What are our strict and completely messed up laws nan? Without looking them up? I really get the feeling more and more you honestly lack information about America and just assume we are off on everything... Has your media treated america the way ours has France.
Nah, not really. Our media and government has always been quite US friendly. Of course, bush changed things a bit in the rest of the world, but yeah.
And yes, there are a lot of horrible rulings in the US on the matter off sex. Lets do some examples:
17 year old in Florida if memory serves me right. He got a ******* from a 15 year old girl in their own room at a party. Then someone burst into the room and takes a few pictures. These pictures spread (not because of the boy) and the boy is eventually charged with STATUTORY RAPE and is condemned to prison for 22 years. The media here was following the case a couple of years ago.
Another example is from the west coast somewhere (Nevada or some such). A 16 and a 17 years old couple takes nude pictures of each other. Somehow these pictures leak out somewhere. Lots of embarrassment. The end of it? no. The state charges these to kids with producing and storage of child porn. Both are given punishments of 7-9 years.
I mean, any judicial system that is willing to do this, even on the local levels of courts is abhorable.
As a really sad addition to this point, apparently police in Mobile, Alabama tased a deaf and disabled man who "stayed in the bathroom too long." He couldn't hear them shouting "Police!" when they were banging on the stall door, so he thought they were a mugger or something and held the door closed. Then they pepper sprayed him, and when he was bending over the sink to wash his eyes out, they tased him. And then tried to arrest him for disorderly conduct. Like a judge would ever accept this.
So, rare corner case (hopefully!), but still.
The saddest thing is that this isn't that rare. I read alot of different news all over the web and I often get linked to local American newspapers and there alot of these cases that never reaches very high up in the media.
That is a little weird, cuz really, it's not like teens aren't going to be able to acquire hard alcohol.
They can't buy it themselves, but yes it is not hard to get. However, I could easily get stuff when I was 16 and up because I look older then I am.
But seriously, it's been speculated that Americans would rather have a President of any gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity than an atheist.
Well, its probably based in the polls that show that being athiest is one critieare most people in the US would exclude the president on. But yeah, religion is not much of an issue here. We still have a few religious marks and wordings left in the laws, but they are just disappearing more and more. Myself, as an atheist it pleases me very much to live in one of the least religious countries in the world.
Again tell me about the backwards south? Unless texas doesnt count I can assure you we are a great hub for learning(higher), economics(we have a great economy here), and urban development(3 of the ten largest US cities). While there are some ridiculously backwards redneck areas in some states(texas included) for the most part we are on par with the "sophisticated north". This may all be a mute point though since TX is the size of most countries(and by most i mean very few of the largest)
Well, I am guessing that things are quite different in the city and in the smaller towns. My mom was in texas some years ago visiting my grandfather who lives there. She was astounded by the way people didn't travel. She met lots of people in the "smaller" towns that had never traveled out of the town, and most people she met had never been out of the state, much less the country. This is one thing that americans are known for though. They travel very little.
How about merging states so you dont have such small states anymore? Controversial as hell and never going to pass anywhere, but if it WERE to pass it would probably make the US more democratic.
Again more people die in auto accidents and in swimming pools (or drowning) than guns. In fact when it comes to accidental shootings it is ranked 7th on the list. Number 2 on the list are people falling.
What order it ranks on is completely relevant. All countries have accidents. Too see if something is wrong with how often they happen you have to compare that relevant statistic to the the statistic of other countries. And lets look at some actual stats: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_dis_fro_oth_and_uns_fir_percap-other-unspecified-firearms-per-capita
General people getting shot. The us is ahead of any other industrialized nation and almost twice as much as the closest European country.
So eh, the US is one the countries most likley to get shot in. And even with the people doing the killing, they will statisticly do less killing with less guns laying around.
Editing
Hand-guns: Regulated pretty well, could be stiffer control. But I disagree with taking them AWAY, just make them very difficult to get.
Also...why the heck have they NOT put serial numbers INSIDE of hand-gun bullit casings, which match sales to buyers.
Its 2009 for crying out loud.
Yes, I don't propose banning handguns either. However, I do think handguns should be even stricter then hunting rifles. The main thing though is keeping both very securely locked up. ALOT of deaths are prevented that way.
But stupid drivers kill a lot of people (and, unfortunately, not themselves, it seems most of the time). DUI law is effed up in a lot of places, where—as long as you get DUIs in different counties—you can run rings around the justice system as they scramble to piece together all your previous convictions. And every incidence (documented or not) of DUI or reckless driving or whatever is a possible incidence of you hurting an innocent driver and/or passenger.
We don't have many accidents on roads but it happens now and then. As for DUI that is heavily punished here. Tickets may often be in the range of 2-3000 dollars, if something bad happens your driver license (which is expensive as **** to get) is probably lost for a year or so and if you actually kill someone your charged with murder.
Drug dealers don't (usually) do drugs themselves... with, say, crack cocaine, it would really impair their ability to deal drugs (irony?). But since the product is extremely valuable, they will shoot at each other for supplies of it or over expansion of turf.
Yes, I guess. We do have this as well in Norway but only in the capital really where they get violent about it. But then again I don't really care that much about them shooting each other. It means less people in prison
That really depends. But I don't think that's what the argument was getting at.
Was just making an example because mystery seems to think guns are cuty and fluffy and could never lead to death Or something less overdone
Now if the only guns (or better, tazers) in this situation had been with the trained police officer, the guy probably wouldn't have had to die. it would have been a routine enough matter just to incapacitate and handcuff him, then send him off to hospital to have the bullet pulled out of his guts.
Tazers I like almost less. They way they are used in the US is terrible. The police seems to feel that since they don't usually kill at once they can just fire away as much as they like. Tazers are potentially deadly, especially since the police have no idea of the health condition of the people the taze (pacemakers for example!) and as far as I am concerned its torture. (not that us gov have shown being against torture earlier)
But instead, a person died. Probably not a terribly nice person, granted, but a person nonetheless. That this is in accordance with the morals of American society really worries me.
I agree. I think it's comparable to the whole "you are on my property so I will shoot you" thing in the US. In Norway we have pretty strict self defence laws. You are allowed to do as much as you have to but not an inch more. If someone comes onto your property and punches you, then you can of course defend yourself, but your not allowed to try to kill him unless he is making you feel like your life is in danger.
