7 ms·
Do you think this is related to Finland being much, much, much more homogeneous demographically than the US? I was going to say "ethnically homogeneous", but t
by thanatropism 9y ago
Do you think this is related to Finland being much, much, much more homogeneous demographically than the US?
I was going to say "ethnically homogeneous", but that isn't even the core of the issue. The US has populations with vastly divergent cultural backgrounds and outlooks (there's even a few types of white people); it's harder to argue that Hassidim in NYC should care for Crips in outer LA.
- fsloth 9y agoUh, I have no idea when the concept of perceived fairness brakes down. But that's not the point in the end. Universal services like school and healthcare make sense because they improve the quality of life for everyone. I suppose the core issue is that there is trust that the public funds are used in proper way. I don't understand the 'US is too large to X' arguments. I thought the states are sufficiently independent to handle most things distinctively from the federal level. But I don't know enough of how US works to discuss this beyond it looks odd. Couldn't e.g Oregon implement something, and if it works, then other states could just copy the model. From the outside the concept of distinct state level governments sound like they could provide great platform for innovation and experimentation. But maybe they are bogged down in federal legislation and partisan politics?