Interesting, in Swedish we have two (main) words too. The most common word, avundsjuk, even though it has sjuk in it (meaning sick or ill), doesn't necessarily have to be negative. E.g. "I'm so avundsjuk on your vacation to the Bahamas but I hope you have a nice trip." Missunnsam (sounds related to Missgunst) OTOH means that you refuse to let someone enjoy the object of envy. "I guess you must do some pretty heavy tax-evasion in order to afford that trip to the Bahamas."
I agree, fairness != equality. While I'm a great believer in fairness, the problem with it is that it opens up to arbitration. What I consider fair may not be what you consider fair. Equality OTOH is measurable.
> I'm of the opinion that egalitarianism is not a desirable outcome. Hierarchies [...] are much more preferable and have demonstrated to be the better pick for humanity.
Better in what way? The Ju/’hoansi have lived in this egalitarian society for some 200k yrs[1]. It has obviously served them quite well.
I’m of libertarian persuasion but it has to be noted that periods of human history where one faction was souvereign over it’s dominion, were generally more peaceful and conducive to trade and human cooperation.
Empirialism, dispite all of it’s atrocities, have resulted in more stable and peaceful periods during which cultural and technological progress is made.
Personally, I believe it might be better to have a single source of coercion, which is transparent and democratically scrutinized, than to have those dispersed in order to diffuse influence. Many nowadays will argue for more distributed government, taking hints from the apparent successes of “coopetition” in the marketplace. But that space was carefully constructed over millenia of trail and error by governing bureaucracies. It works well because there’s a leviathan that took away every individual’s opportunity for coercive action AND instituted a justice system to distribute justice in a controlled fashion. It also enforces property rights so you don’t end up with robberies out of spite. Without it you get people distributing justice among themselves, resulting in bloody family feuds and cycles of revenge killings.
I feel people arguing for anarchism (and I like anarchism in theory) typically do not seem to appreciate just how violent most of human history has been before highly centralized state and justice systems.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I can't help but wonder if the increase in peace and progress, assuming that's actually true (imperialism has caused quite a bit of suffering, just often not in our back-yard), cannot be explained by factors other than the 'leviathan'.
Furthermore, there's no reason to assume that a less centralized, less coercive approach might not be the next step in our 'progress'. Our technological developments, among other things, might make that more possible.
(I think that any such change would might not work very well if implemented revolutionary-style though, and I'm unsure what other approach might work)
> I feel people arguing for anarchism (and I like anarchism in theory) typically do not seem to appreciate just how violent most of human history has been before highly centralized state and justice systems.
Just how violent was it? This seems a difficult assertion to make. The modern state arose at some point in the 15th century; I don't recall the Renaissance being that much more peaceful than Medieval times in Europe.
Better in the way that western civilization (with America leading the way) has been built on hierarchies. People in the States don't even realize how good they have it there because of this fact alone. Many egalitarian models have been attempted elsewhere and failed terribly only leading to mass deaths or eating out of the garbage can as is the case in Venezuela. Majority of the attempts at egalitarianism (if not all) are dehumanizing at best and murderous at worst.
A lot of people would want to come to America - myself included - but I've come to detest the perils of illegal immigration as is the case in my country where we have our own version of the same problem being faced by America with illegal aliens pouring in in droves. Luckily we have strong borders and Americans should also be thankful for a president that cares about these issues and is willing to take the heat for it.
America has not "led the way" of Western civilisation. It presides America by a couple of millennia, and has been developed much further, subtler, and deeper as a civilisation in Europe (where all of its traditions, and thinkers, and laws originated).
America for example invented neither the scientific process, nor the enlightenment, nor democracy, nor philosophy, and so on. Even the legal system is based on ole Roman traditions.
If you mean it's more prosperous, then yes. Though places like the nordic countries and Switzerland would beg to differ, at least on average.
And what America did offer wasn't because of "hierarchies". If anything America offered individualism, and being more independent. And it was way more egalitarian before inequality rose after the 80s.
