions well and an interaction with them is not to be dreaded.
thescribe 9y ago
I suspect you and I are alien with respect to our views, so please don't take this as an attack. I was surprised to hear you describe people voting against continued public service as 'selfish'. Why would you consider them selfish?
- mirimir 9y ago
  Maybe "selfish" isn't quite right. More like self-interested. Or not community-minded. I'm guessing that those opposed to public services would prefer private services. So perhaps a subscription-based library system. With free services for the poor, funded by donations. But would that provide as much social benefit as a public service? I tend to doubt it. Maybe libraries are a moot point, given the Internet. But the same issues come up for schools, police, fire, roads, bridges, etc. I mean, I have no children, so paying for schools seems like a rip-off sometimes. But on the other hand, I like living in a society that's at least somewhat literate.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Ignore the title, because the questioner is not Bernie Sanders. But this Milton Friedman response to this very question answers your question pretty succinctly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo
- sundvor 9y ago
  I define something that is public as being available to use regardless of your standing. If you have e.g. public health system, and public education, at high standards, your chance of success is to a vastly greater degree decoupled from the wealth of your family, or the suburb you live in. The benefit is that society as a whole gets richer, you reduce crime, etc etc. Basically what comes around goes around. To be opposed to having great public benefits e.g. just because you are from a family of great wealth and are unwilling to share some of that for the greater good is thus something I ultimately define as selfish. I also think it is short sighted, as no matter how well off you are the higher the chances you'll be affected by things like crime. Hopefully this explains my thinking.

Spooky23 9y ago

These areas need to be dis-incorporated. They serve no purpose. Ultimately, things like this are probably for the better.

thescribe 9y ago
If the residents are happy with the change isn't it serving a purpose to them?

oceanghost 9y ago

As a Norweigan, you may not be in possession of certain facts about the US politics. 1. Almost all media in the US is severely biased. 2. This to me at least looks like something called the "national parks strategy." This is when the government funds its unpopular pet projects (frequently theft), and underfunds popular programs such as national parks, roads and the like then threatens the public with their closure if they do not pass tax increases. Frequently, if the tax is passed, they do a show project and misallocate the rest of the money. Over the time citizens have become wise and vote--entirely rationally-- for the safest option which is, no new taxes. California is in the midst of such a battle now: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/11/californians-rebel-against-gas-car-tax-hike/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/11/californians...

sundvor 9y ago
Interesting, thanks for that information.
- ojbyrne 9y ago
  Just so you know, the washington times is a radical right wing publication. I live in California, and the tiny tax increase on vehicles is both a. well below the rate of inflation and b. not enraging people.
  - oceanghost 9y ago
    Well, this only proves my point I suppose. I did not know that-- but amnusingly... I live in Orange County, and believe me the recall is real and it is going to happen.
Sanddancer 9y ago
The media isn't biased as much as you think. It's anti-confrontational, which means stories about things people are upset about often get minified. However, the Washington Times, which you linked to, is fantastically biased. It's owned by the Unification Church, and has been repeatedly criticized for its pro-Moon stance. If you want to know what's really happening, don't read the washington times.
- throwaway7312 9y ago
  US media is biased. Try this experiment: find a conservative friend and a liberal friend. Ask each of these friends which of the two papers in the parent and OP is more biased and which is more fact-based. Your conservative friend will tell you the Washington Times is more fact-based and the New York Times is heavily biased. Your liberal friend will tell you the New York Times is more fact-based and the Washington Times is heavily biased. Your first conclusion might be that one of your friends (whichever one whose beliefs oppose yours more) is insane or uneducated on what you know is true. The more likely conclusion, however, is that each of these papers weaves heavy amounts of opinion, spin, and perspective on the "facts" it conveys, and that opinion and spin is invisible to those who share the same biases, while being conspicuous and grating to those who do not.

anigbrowl 9y ago

For perspective, some parts of Oregon are populated by people who moved there from the Old South because they wanted to live somewhere whiter and more conservative, so there are pockets of very strong ideological opposition to any sort of public institutions. As a fellow Euro I really recommend the book American Nations by Colin Woodard (actually also from Oregon) if you want to understand the strange contradictions of US politics. One of the best history books I've read.

Lazare 9y ago

There's another point you're missing: The American government is incredibly poorly run. People would probably be much more supportive of paying for government services if they were getting the level of quality and efficiency Norwegian taxpayers get. :)

merpnderp 9y ago
If it weren't for the train wreck that is the VA, and the problems with medicare/medicaid, a lot more people might be in favor of single payer/government health care. But if the government can't correct the VA problems after years of effort and billions in extra funding, how can the government suddenly fix the same problem only 100x larger?
- Lazare 9y ago
  Yep. A fairly large chunk of the US would quite love to have, eg, the British NHS. Nobody wants to have the VA. Moving from the US to another country it's amazing how well-liked government institutions are, even including the local equivalent of the IRS. And with good reason; they're well run too. In the US, the DMV is a punchline and a staple of standup comedy; a shorthand for the towering, malevolent incompetence of government, but most parts of government would work just as well. You could go years without a positive interaction with the government. It was quite an interesting surprise to learn there are parts of the world where the government functions well and an interaction with them is not to be dreaded.

thescribe 9y ago

I suspect you and I are alien with respect to our views, so please don't take this as an attack. I was surprised to hear you describe people voting against continued public service as 'selfish'. Why would you consider them selfish?

mirimir 9y ago
Maybe "selfish" isn't quite right. More like self-interested. Or not community-minded. I'm guessing that those opposed to public services would prefer private services. So perhaps a subscription-based library system. With free services for the poor, funded by donations. But would that provide as much social benefit as a public service? I tend to doubt it. Maybe libraries are a moot point, given the Internet. But the same issues come up for schools, police, fire, roads, bridges, etc. I mean, I have no children, so paying for schools seems like a rip-off sometimes. But on the other hand, I like living in a society that's at least somewhat literate.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Ignore the title, because the questioner is not Bernie Sanders. But this Milton Friedman response to this very question answers your question pretty succinctly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo
sundvor 9y ago
I define something that is public as being available to use regardless of your standing. If you have e.g. public health system, and public education, at high standards, your chance of success is to a vastly greater degree decoupled from the wealth of your family, or the suburb you live in. The benefit is that society as a whole gets richer, you reduce crime, etc etc. Basically what comes around goes around. To be opposed to having great public benefits e.g. just because you are from a family of great wealth and are unwilling to share some of that for the greater good is thus something I ultimately define as selfish. I also think it is short sighted, as no matter how well off you are the higher the chances you'll be affected by things like crime. Hopefully this explains my thinking.