Yes. Scale matters. No argument there.

That said, I am a big proponent of proportional representation as opposed to the first-past-the-post system of both the US and Britain. I think that would both solve the problem of gerrymandering and increase voter turnout, at least at the local level. How to scale that to the national level, where you have so (relatively speaking) few representatives per area, I don't know. The system kind of breaks down there as if you only have one or two representatives for an entire state, then a lot of opinions aren't going to be heard/represented...

Well, we haven't had any major cases of regulatory capture yet for example. (With a possible exception in the nuclear industry, that was pounced upon quite quickly though). Rather, we haven't had any yet I should say... :-) Watch this space. One major reason (dare I say difference?) is that working for the government is still a sought after position, that attracts if not the very best, at least still very good people. How/if this will change I don't know.

However, we're not nearly as homogeneous as we once were (only thirty years ago), and how that will play out will be interesting to see. Since the Norwegians and Finns are still very homogeneous there will be opportunities for comparison in the long run.

P.S. And just for the record, Swedes are known for a distinct lack of a sense of our history. At least we think we are, whether that holds up to an international comparison I don't know. :-)

Sure. I'll bite. The problem is with a justice system based on plea bargaining run amok (I had a nice reference, but I can't find it...) This leads to a justice system where almost no cases go to trial as the risk for the defendant is much too high since the prosecutor will often skew the risk by offering a sentence reduction of a factor of twenty or more (in the case of Aaron Swartz an even one hundred!)

Any prosecutor that feels that society is safe and justice is served if a defendant agrees to six months in prison, but will call for fifty years as a punishment for going to trial, should be (at a minimum) fired, and a system that thinks this a reasonable approach to meter out justice should be taken out back behind the shed and be put out of its misery.

This leads of course to many innocent people pleading "guilty" (note that the quotation marks are real as you even have that abomination called the "Alford plea" where you can plead "guilty but not really". WTF?)

Now, if for practicalitys sake you wanted to sugar the deal to entice the guilty to confess, then sure, you could argue for a deduction. Say 10% or 15% or something. Not 99%...

In Sweden at the moment we have no plea bargaining, no immunity from prosecution for in turn for providing evidence/being a witness, no juries (laypeople take their place, that sit for a set term and hence can gain some experience), no electing judges and prosecutors (last place on earth you want a politician), and the state provides for your defence (i.e. they pay the lawyer of your choice according to set standards, we don't have any public defenders or something like it).

Now, there is pressure to change that, as we're always looking to what the US does, esp. when it comes to pleas and immunity. You can guess the political persuasion of those shouting the loudest for this change. They're not usually the people most famous for thinking everybody should have the same opportunities regardless of what cards they were dealt when they first sat at the table.

Good to hear! Yes, Sweden is small and homogeneous (though that's changing rapidly). So scaling from our small example is tricky. However, the German situation is similar when it comes to how industry and unions are organized, they're a bit more diverse, and they're 80 million or so, so it can scale by a factor of ten at least. So I wouldn't give it up just yet.

Well, that's a problem. Not an insurmountable one though. After all, it was the Social democrats in Sweden that in the late nineties said that "He who is in debt is not free" and we lowered our national debt from 100% of our GDP (I seem to remember) to around 30% where it is now, in only a few short years. So the bureaucracy can sometimes take the pain. Being small and feeling the cold wind blowing of course helps helps with that.

Yes, that everybody needs non-corrupt government or government-like functions is pretty much a given. That said, the US isn't that bad. According to transparency international you rank 17, Germany 12 and we (Sweden) 4. So while there's room for improvement, you have a long way down until you rank with Afghanistan and the likes. All shouldn't be lost.

And we did retreat from the Norwegians once (they didn't dare to follow even though they were numerically much stronger), but winter hit in full force and more than half of the soldiers froze to death. The Norwegians didn't have anything to do with that loss though... :-)

No, seriously, Swedes and Norwegians are like one big family. Not necessarily one big happy family mind you, no more like any old family. :-)

Well, you can believe that, but you'd be wrong. :-) From your journal entry: "I'm not sure why he moderated me down...". But maybe you meant something else?

There's your problem! Let's call them self described communists for extra clarity, and leave the question of what the word "communist" actually means today for another time.

In that case it's surprising that there aren't more people there that have "foe'd" you. While the overwhelming majority aren't on that list because they're "hard-core conservatives" the opinion that put them there does correlate very strongly with american conservative thinking in particular (and conservative thinking elsewhere in general, though not as openly and clearly).

You on the other hand don't fit that group (but I only have one marker to play with). Your (strongly voiced) opinion that made me want to notice if I came across you again, were very right wing though (not extremist, I haste to add, even from my admittedly skewed perspective, being where I am, but decidedly out there).

But, I can remove you from the list if it irks you. Like I said it's more of a "foo"-marker than a "foe"-marker. Most people don't seem to care or notice, as a matter of fact you're the first that ever gave any feedback. It's not part of some grand strategy to amass as many enemies as possible...

Well a proper union to begin with would actually be the result of freedom of association. In China they are not as the Chineese workers don't have freedom of association. The union in China is just another part of the governments control apparatus.