- You can't be more than about half an hour's drive away from the bush or the mountains
- You can't be more than about an hour's drive away from the sea
- You can drink when you're 18, have sex when you're 16, and learn to drive when you're 15 (!)
New Zealand is a great country and one I would definitively consider if Norway started sucking
We also have the mountains and the sea pretty close no matter where you are, but we do have a select few boring inland areas. (the ones that border to Sweden :P)
As for drinking, we have 18 for anything up to 20% which includes beer and most wines. 20 for stronger spirits and such. I think the difference is somewhat stupid though. Sex when 16 also here, though its noooooooowhere near as strict and completely messed up as the American laws there. Driving here depends on what kind of vehicle. Anything from 15 to 20.
if you look there is almost a 4 to 1 between drownings and guns.
That includes only accident firearms.
You forgot the fact that religion is not involved in politics at ALL. The OP talked about a state church, and America has Christianity deeply linked with politics. Here, there are a few christian parties that get tiny amounts of votes and may not be there at all, for all that it matters. I have no idea what religion the PM practices, if anyv (it's out there, but not in the media). And we don't need to know. We don't care. (Well, here is a quote, for those interested "I'm not a heavy believer; my mother was Jewish which technically makes me Jewish." John Key.)
Even with a statechurch (which is going to go away soon anyways) Christianity doesn't affect politics more then the people let the 4-5% size christian party do. And noone cares what religion the PM is here either. I have never seen it as an issue, neither with atheist or religious PM's.
Put those people in a room and as long as no one touch a gun no one dies. pretty simple. guns are not going to go off by themselves unless they are faulty for some reason.
Noone is arguing that gun's kill things by themselves, but that they contribute indirectly. No matter who does the killing more gun security decreases the number of deaths, either by accident or by purpose.
Actually, I think more violence happens when people aren't actually on drugs, but are just pushing them to get money.
I don't see what you are getting at?
Ah. Fair enough. But (for reasons I think you understand) even this reasonable argument would not work to many Americans.
I know that. I was just stating my personal political views
As do I. Neither of these things can be fixed with light effort.
That is true. The first issue can be fixed simply by changing the laws though. CHange still wouldn't happen overnight, but at least it would give the smaller parties a chance to grow over time. As for number of voters I think pushing for a more balanced media, as well as a better educated people are the best ways to do that.
I think you just have nicer people.
Haha, I have no stats on that
Out of curiosity, what are the big illegal problem drugs in Norway?
Well, marihuana is the most common one as in most of the world. We are slightly leaning towards somewhat softer legislation here I believe. But it will take a 4-8 years more I think. As for other drugs you can probably get anything if you know the right people. But heroin is one of the biggest issues politically and socially. Especially in the capital there are a lot of heroin addicts.
One of the solutions of the heroin problem is in my opinion quite brilliant and it comes from the party I'm a member of. Give all heavy heroin addicts free heroin prescribed by doctors. What this does is 1. Give them a possibility of a more normal life as they don't have to spend all the time getting their next fix. 2 Reducing overdoses. 3 cutting off a large income for smugglers/organized crime 4. make it unprofitable to smuggle heroin into the country, thereby creating far fewer new addicts. So if we get this done on a national level heroin should be barley possible to get a hold of in a few years.
Oh. So you don't really get a better deal than we do, you just have short or nonexistent contracts. Fair enough.
Well, if you compare the prices on electronics in general it is about the same quality deal. Just not as restrictive.
You also realize that tesla is expensive right? The car is marked at 120K. it is also powered by 3000 Lithum Ion batteries which i believe are not covered under warrenty. at $3K a pop + labor to install it the maintence required is very expensive.
Electrical cars are that expensive in Norway? We have EXTREMELY expensive cars here in general. Really messed up prices on cars. But electrical ones are not that bad. You get a small car called buddy which is meant only for city driving. (it can park sideways :P) and it costs about 12000 dollars. The larger sedan type electrical cars are at about 20-30k dollars. But then you have to change battery every 5 years for about 5k. But it still makes it a lot cheaper to then a regular car per year.
also for most american drivers 100 miles before a charge is not a lot. also it takes 1 hour to charge so unless you can find someone that would allow you to hook your car up and charge it you are just up a creek without a paddle.
Like someone said maybe in europe where distances are shorter to drive it would work ok. with the average worker communiting at least 40 miles one way to work it isn't that great in the US.
Here people don't commute that much and we have public transport (bus/train/tram) to most places.
To blame a gun on someone's death is a logical fallacy at it's fullest. Someone might be shot by a gun but the gun didn't kill that person. someone else did.
Put 10 people in a room and 10 people in another room. In one of the rooms you place 3 guns. In the other none. Let them stay there for 24 hours. Which room do you think has the largest percentage chance of somebody being shot in? Or killed in for that matter? So in this case you could easily argue that guns statistically cause more death.
The other funny thing is that if electric cars are supposed to reduce emissions how do you justify this when you have to plug them into a wall socket that gets electricity generated from burning coal.
They still burn coal in the western world? We have pretty ok amounts of clean fuel.
There is the product features aspect of this too. I know that I wouldn't buy an electric car with a range of 100 miles.
That is true, but there are several models on the market that can drive about 100km on one "tank" and that is more then enough for most things, especially citydriving, which is what they are best at. They are wonderfully silent. I took the bus today and they have started changing busses into new hybrid ones and even that was amazingly quiet compared to normal busses. Still made some sounds when gaining speed, but especially when standing still in intersections and such there wasn't a sound.
electric cars- perhaps it sounds like I'm beating a dead horse here. They're not attractive from a cost benefit perspective, when they are they will sell themselves. This is no different from when the walkman first came out (if you're old enough to remember that) 'early adoptors' are equivelant to 'environmentalists' (though not quite as rabid in their support). The product life cycle itself is quite a bit longer due to the ingrained nature of fossil fuels in our economy.
Not nessecerily true. They don't only have to be more costeffective, they have to be a LOT more costeffective. Here in Norway electrical cars are far, far cheaper then the non-electrical ones. People still buy few of them sadly. People don't like change and often resist it just for the sake of it.
