[ergothus]

Just throwing out a question here - What evidence do you have for the order of events? e.g. "The government has taken on the role of "taking care" of your neighbor, so everyone stopped" - how do you show that it wasn't the rise of urban centers, where you had too many neighbors to care for, that led to government stepping in where individuals were failing?

For each of the items you list, I can see it going the direction you describe, or instead going the other direction, with government stepping in only after individuals were clearly not taking care of the problems. How do you propose that we can tell which direction it went?

[Consultant32452]

The 19th century in the US was the great age of limited government. It was also the period of the greatest outpouring of charitable giving the world has ever known. This was the period when the first modern nonprofit community hospitals were created. It's when the Carnegie libraries were built, huge numbers of colleges were built. It's when the society of the prevention of cruelty to animals was built, the first international missions were started. Considering the technology available at the time it's really amazing what was accomplished. This was the boom time for personal charitable giving. And there were no income taxes and no tax breaks. So everyone who gave did so without being induced by the large government to do so.

I have no intention of making an argument that government is better or worse at: providing healthcare, building libraries, feeding the hungry, etc. All I'm suggesting is that when the government creates programs like SNAP then people have a tendency to believe that the hungry are being fed.

[willvarfar]

Britain led the way in that enlightenment e.g. The 1848 Public Health Act. Except in Britain it was government that led it. In the US, you had to rely on the hoping that some of the rich did good (today: Gates, Buffet?) whilst all the rest did bad (today: Koch, Trump?)?

This blame-the-government thing is uniquely American. In other parts of the world there are big governments that really help their populations thrive and live safely and comfortably (e.g. I live in Sweden).

[sol_remmy]

> This blame-the-government thing is uniquely American. In other parts of the world there are big governments that really help their populations thrive and live safely and comfortably (e.g. I live in Sweden).

You are in top 10% of European countries. You are comparing your filthy rich country to the entire United States. If you want to make a fair comparison, compare Sweden to Washington State.

Also: ask Eastern European countries, Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, African countries, Greece, Cambodia, Myanmar... how much they trust their government. You have no idea how much of a prosperity bubble you are in, in Sweden.

You also seem to be unaware that the United States has more Big Government economic regulations than in Sweden.

[willvarfar]

First, re wealth: This is laughable. A good software engineer gets $40k/year in Sweden, before tax (which is higher than the US). Sweden is not a filthy rich country, it's a relatively poor country with a good social net and nice people. Perhaps you were thinking Switzerland or Norway, which are both stinking rich whilst also nice?

Second, I was holding Sweden up as an example the you could aim to emulate. "Socialism" the Swedish way is really quite nice. I've lived and moved countries and know many who have moved around the world and to and from the states and I warmly recommend Sweden as the place everyone wishes their home countries was more like ;)

[sol_remmy]

> Second, I was holding Sweden up as an example the you could aim to emulate. "Socialism" the Swedish way is really quite nice.

Sweden does not have socialism. There is less economic regulation of private companies than in the United states. Sweden has a freer economy with higher tax rates.

Sweden also has 145% the per capita income of the EU average. And don't forget that excludes poor Eastern European non-EU countries like Ukraine.

[willvarfar]

> Sweden does not have socialism

Well, the Swedes think they have their 'nordic model' version of it. Its been governed by the Social Democrats for almost all the last hundred years. Perhaps their definition differs from yours?

> There is less economic regulation of private companies than in the United states

Crikey, poor you folks! Given how startup-hostile Sweden truly is on the ground, its amazing that Silicon Valley can exist at all if its worse over your side of the pond! ;)

Here, very few people can or would start a company, and startups are rare and happen despite the poor investment. I've met some of the founders of the companies that are often cited like skype and I don't think they started in Sweden rather than the states because Sweden is a less regulated economy. Sweden is part of the EU, and the rules are the EU rules which Britain alleges to have found so over-regulated that they had to leave! ;)

Everything you hear on the news is true unless you have some personal experience of it. So it is with the brush Sweden gets tarred with in the US. There's some crazy left-wingers who think Sweden isn't socialist enough (and their idea of collectivism seems to be towards communism, and Sweden isn't communist), but its mostly the right-wingers thinking Sweden is some immigration hellhole. People in Sweden don't recognize the Sweden portrayed on Fox News.

Interestingly, the coverage of the US that you get on the European media seems to be much more truthful and balanced; I know plenty of US citizens, I've visited an awful lot, I've worked for US companies for years, and the general portrayal of the US life in the media over here seems to ring true.

[hueving]

The difference between government and cooperation is involuntary vs voluntary. If your government is doing something, it's not voluntary for anyone who voted against it. Also, since tax evasion is a crime in nearly every country, any government activities are going to be supported by the citizens in a coercive nature.

So yes, big governments can certainly provide services that you like. They can also provide never ending wars funded by your income that you can't do a damn thing about.

[SpikeDad]

And here we have the Disappearance of Cooperation. The whole system is bad if the government does something you didn't want. Naturally if they do something you want then the whole system is good.

You know what cooperation means - it means that some of the time you don't get what you want and that's OK because the system gives you what you want (and need) also.

I dare you to describe a society where all services are provided on a voluntary basis. Go ahead I dare you.

[Consultant32452]

I never suggested that a government would be incapable of helping their populations thrive and live safely and comfortably. I said when the government says it's going to take on the role of feeding the hungry, that people tend to mentally check that mark off in their brain and are less likely to get involved in that issue in their area. This isn't some vast anti-government conspiracy. I'm not suggesting the government shouldn't have a role in things like feeding people. I'm just saying that private charity has an emotional bonding experience with your community that government assistance lacks.