And yes, I know there are and have been problems with unions in the USA. But also we don't have nearly the same problems in non-Anglo-Saxon countries (most notably Sweden where I live). In Sweden even the armed forces officers are unionised. It doesn't get more public sector than that and that hasn't led to any major problems. (Or differences in outlook compared to their NATO brethren. )

No, the difference is between, on the one hand, partisanship above all else, and on the other, an understanding that we are, at the end of the day, all in the same boat. Given the relative sizes of the US and Sweden, and the relative difference in absolute strength (military, economic, etc.) that we are more attuned to the latter way of thinking. So, that we have "powerful" unions (our current prime minister is a former union leader, that's his political background), doesn't mean that those unions can "destroy" anything, as that destruction will leave everybody worse off. They're as constrained by facts on the ground as everybody else. That's not to say that there can't be fundamental differences in how to order society though, there are, and that we have a large portion of "socialist" (not really) policies is of course a large part of our being in the top of the quality of living indices for multiple decades in a row. Our much stronger and better organised version of the UAW notwithstanding. (Again our prime minister began on the national arena as the head of the Metal workers union, the largest and most powerful of the trade unions, which he later became the head of.)

Now, I don't understand the "massive conflict of interest" that would supposedly occur when government workers are unionised. As I read your FDR reference, he was basically against the right to strike for sensitive positions. That's a given, whether they are government workers or not, you can't have your ambulance personnel go on strike. The same with the army of course, and indeed while the Swedish officers are unionised, they don't have the right to strike. Turns out you can still be effectively organised and have real bargaining power without striking at the drop of a hat (even without the right to strike). A strike is the nuclear option, and there are still plenty of ways to wage war without it.

So if your point is that unions won't work in the US. Sure, I don't believe it, but it's at least an interesting topic for discussion. But if your argument is that "since unions don't work in the US, they can't work anywhere", then hard evidence flies directly in the face of that, and I won't be moved one mm by it.

a) I don't moderate and never have. Hence, I haven't moderated you down. So I can't help you with that.

b) How is that post displaying a "lack of understanding of communism"? I'm genuinely curious.

P.S. I use "foe" as a (too all purpose) marker for people, given that Slashdot doesn't have any other way of tagging people. (Though I've been toying with writing something using e.g. greasemonkey, if I wasn't a complete noob when it came to that). So don't take the word "foo" too literally.

The problem with China is that they already have a union. They're "communist" after all. So there's a union already, and you're already a member of it and you better do as they say or else. As a matter of fact it's often touted as an advantage by Chinese manufacturers; "As the labour force is already unionised, with no competing unions, there are no risks for labour disputes aso."...

So the road for Chinese workers is longer and harder since they need functioning civil liberties first. Then they can organise proper unions.

Yepp. All research points to it being safer to much safer, to cross outside a "crosswalk". That's why (here in Sweden) we've started to remove them, and refuse to put them in in more difficult traffic situations. It has already had a measurable positive impact on pedestrian safety.

Why you'd want a jay walking law is completely beyond me...

Yepp, the disheartening lesson is that everybody is equal at the very bottom. :-)

We've had something similar in historic Sweden. One reason we never really had any feudalistic oppression in Sweden was that there wasn't room for more than the king. He didn't have to barter with feudal lords, cause there wasn't room for anyone else to grow in strength enough to get out from under the kings thumb.

That's not to say that Swedish pheasants at the time were much better off than their European brethren. No, more that everybody were equally miserable... Except for the king... :-)

Sony actually did this, remember? They were a tech company that bought a studio and we all thought "Great, now that sensible tech companies have started buying control over content we won't have to put up with this shit much longer."

Only, it turned out that the content part of Sony won and instead of tech whipping content into shape, it was the other way around.

So be careful what you wish for... Being able to control the narrative (which is what control over content allows you to do) will always have a pretty powerful allure, even if it doesn't make you nearly as much money as the boring stuff. This is incidentally why politcians flock to those with power of the daily discourse, even if they're not even close to the richest people around.

Look up the reign of Caligula (short as it was). One reason he was so popular among the common people was that he treated everybody equally (badly), and wasn't above throwing hordes of rich people to the lions. (When he ordered the first five rows of the Colosseum thrown into the arena, those were the ring side seats, filled with the rich and famous, which went down very well with the common man).

I'd like to see citations to those results actually being used. Those results weren't made public until long after the war, and since war (esp. the air war in the case of cold water immersion) made these matters pressing, the allies studied these issues as well. They got the same results through using human volounteers (cold immersion) and animal models (shooting pigs and goats), so those Nazi results weren't actually "used" other than as a comparison after the fact. (The rocket research though, there the Nazis had a real advantage, and those results were most certainly built on.)

That's not nearly an accurate description of events. The helicopter crew is clearly aware of the rules of engagement that prevents them from opening fire on the van. They comment on those rules just moments before the vans shows up. But when the van comes on the scene they really, really want to fire on it, so they flat out lie to their chain of command to receive permission to do so.

It's clear to anyone that's listened to the actual CVR...