I recognize this trend. My house no longer has landline, either. As a fun anecdote, I remember back in, like, 97-98 when the mobile phone boom (almost all Nokia phones, of course) was already going strong here with almost everyone having one, in American movies I'd always see these odd trackers or whatever you call them. We never had those and considering everyone I knew had a mobile, I really wondered what the point of having those was.
Haha, yeah I remember that too I think they had those here for a few years but it never catched on because of mobile phones (also here mostly nokia) booming out.
Seems more likely that its the illegal nature of our drug problems. Again white flight combined with strict drug laws.
Well, we have the same stupid drug laws here. It's just that neither criminals nor cops use guns normally
How much does an Iphone cost there? Its not that you cant buy cell phone without contracts(bindings) its that they subsidize the cost to get you under a 2 year contract... seems solid enough since with a 2 year contract an iphone costs a hundred bucks. We have a ridiculous number of providers, so not sure how monopoly is what comes to mind.
Well, Iphone is a good example. From what I know You have to use AT&T if you want an Iphone in the US. At least it was like that when it first came out. That is where the monopoly comes in. You should be able to buy any cell with any provider.
And yes, we have subsidizations here as well. A lot of cell phone here you can buy for 3-400 bucks normally but like 20cent to 100 bucks subsidized. Iphone is very expensive if you buy it without. It is like 800 bucks so its one of the most expensive mobiles. With you get it for 300ish.
Not having a landline in the states carries risks in a lot of areas because of weather. Cell Phones can go down if the tower goes down but landlines here stay on even if your power is out. Its especially important for elderly people to always have access to phones and therefor hospital/ambulance services.
I guess its mostly the same here though. We also have a lot of middle of nowhere places that people live and they would probably need to have a landline to be safe yes. Internet connections are probably more common then landlines here though
People make a big deal about guns. It is very much an emotional arguement. There are far more people that die in car wrecks and swimming pools than guns at least in this country. Yet i don't see people screaming about that.
How it compares to other causes of death is hardly relevant. What you do is compare the numbers in the US to other countries in the world (per capita) and you see that the rates are so drasticly much higher in the US its completely off the charts. There are more deaths by guns in the US then all other industrialized nations all together. That is such an extreme difference so there has got to be a problem somewhere.
Wrong guns are inatimate objects and are very safe. i have never seen a gun shoot someone. you can lay a gun on a table loaded and ready to fire and unless it is a faulty gun it will never shoot someone.
the only time a gun is dangerous or becomes dangerous is when there is someone holding it. Guns don't kill people people do. I get so sick of people blaming inanimate objects when they clearly aren't the problem.
So you think that people would still kill as much without guns? And saying that guns aren't dangerous is a joke. A lot of things aren't dangerous when left alone, but inheritably dangerous in itself. A gun isn't designed to lay on a table, its designed to shoot things with it. And as far as handguns and assult rifles are conserned they are designed to shoot people with.
Also, being unrestrictive on guns makes it easier for criminals to get a hold of guns. And being unrestrictive on the storing of guns is what causes kids to find guns. Compare the number of schoolshotings in the US versus Europe. I know of two in Europe, but only in the last number of years. Before they started popping up "commonly" in the US there was none here. The american gun culture is radically different and I don't think that gun worship or soldier worship helps at all.
same as hear most guns shootings in the US are either drug related or mentally sick people.
Then gun availability must be the big problem because you don't have that many more mentally sick and drugged up people then here.
Actually the US has several parties but only 2 of them maintain control. We actually have an active communist party (green party i do believe) but most 3rd parties don't do well here.
Hah. You have a two party system. The way democracy works in the US with the rules on voting and such there anything else doesn't work. Even if there does exist other parties as they are of course legal to form, your laws ensure an effective two party system and that is not going to change unless you did major democratic reforms.
This is a fundamental difference in thinking between us, I believe.
Don't get me wrong, I am a liberal. I belive that the government should meddle as little as possible when it comes to the personal lives of the citizens. However, I don't see gun ownership and gun safety as simply a personal thing. Its much like driving a car, it can be dangerous to people around you. Therefor you have to learn and use security measures, not to protect yourself, but to protect other people around you. I am very against the state protecting them from themselves, but very for protecting people from others.
@nan, the main point is that our more obscure parties do pretty well at the state and local level, but don't have the "escape velocity," so to speak, to break out on the federal level. Mostly it's because the two main parties can spend a ****-ton of money to oppose them, and corporations are already contributing to one of the two. Or both...?
Well, there is the issue of having to win states. You dont win a state in an election unless you get the most. SO only the big parties can really win. Here, when there is an election, a party gets the amount of representation that their percentage mandates. If the party gets 40% it gets 40% of the representatives. If it gets 5% it gets 5% of the representatives. This is why we have 7 parties (that matter) and you have 2.
Democracy: We lack 1.78 points on the Economist's index (still "Full Democracy" status), nothing that a swift kick in the butt wouldn't fix. Problem is, some areas (political participation, functioning of government) need harder kicks than others (pluralism, political culture, civil liberties).
I believe the "low" score on that one stems from two party system and low voting turnout.
Internet Speed: Hm. Japan, the country with a technology fixation and a small geographic area, tops the list. Also high population density is a key factor. It's much easier to lay fiber optic cable over a small area, and cheaper too. That said, Comcast et. al. are evil bandwidth-throttling monsters. And I think satellite internet would be better for rural folks.
The internet things reminds me of another strange American phenomen. Certain mobiles are only sold from certain operators. And you have long bindings and such. Here all mobiles have to be able to be bough without any binding and you have to be able to use any mobile operator. Also binding can never be longer then a year and you can always pay to remove the binding. Yay for anti-monopoly laws and freedom to choose
Mobile Phones: Er... not too relevant, IMO. A lot of people in other countries are forgoing landline phones altogether, whereas here (in a bizarre contrast to the broadband access problem) almost everyone has a landline.
That is strange indeed I have never had a landline since I moved out of my parents home. And they mostly just have one because it comes with the apartment. My whole family has had cell phones for like 10 years. Even my grandparents which are 70ish both of them have a cell phone and they haven't had a landline for years.