I think its America's individualism that led to America's roaring success and increase in inequality. If you let people have more individual liberty, some are going to be highly motivated and intelligent and excel while others are going to be lazy and slow. Throw in a few years of selective breeding and you're going to get rising inequality
>* If you let people have more individual liberty, some are going to be highly motivated and intelligent and excel while others are going to be lazy and slow. Throw in a few years of selective breeding and you're going to get rising inequality*
I don't think that exhaust the causes. Not to mention it borders on the racist (the lazy self-selected breed of the poor, and the high achievers smart rich).
Instead, if you people have more individual liberty, they'll be less likely to work together and stop politicians and corporations from stomping on them.
Add grubby moguls that stop at nothing (the never ending legacy of the robber-baron) and have politicians, media, and judges in their pockets, and you're going to get rising inequality.
> Better in the way that western civilization (with America leading the way) has been built on hierarchies.
Despite that that is an incorrect statement (it has been addressed by coldtea's comment), my original question tried to hint towards a wider view. It's not as simple as saying western civilization is better. Is it better for the individual? How? Is it better for humanity? How? Is it better because we have cars, computers, airplanes and what not? Would all humans have starved to death without it? And then what is the cost of western civilization? Does it carry those costs? After all, hierarchical systems have stood for some of the worst atrocities in both historic and more modern times. When a ruler can send millions to war with some other ruler because he (let's be honest it's mostly a he) has the power over "his" people.
Western civilization is what we have and know but what is to say that the world couldn't have been in a better place if history had taken some other turns?
American dominance can be explained entirely by its geography. Socioeconomic systems exist to exploit geography. No socioeconomic system can create resources that don't exist.
What makes you think the problems of immigration are not just Trumped up (heh) to distract from the much bigger problem that is the very hierarchy and filthy-rich class (that your president represents) of people that has steadily been fucking over the lower- and middle class, and reduced much of your country to a pretty shit place for the latter compared to more socialism-inspired countries?
Scapegoating is an age-old tactic used by the powerful and there's tons of evidence that inequality on the level seen in the US is not a good thing. On the other hand, the evidence that immigration is terrible and that stronger elements of socialism (at least Europe-style) don't work is quite lacking.
I'm not saying we should go for full on state socialism USSR-style, but there's a lot in between.
"What makes you think the problems of immigration are not just Trumped up (heh) " - what do you mean?
Certainly most people who own houses in the suburbs have been aware for many years that some of the problems with illegal immigration are making for an uneven playing field for small business and average workers. I'm not sure if city living folks are as exposed to the business dealings in the same way.
In what ways "very hierarchy and filthy-rich class... of people that has steadily been fucking over the lower- and middle class,"
In what ways do you mean? My only guess is you mean the wealthy have convinced both democrats and republicans for years to avoid minimum wage increases that match living wages?
"filthy-rich class (that your president represents)" - If you mean he represents the rich because he used similar methods to get rich in the past, okay - like a token symbol? IF you mean he represents them in his current government role, I think you are wrong. I think many of his policies are very contradictory to what the wealthy wanted. From replacing O-care to the illegal immigration enforcement, these issues are things most of the wealthy have been against from what I understand.
Scapegoating as a tactic for either side is annoying.
When you say "evidence that immigration is terrible", please understand some in the US are rallying for complete open borders, most are saying legal immigration is not terrible, it's good for the country, and we want the process to be better. A small few are against immigration, however it appears that certain media outlets and those who want to change the course of democrat vs republican want people to think that enforcing the laws that have been on the books for years means people are evil, racist, and want no one to enter the country.
Both sides are saying different things about the same thing. It appears the republicans / conservatives are listening the to media and social justice warriors, hearing what they are saying.
Stronger elements of socialism? Europe style? What do you mean? Work or don't work, we've tried more and less feed stamps, rent vouchers, healthcare things for the whole country and state by state these things have varied and swung a bit one way and then the other. So yes there is a lot in between.
I don't think most of those things are going to make much difference with the rich vs poor actually. I do envy some of the programs I have read about in the UK and other countries that are close, but the populations here are very different, and country wide things are major.
One of the things that actually is working to put pressure on wealthy to put more money in the pockets of the lower and middle class is limiting the amount of readily available people who will work and live illegally.
You say "your president" and then later say "we should go for" - so I am confused as to whether you are outside the US or in it.
There are many pieces to these complex issues, what works in Detroit is not going to work in Burbank. Scapegoating a person or class you don't like is not helping to put facts on the table, just appealing to emotions and encouraging others to buy into the group feels.