Renewable Energy Use: Another legit problem, but... Brazil's renewable energy is biodiesel mostly, which in a lot of cases comes from slash-and-burn-derived palm oil. Also, again the issue of population density/geography comes into play, as we talk about implementation. Apparently a town in Denmark (?) went 100% renewable with wind/solar/geothermal a few years back, and fairly easily, but that's one town. That said, we need more will behind kicking the petrol habit. I don't think there's anything that absolutely can't be done with anything other than fossil fuels, but it's just a matter of bringing the alternatives up to par in terms of energy efficiency (not always an easy task).
I don't see how population density matters that much? Norway has an incredibly low population density. We are like the size of Germany. However, I can see why Norway is up there. We have tons of waterpower. Rivers and such. And StatoilHydro, the norwegian oil company, is one the worlds leading companies on researching and using wind power, wave power, etc.
Thats actually very similar to our system. They are maintained/issued by the USG, no income requirements except that you have a low income for some of the grants(ie subsidizing the poor). 5,300 a year in federal pell grant, 5000 a year is a subsidized loan where the govt. pays the interest while your enrolled and the, 5,500 is not subsidized other than the interest rate being sub 5%. Also the payments start 6-9 months after exiting. And once out you can reconsolodate under a system that caps the maximum monthly payments based on income, if you work public sector everything is forgiven after ten years(whats left) and everywhere else its after 25 years.
That is quite impressive I must admit. It is good to see improvment on some areas So parents saving up for the kids going to college and similar things is the way it was before? Anyone in the US can take higher education if the please without any problems?
Yeah, I'm all for background checks. Seems like a sensible thing to do. But the fact is, only a supremely unintelligent criminal would buy a gun at a gun shop. The black market for guns is huge; gun control doesn't do a whole lot to stop gun crime.
That is ofcourse true. However, the US does have a considerably larger black market for guns. Also it most likley has a lot to do with what type of guns is allowed. Here hunting rifles are common, but not something criminals generally want to use. Handguns are only legal for people in shooting clubs. So there are few of them, you have to be trained in their use and so on. Also, there is registering of weapons, having to say so to the police if theyre lost or stolen, and so on. However, I don't really know enough about this subject to really say much about gun crime in the US and I'm to tired to research it atm
That... would never pass in the States, even though it's a sensible idea. But the thing is, does the government really have to force people to do this? We can't save people from their own idiocy, even though every child's death is inexcusable. If anything, it should be the NRA's responsibility.
Yes I believe the government has to force people to do it. Guns are one of the most dangerous things that actually are legal so it only makes sense that it should have to be stored safely. But yeah, I know it would never pass in the States. Too many people wasn't easy access to their guns in case of criminals. I'm amazed at how they ignore all the statistics showing that you have a larger chance of being killed with a gun then without, but hey
But yes, Norway has a radically different attitude to guns. Criminals rarely have guns, more often knives, and even then its rarely murder, usually just for robberies and such. Because of this we don't have armed police normally. The police have guns they can get at the police station or they sometimes have some stored in the back of their cars, but police never wear guns normally. This leads to the criminals not needing to wear guns either and you get away from the whole escalating war between police and criminals. Someone being shot here is exceedingly rare. When it happens its usually either some drugged up person, someone mentally sick or someone killing themselves and their family.
In the mainstream, sure (some are possibly center-left). We definitely have a more than a few far-left-wingers but they're not in the "normal" government. And yeah, you guys in Europe are a little odd. Mostly everything's left of center (active Communist parties? Gasp!) and yet there are a few far-right-wing groups that have actually gained political traction in the EU. (I'm thinking of the BNP, but there's also that Dutch one whose name I can't remember.)
Actually, as far as I remember international politcs from school US is the odd one out while the rest of the world mostly has parties all over scale. But then again its harder when you have a twopartysystem I guess.
And lol yes, we do have active communistparties We have one that is really strongly socialist but not quite communist. Theyre at about 5% and actually in government atm (with two other parties). The party "Red" is only at about 1-2% and is pretty much communist and wants a communist revolution to a classless society It could actually get a person or two onto the Storting(senate) if they do well in the elections this fall. Oh well, theyre amusing at least
As I believe in determinism I don't believe in free will. However, if there was no time, then it would be impossible to measure anything at all. No time means no movement on any physical level. In other words complete stasis. You can not measure anything in stasis. So it becomes a bit like Schrödinger's cat. Both states will excists at the same time because we cannot measure them.
Me and a friend of mine had a rather lengthy discussion about this particular subject, but I don't think I'm able to explain our conclusions very well here. Also it kind of branched into the nature of photons and that always just gives me headaches
It forces property owners to charge a lower than market price for their units. This is a point where supply is not equal to demand, and hence is economically inefficient.
Oh, I mistranslated and mixed some terms here I was thinking of interest-control.
As for the first point, I think you, like me misunderstood nan on the gun point. He isnt(like the left in US) calling for gun control because "too many accidents", he is pointing out the truth that our gun crime is high. Although that has a LOT to do with white flight, and minority gangs.
Actually I am for gun control for that very reason I am not for banning guns at all, but it is a dangerous thing and need heavy control. There are very few things Im for banning but dangerous things need to be regulated. However, I am aware that there are many other causes for gun crime in the US besides gun avilability. But when guns are stored in a way that kids could possibly get to them something has to be done. In norway all guns have to be stored in heavy duty gun cabinets and the ammo always has to be locked away somewhere else.
Also, you don't really have a left in the US. You have a center and a right. Only our two most right-winged party (of the sizable ones) is further right then your democrat party.
My question is, are teachers really that underpaid here? I live in texas and while the statebased minimum is trash almost no one pays it. Starting wage for a teacher here is usually around 40k a year and our cost of living is relatively low(its not cold down here )
was the only stats I found for it and it is very very wrong. Its probably a mix of the dollar going down and the data being 10 years old, but those norwegian figures should be about 40 which is the norm for teachers on that level. A bit higher for higher education levels ofcourse. So I don't know if those texan figures are high compared to the national average. However it is a good number and I think its very good they pay the teachers well, its important.
As for your first point, I think it is relevant since early in the thread(first post) you said that the govt offers cheap loans/grants in Norway. So does the US govt. You may not be able to attend harvard but most of the people in need are elligible for 5,300 in pell grants per year, 10,500 in low interest loans a year. Thats pretty decent i would think.
Well, how are these loans maintained? Are they issued by private banks? Do you need to have an income to get the loans? How do you get the grants? How many gets them?
In Norway it works like this: Anyone gets a loan from the state of about 15k a year. That is to pay for somewhere to live, food, etc. If they don't fail on their exams the 5k of that money is turned into a grant. As long as you study there is no interest on the loan at all. The interest doesn't start running until about 3 months after you have finished all your education. So you have that time to get a job so you are able to pay down the loan. The interest rates are kept very low, they are kept 3 months behind on the normal market interest to keep it stable, you can lock your rent for a year. If you gets disabled somehow and can't work 100% then the amount of percent you are reduced by gets removen from the loan. So if you are 50% disabled (meaning you can only work a 50% job) then half your study loan dissapears. If your a 100% disabled from working from chronic conditions (no matter what the condition) your loan goes away. Also ofcourse, there is no bank that decided wether you get the loan or not, all students get it if they wish. There probably are some perks to it that I have forgotten but I don't remember atm.
on the whole progressive thing:
Quote from Wikipedia »
Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.
In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.[1]
Despite being associated with left-wing politics, the term "progressive" has also been used by groups not particularly left-wing. The Progressive Democrats of Ireland have taken the name "progressivism" despite being considered right-wing. The European Progressive Democrats was a mainly heterogeneous political group in the European Union.
So yes, while progressive originally was pretty much the same as liberal it is now a stupid term not really having much meaning. We have a progress party in Norway and its one of the most right wing parties we have. They are quite racist, very economicly liberal and wants to "change" the country.
so basicly being on the other end of the political spectrum within a country will often make it more or less progressive as progressivness is not limited to right or left wing or liberal or conservative. However, they usually tend to at least agree often with liberalism.
1. I'm not sure why you mention corporations specifically, do you mean to say that the only way corruption occurs is if corporations are involved?
I am saying that while you have other issues like earmarks and stuff corporation lobbying is what I see as one of the most serious corruption issues.
2. Again something I'm not sure about is how to check on the number of large corporations in Sweden and Norway vs. the U.S., but I'm willing to go out on a limb and guess that the U.S. has far more giant corporations that produce much, much more in terms of goods and services.
Yes, the US far outnumbers others here ofcourse. But that isn't to say that we are completely absent of huge corporations. Norway has StatoilHydro, the largers oil company in the world and Swden has Ikea.
3. Where does population come into play? Well, you have hundreds of millions more people trying to influence policy, with much more funding to accomplish that task. The size of the U.S. government is tremendously large creating that many more opportunities for corruption.
That is true and a valid point. However, it is not the amount of corruption that I find to be the biggest problem, but more the reaction too it and how it is handled. In the US lobbying is commonplace and something the media rarley if ever reacts to.
In norway however the media and the population is quite vigiliant on such issues. If someone on the Storting (similar to Senate) even as much as has a fancy dinner with people high ups in private companies that have a connection to the state then its a all out scandal and the Stortingsrepresentative might as well get fired. The private corporations and the public sector is so much more apart here then in the US.
However this is at a national level. At the local level we have corruption problems as well which are not handled as good.
I think that when you compare a quasi-socialist State such as the U.S. with a democratic socialist State such as a Norway, Finland, etc. there is an important systemic difference in terms of the way that corruption can occur. To take an extreme generalization, I would put it as Bastiat did, in the U.S. "the few plunder the many", whereas in democratic socialist nations, "everyone plunders everyone"
How does everyone plunder everyone?
Here's the bottom line for me as far as corruption goes, the more power there is, the more corruption you will have. Since the U.S. has the most powerful government it almost necessarily has the most corruption. Just a guess based on human behavior.
While I sort of agree with more power being more corruptive, there are factors that prevent corruption as well. Like a strong and free media, an eduacted and informed population and a not so secretive government. This are reasons that there are far more corruption in african countries with a worse of government but with far less power then the US.
Valros/Father of Lies: The blackmarketproblems is an issue on its own. You can't not give meds to kids who need them because of the blackmarketissue. That meds have bad effects when used in the wrong dosages are not an argument either. I used meds all the time that would kill me in the wrong dosage.
I care about grade school kids being put on heavy duty medications that lead only to side effects and more pills because an education system geared toward standardized tests doesn't work for them.
Again, this is not a problem with the meds. Its a problem with the kids and parents that are too dumb to CHANGE meds if the side effects are bad. Drugs have varying side effects and that is why we are supposed to try different kinds so we find one that helps the best while having minimal or no side effects. As long as the benefit outweighs the side effects I don't see the problem?
I'm saying that statistically, it's more dangerous for a kid to go swimming than to go to his or her friend's house where there's a gun in a cabinet somewhere.
Yes, this is what you said last time. I asked why this was relevant to crime? Are you saying that all crime is not dangerous because there excist things that kill more people?
The only countries in the world where more people get shot then in the US are african countries with tons of civil unrest. And as far as Industrialized nations the US is at the top.
I don't think per capita works here. Even if you have, say, 60% gun ownership, that's 60% of 5 million. We could have 30% ownership in America and that's 30% of 300 million. That's a lot of guns. And, if Norway is anything like Canada with respect to gun ownership laws, then you guys are very careful letting people buy/own guns (Canada would rather you bring a longsword across the border than a gun). We Yanks are just irresponsible that way
If you compare gun kills per capita you have to look at guns per capita. That should be obvious. The amount of guns does not matter unless its per capita because they're spread about so many people and such an area.
But yes, Norway is also quite restrictive and careful when it comes to guns.
No, but that doesn't make modern times more peaceful. And actually, colonization of the Americas opened up two new continental theaters of war. Greater population = more chance of conflict.
Of course more people gives a greater chance of conflict. But that is irrelevant. Considering the number of people the world is still more peaceful now. There is LESS war. LESS deaths. LESS murder.
Washington State is only slightly smaller than Austria in terms of area and population. Austria has 30 universities total, a number matched by Washington, but also in addition to the state's additional 31 two-year community colleges.
That is quite a flawed way of looking it at it. First of all you are directly comparing two different education systems. Other countries have colleges as well, they're just not called that. Norway for example have 5 universities if I remember correctly and about 10 colleges.
But the best way if you are going to look at the amount of education (and not the quality) you many people actually enroll into tertiary education. Here the US is actually at the top with 72%. However, the rest of europe comes rolling in behind that with Scandinavia closest to the top with about 70% all of them. so the difference there is negligible.