As somebody who lives in the nordic countries but is a foreigner I think that the law is not really a specific thing to Nordic countries but just an amusing social commentary of certain types of society. It's the same nearly everywhere that 'boasting' is a bad thing and the most respectable person is the one who silently gets stuff done.
The "Law of Jante" is formulated in a novel by the Danish-Norwegian author Axel Sandemose. He explicitly states that the law is used by the proletariat to keep each other down, and that it is a universal phenomenon - just as strong in Brooklyn as in Jante, the (semi-fictional) Danish town of the book. A critical part of the book is his description of the "Law of Jante" among a dysfunctional multinational crew of sailors on a ship. (He ends up murdering one of the crew-members, and blames the "Law of Jante" for the murder!)
It is rather interesting that it is more often interpreted as a national characteristic - something uniquely Scandinavian - than a characteristic of the lower classes, which was the intention of the author.
Cultures tend towards believing that something they have is unique about them. I do not know why this is but I suppose believing in something such as a national identity presupposes that there is something distinct about that identity.
As somebody from the UK it's strange that I find a certain source of solace from this kind of culture even though practically it doesn't seem to make sense to dislike those who are succesful.
The only people i see claiming this as some national characteristic are foreigners and people that has already gotten slapped for being an asshole by society.
>and the most respectable person is the one who silently gets stuff done.
Except even in this case, others must be aware of the person getting things done. If you managed to do a lot of work and people literally didn't notice or attributed the work to someone else, you won't be respected by them. So what ends up earning the most respect is the ability to spread knowing of your accomplishments without appearing like you are boasting about your accomplishments. That said, in such a system the people likely think they are valuing the person quietly getting things done, ignorant of what they actually value.
Depends on the scale of course, but the US the best are idolized and boasting is expected (even encouraged), and this is true in other countries as well (though it is my experience the US is by far the leader).
As someone who have lived in a few countries and visited many more, I think the law of jante is a description of the social dynamics of scandinavian societies much more than of anywhere else (Denmark much more than Sweden)
There are other dynamics with somewhat similar results - a French friend told me that 10 years ago, starting your own company in France was the thing you did after you failed to get a job delivering the mail - leading to very little entrepreneurship - though he said it is changing in the last 5 years.
This is why I mentioned -certain types- of societies. I find my native british culture very similar to denmark indeed on this front. In fact I do not believe for a minuite that the nordic countries are the most representative of such a thing. That dubious honour goes to places such as singapore where work ethics and not sticking out are extremely deeply ingrained.
That would be why I mentioned -certain types- of societies. I do not think this is applicable to all cultures but many of them.
I have visited them and indeed I find a certain split between my experience of people's cultures and values say in the south of france and italy than I do in germany or russia.
I'm not sure if I really want to make the conjecture that there are two kinds of societies but I feel that on this issue it would certainly seem that way.
This. I studied German for six years in school and have yet to complete a successful conversation. I worked as a volunteer in a children's home in Thailand for a couple of months and while far from fluent in Thai, I can manage most situations.
I very firmly believe that languages are taught the wrong way in school. There's too much focus on grammar but not enough of getting a "feel" for the language. You need to soak in it for that. You shouldn't need to think about how to say something (but that's what German is to me, whenever I try to say things the "is it accusative or dative?"-question pops up in my mind).
Needing to think about how to say what you want to say is like needing to think about how to move your feet in order to walk.
> having access to iPad helped my daughter to learn way more than I thought she could at that age (e. g. English names for colors; count in English and the alphabet song — before she even was three)
While that may sound awesome, I'm not so sure it's better in the long term. Your daughter would've learned the English names of colors and the alphabet eventually anyway. OTOH using phones and pads changes our brains, making us worse and worse at keeping our focus. We become addicted to that something is always changing or moving until reading a book becomes hard. I'd rather start from the other side, reading a lot of books for the kids, letting them learn at a slower rate but with retained ability to focus.
I recently returned from a trip to the USA and was a bit surprised that they asked for ZIP code instead of PIN for my credit card. While the NY subway accepted my non-US ZIP code, some gas stations did not as they apparently checked the entered ZIP code against valid US ZIP codes.