Speaking of which, @nan, what are your views on private schools?
I am kind of split on that issue. It is one of the issues I don't completely agree with my own political party on. I think private school as a school offering things the public school don't is a good thing. But especially in primary and secondary education it creates to many differences. It can still be used though as long as it is still free (subsidized by the state) and that teacher wages are equal to public schools. If you have better wages in private schools you're going to end up with a bad education for the students in public schools.
In higher education however, I think its quite fine. Here most schools already are private but heavily supported by the state. This is part of they reason they are essentially free, the tuition cost being merely symbolic.
Oh well, can't agree with my political party on completely everything, even in a political system with more then two political parties
Naturally there is more corruption in the U.S. because the population difference is astronomical.
I don't see how the population difference affects corruption at the federal level? While a small country we also have humongous world spanning corporations. So does countries like Sweden.
Nah, not really. Our media and government has always been quite US friendly. Of course, bush changed things a bit in the rest of the world, but yeah.
And yes, there are a lot of horrible rulings in the US on the matter off sex. Lets do some examples:
17 year old in Florida if memory serves me right. He got a ******* from a 15 year old girl in their own room at a party. Then someone burst into the room and takes a few pictures. These pictures spread (not because of the boy) and the boy is eventually charged with STATUTORY RAPE and is condemned to prison for 22 years. The media here was following the case a couple of years ago.
Another example is from the west coast somewhere (Nevada or some such). A 16 and a 17 years old couple takes nude pictures of each other. Somehow these pictures leak out somewhere. Lots of embarrassment. The end of it? no. The state charges these to kids with producing and storage of child porn. Both are given punishments of 7-9 years.
I mean, any judicial system that is willing to do this, even on the local levels of courts is abhorable.
The saddest thing is that this isn't that rare. I read alot of different news all over the web and I often get linked to local American newspapers and there alot of these cases that never reaches very high up in the media.
They can't buy it themselves, but yes it is not hard to get. However, I could easily get stuff when I was 16 and up because I look older then I am.
Well, its probably based in the polls that show that being athiest is one critieare most people in the US would exclude the president on. But yeah, religion is not much of an issue here. We still have a few religious marks and wordings left in the laws, but they are just disappearing more and more. Myself, as an atheist it pleases me very much to live in one of the least religious countries in the world.
Well, I am guessing that things are quite different in the city and in the smaller towns. My mom was in texas some years ago visiting my grandfather who lives there. She was astounded by the way people didn't travel. She met lots of people in the "smaller" towns that had never traveled out of the town, and most people she met had never been out of the state, much less the country. This is one thing that americans are known for though. They travel very little.
What order it ranks on is completely relevant. All countries have accidents. Too see if something is wrong with how often they happen you have to compare that relevant statistic to the the statistic of other countries. And lets look at some actual stats:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_dis_fro_oth_and_uns_fir_percap-other-unspecified-firearms-per-capita
General people getting shot. The us is ahead of any other industrialized nation and almost twice as much as the closest European country.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_han_dis_percap-mortality-handgun-discharge-per-capita
People getting shot by handguns. The US is actually not at the front here. A few east-european countries are ahead of them. Not that surprising though. Eastern europe still struggles a bit with the legacy of the old Sovjet.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_rif_sho_and_lar_fir_dis_percap-larger-firearm-discharge-per-capita
Same thing here with shotgun and rifle deaths. A few lawless countriess and east european ones ahead of the US but thats it.
So eh, the US is one the countries most likley to get shot in. And even with the people doing the killing, they will statisticly do less killing with less guns laying around.
Editing
Yes, I don't propose banning handguns either. However, I do think handguns should be even stricter then hunting rifles. The main thing though is keeping both very securely locked up. ALOT of deaths are prevented that way.
We don't have many accidents on roads but it happens now and then. As for DUI that is heavily punished here. Tickets may often be in the range of 2-3000 dollars, if something bad happens your driver license (which is expensive as **** to get) is probably lost for a year or so and if you actually kill someone your charged with murder.
Yes, I guess. We do have this as well in Norway but only in the capital really where they get violent about it. But then again I don't really care that much about them shooting each other. It means less people in prison
Was just making an example because mystery seems to think guns are cuty and fluffy and could never lead to death
Tazers I like almost less. They way they are used in the US is terrible. The police seems to feel that since they don't usually kill at once they can just fire away as much as they like. Tazers are potentially deadly, especially since the police have no idea of the health condition of the people the taze (pacemakers for example!) and as far as I am concerned its torture. (not that us gov have shown being against torture earlier)
I agree. I think it's comparable to the whole "you are on my property so I will shoot you" thing in the US. In Norway we have pretty strict self defence laws. You are allowed to do as much as you have to but not an inch more. If someone comes onto your property and punches you, then you can of course defend yourself, but your not allowed to try to kill him unless he is making you feel like your life is in danger.
New Zealand is a great country and one I would definitively consider if Norway started sucking
We also have the mountains and the sea pretty close no matter where you are, but we do have a select few boring inland areas. (the ones that border to Sweden :P)
As for drinking, we have 18 for anything up to 20% which includes beer and most wines. 20 for stronger spirits and such. I think the difference is somewhat stupid though. Sex when 16 also here, though its noooooooowhere near as strict and completely messed up as the American laws there. Driving here depends on what kind of vehicle. Anything from 15 to 20.
That includes only accident firearms.
Even with a statechurch (which is going to go away soon anyways) Christianity doesn't affect politics more then the people let the 4-5% size christian party do. And noone cares what religion the PM is here either. I have never seen it as an issue, neither with atheist or religious PM's.
Noone is arguing that gun's kill things by themselves, but that they contribute indirectly. No matter who does the killing more gun security decreases the number of deaths, either by accident or by purpose.
I don't see what you are getting at?
I know that. I was just stating my personal political views
That is true. The first issue can be fixed simply by changing the laws though. CHange still wouldn't happen overnight, but at least it would give the smaller parties a chance to grow over time. As for number of voters I think pushing for a more balanced media, as well as a better educated people are the best ways to do that.
Haha, I have no stats on that
Well, marihuana is the most common one as in most of the world. We are slightly leaning towards somewhat softer legislation here I believe. But it will take a 4-8 years more I think. As for other drugs you can probably get anything if you know the right people. But heroin is one of the biggest issues politically and socially. Especially in the capital there are a lot of heroin addicts.
One of the solutions of the heroin problem is in my opinion quite brilliant and it comes from the party I'm a member of. Give all heavy heroin addicts free heroin prescribed by doctors. What this does is 1. Give them a possibility of a more normal life as they don't have to spend all the time getting their next fix. 2 Reducing overdoses. 3 cutting off a large income for smugglers/organized crime 4. make it unprofitable to smuggle heroin into the country, thereby creating far fewer new addicts. So if we get this done on a national level heroin should be barley possible to get a hold of in a few years.
Well, if you compare the prices on electronics in general it is about the same quality deal. Just not as restrictive.
Electrical cars are that expensive in Norway? We have EXTREMELY expensive cars here in general. Really messed up prices on cars. But electrical ones are not that bad. You get a small car called buddy which is meant only for city driving. (it can park sideways :P) and it costs about 12000 dollars. The larger sedan type electrical cars are at about 20-30k dollars. But then you have to change battery every 5 years for about 5k. But it still makes it a lot cheaper to then a regular car per year.
Here people don't commute that much and we have public transport (bus/train/tram) to most places.
Put 10 people in a room and 10 people in another room. In one of the rooms you place 3 guns. In the other none. Let them stay there for 24 hours. Which room do you think has the largest percentage chance of somebody being shot in? Or killed in for that matter? So in this case you could easily argue that guns statistically cause more death.
They still burn coal in the western world?
That is true, but there are several models on the market that can drive about 100km on one "tank" and that is more then enough for most things, especially citydriving, which is what they are best at. They are wonderfully silent. I took the bus today and they have started changing busses into new hybrid ones and even that was amazingly quiet compared to normal busses. Still made some sounds when gaining speed, but especially when standing still in intersections and such there wasn't a sound.
That is correct
Not nessecerily true. They don't only have to be more costeffective, they have to be a LOT more costeffective. Here in Norway electrical cars are far, far cheaper then the non-electrical ones. People still buy few of them sadly. People don't like change and often resist it just for the sake of it.
Haha, yeah I remember that too
Well, we have the same stupid drug laws here. It's just that neither criminals nor cops use guns normally
Well, Iphone is a good example. From what I know You have to use AT&T if you want an Iphone in the US. At least it was like that when it first came out. That is where the monopoly comes in. You should be able to buy any cell with any provider.
And yes, we have subsidizations here as well. A lot of cell phone here you can buy for 3-400 bucks normally but like 20cent to 100 bucks subsidized. Iphone is very expensive if you buy it without. It is like 800 bucks so its one of the most expensive mobiles. With you get it for 300ish.
I guess its mostly the same here though. We also have a lot of middle of nowhere places that people live and they would probably need to have a landline to be safe yes. Internet connections are probably more common then landlines here though
How it compares to other causes of death is hardly relevant. What you do is compare the numbers in the US to other countries in the world (per capita) and you see that the rates are so drasticly much higher in the US its completely off the charts. There are more deaths by guns in the US then all other industrialized nations all together. That is such an extreme difference so there has got to be a problem somewhere.
So you think that people would still kill as much without guns? And saying that guns aren't dangerous is a joke. A lot of things aren't dangerous when left alone, but inheritably dangerous in itself. A gun isn't designed to lay on a table, its designed to shoot things with it. And as far as handguns and assult rifles are conserned they are designed to shoot people with.
Also, being unrestrictive on guns makes it easier for criminals to get a hold of guns. And being unrestrictive on the storing of guns is what causes kids to find guns. Compare the number of schoolshotings in the US versus Europe. I know of two in Europe, but only in the last number of years. Before they started popping up "commonly" in the US there was none here. The american gun culture is radically different and I don't think that gun worship or soldier worship helps at all.
Then gun availability must be the big problem because you don't have that many more mentally sick and drugged up people then here.
Hah. You have a two party system. The way democracy works in the US with the rules on voting and such there anything else doesn't work. Even if there does exist other parties as they are of course legal to form, your laws ensure an effective two party system and that is not going to change unless you did major democratic reforms.
Don't get me wrong, I am a liberal. I belive that the government should meddle as little as possible when it comes to the personal lives of the citizens. However, I don't see gun ownership and gun safety as simply a personal thing. Its much like driving a car, it can be dangerous to people around you. Therefor you have to learn and use security measures, not to protect yourself, but to protect other people around you. I am very against the state protecting them from themselves, but very for protecting people from others.
Well, there is the issue of having to win states. You dont win a state in an election unless you get the most. SO only the big parties can really win. Here, when there is an election, a party gets the amount of representation that their percentage mandates. If the party gets 40% it gets 40% of the representatives. If it gets 5% it gets 5% of the representatives. This is why we have 7 parties (that matter) and you have 2.
I believe the "low" score on that one stems from two party system and low voting turnout.
The internet things reminds me of another strange American phenomen. Certain mobiles are only sold from certain operators. And you have long bindings and such. Here all mobiles have to be able to be bough without any binding and you have to be able to use any mobile operator. Also binding can never be longer then a year and you can always pay to remove the binding. Yay for anti-monopoly laws and freedom to choose
That is strange indeed
I don't see how population density matters that much? Norway has an incredibly low population density. We are like the size of Germany. However, I can see why Norway is up there. We have tons of waterpower. Rivers and such. And StatoilHydro, the norwegian oil company, is one the worlds leading companies on researching and using wind power, wave power, etc.
That is quite impressive I must admit. It is good to see improvment on some areas
That is ofcourse true. However, the US does have a considerably larger black market for guns. Also it most likley has a lot to do with what type of guns is allowed. Here hunting rifles are common, but not something criminals generally want to use. Handguns are only legal for people in shooting clubs. So there are few of them, you have to be trained in their use and so on. Also, there is registering of weapons, having to say so to the police if theyre lost or stolen, and so on. However, I don't really know enough about this subject to really say much about gun crime in the US and I'm to tired to research it atm
Yes I believe the government has to force people to do it. Guns are one of the most dangerous things that actually are legal so it only makes sense that it should have to be stored safely. But yeah, I know it would never pass in the States. Too many people wasn't easy access to their guns in case of criminals. I'm amazed at how they ignore all the statistics showing that you have a larger chance of being killed with a gun then without, but hey
But yes, Norway has a radically different attitude to guns. Criminals rarely have guns, more often knives, and even then its rarely murder, usually just for robberies and such. Because of this we don't have armed police normally. The police have guns they can get at the police station or they sometimes have some stored in the back of their cars, but police never wear guns normally. This leads to the criminals not needing to wear guns either and you get away from the whole escalating war between police and criminals. Someone being shot here is exceedingly rare. When it happens its usually either some drugged up person, someone mentally sick or someone killing themselves and their family.
Actually, as far as I remember international politcs from school US is the odd one out while the rest of the world mostly has parties all over scale. But then again its harder when you have a twopartysystem I guess.
And lol yes, we do have active communistparties
Me and a friend of mine had a rather lengthy discussion about this particular subject, but I don't think I'm able to explain our conclusions very well here. Also it kind of branched into the nature of photons and that always just gives me headaches
Oh, I mistranslated and mixed some terms here
Actually I am for gun control for that very reason
Also, you don't really have a left in the US. You have a center and a right. Only our two most right-winged party (of the sizable ones) is further right then your democrat party.
That sounds about comparable to teachers in Norway. However, this: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_pri_tea_sal_sta-education-primary-teacher-salary-starting
was the only stats I found for it and it is very very wrong. Its probably a mix of the dollar going down and the data being 10 years old, but those norwegian figures should be about 40 which is the norm for teachers on that level. A bit higher for higher education levels ofcourse. So I don't know if those texan figures are high compared to the national average. However it is a good number and I think its very good they pay the teachers well, its important.
Well, how are these loans maintained? Are they issued by private banks? Do you need to have an income to get the loans? How do you get the grants? How many gets them?
In Norway it works like this: Anyone gets a loan from the state of about 15k a year. That is to pay for somewhere to live, food, etc. If they don't fail on their exams the 5k of that money is turned into a grant. As long as you study there is no interest on the loan at all. The interest doesn't start running until about 3 months after you have finished all your education. So you have that time to get a job so you are able to pay down the loan. The interest rates are kept very low, they are kept 3 months behind on the normal market interest to keep it stable, you can lock your rent for a year. If you gets disabled somehow and can't work 100% then the amount of percent you are reduced by gets removen from the loan. So if you are 50% disabled (meaning you can only work a 50% job) then half your study loan dissapears. If your a 100% disabled from working from chronic conditions (no matter what the condition) your loan goes away. Also ofcourse, there is no bank that decided wether you get the loan or not, all students get it if they wish. There probably are some perks to it that I have forgotten but I don't remember atm.
on the whole progressive thing:
So yes, while progressive originally was pretty much the same as liberal it is now a stupid term not really having much meaning. We have a progress party in Norway and its one of the most right wing parties we have. They are quite racist, very economicly liberal and wants to "change" the country.
so basicly being on the other end of the political spectrum within a country will often make it more or less progressive as progressivness is not limited to right or left wing or liberal or conservative. However, they usually tend to at least agree often with liberalism.
rent control is bad how?
I am saying that while you have other issues like earmarks and stuff corporation lobbying is what I see as one of the most serious corruption issues.
Yes, the US far outnumbers others here ofcourse. But that isn't to say that we are completely absent of huge corporations. Norway has StatoilHydro, the largers oil company in the world and Swden has Ikea.
That is true and a valid point. However, it is not the amount of corruption that I find to be the biggest problem, but more the reaction too it and how it is handled. In the US lobbying is commonplace and something the media rarley if ever reacts to.
In norway however the media and the population is quite vigiliant on such issues. If someone on the Storting (similar to Senate) even as much as has a fancy dinner with people high ups in private companies that have a connection to the state then its a all out scandal and the Stortingsrepresentative might as well get fired. The private corporations and the public sector is so much more apart here then in the US.
However this is at a national level. At the local level we have corruption problems as well which are not handled as good.
How does everyone plunder everyone?
While I sort of agree with more power being more corruptive, there are factors that prevent corruption as well. Like a strong and free media, an eduacted and informed population and a not so secretive government. This are reasons that there are far more corruption in african countries with a worse of government but with far less power then the US.
Again, this is not a problem with the meds. Its a problem with the kids and parents that are too dumb to CHANGE meds if the side effects are bad. Drugs have varying side effects and that is why we are supposed to try different kinds so we find one that helps the best while having minimal or no side effects. As long as the benefit outweighs the side effects I don't see the problem?
Yes, this is what you said last time. I asked why this was relevant to crime? Are you saying that all crime is not dangerous because there excist things that kill more people?
The only countries in the world where more people get shot then in the US are african countries with tons of civil unrest. And as far as Industrialized nations the US is at the top.
If you compare gun kills per capita you have to look at guns per capita. That should be obvious. The amount of guns does not matter unless its per capita because they're spread about so many people and such an area.
But yes, Norway is also quite restrictive and careful when it comes to guns.
Of course more people gives a greater chance of conflict. But that is irrelevant. Considering the number of people the world is still more peaceful now. There is LESS war. LESS deaths. LESS murder.
That is quite a flawed way of looking it at it. First of all you are directly comparing two different education systems. Other countries have colleges as well, they're just not called that. Norway for example have 5 universities if I remember correctly and about 10 colleges.
But the best way if you are going to look at the amount of education (and not the quality) you many people actually enroll into tertiary education. Here the US is actually at the top with 72%. However, the rest of europe comes rolling in behind that with Scandinavia closest to the top with about 70% all of them. so the difference there is negligible.
I am kind of split on that issue. It is one of the issues I don't completely agree with my own political party on. I think private school as a school offering things the public school don't is a good thing. But especially in primary and secondary education it creates to many differences. It can still be used though as long as it is still free (subsidized by the state) and that teacher wages are equal to public schools. If you have better wages in private schools you're going to end up with a bad education for the students in public schools.
In higher education however, I think its quite fine. Here most schools already are private but heavily supported by the state. This is part of they reason they are essentially free, the tuition cost being merely symbolic.
Oh well, can't agree with my political party on completely everything, even in a political system with more then two political parties
I don't see how the population difference affects corruption at the federal level? While a small country we also have humongous world spanning corporations. So does countries like Sweden.