Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Sweet mother of pearl, Norway releases info
Cyber Nations Forums > Cyber Nations Community Structure > The Water Cooler > The Boiler Room
Pages: 1, 2
Barron von Hammer
Social democracy or tax porno fueled by envy?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33432085/ns/world_news-europe/


QUOTE
Who makes what? In Norway, it's all online
Release of income and wealth data stirs media frenzy, playground taunts

The Associated Press
updated 11:03 a.m. CT, Thurs., Oct . 22, 2009

OSLO - It's the moment nosy neighbors have been waiting for — the release of official records showing the annual income and overall wealth of nearly every Norwegian taxpayer.

In a move that would be unthinkable in most countries, tax authorities in left-leaning Norway have issued the "skatteliste," or "tax list," for 2008 to domestic media under a law designed to safeguard the country's tradition of transparency.

The annual list includes data about fishermen on the western fjords, Sami reindeer herders in the north, city folk in Oslo and even members of the committee that awarded President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize.

To non-Scandinavians, it appears to be a gross violation of privacy. At home, it has stirred up a media frenzy, with splashy headlines revealing who is oil-rich Norway's wealthiest man, woman and celebrity couple.

The data shows that former cross-country skiing great Bjoern Daehlie still has plenty of cash — 29.3 million kroner — $5.4 million — to be exact. The finances of other famous Norwegians, including actress and director Liv Ullmann, former marathon champion Grete Waitz or writer Jostein Gaarder, are also unveiled.

'Tax porno'
Defenders of the system say it enhances transparency, which is essential for an open democracy.

"Isn't this how a social democracy ought to work, with openness, transparency and social equality as ideals?" wrote Jan Omdahl, a columnist for the tabloid Dagbladet. He acknowledged, however, that many treat the list like "tax porno" — furtively checking neighbors' or co-workers' incomes.

Critics say the list poses a threat to the very society whose freedom it's meant to protect.

"What each Norwegian earns and what you have in wealth is a private matter between the taxpayer and the government," said Jon Stordrange, director of the Norwegian Taxpayer's Association.


Besides providing criminals with a useful tool to find prime targets, he claimed the list generates my-dad-is-richer-than-yours taunts in the playground.

"The children of people with low wages are being teased about it in the schools," Stordrange said Thursday. "People with low salaries are being met with comments at the grocery store, 'How can you live on these low wages?'"

Tapping into databases
Many media outlets use the tax records to produce their own searchable online databases. In national broadcaster NRK's database, you can type a name, hit search and within moments get information on exactly what that person made last year, paid in taxes and his or her total wealth.

It also gives an overview of how those figures compare with Norway's national averages for men and women, and averages for that person's city of residence.

The information had been available to media until 2004, when a right-wing government banned the publication of tax records. Three years later, a new, left-leaning government reversed its predecessor's legislation and also made it possible for media to obtain tax information digitally and disseminate it online.

Norway's 2007 law emphasized that "first and foremost, it's the press that can contribute to a critical debate" on wealth and the elaborate tax scheme that, along with the country's vast oil wealth, keeps Norway's extensive — and expensive — welfare system afloat.

Who is richest man?
The country of 4.8 million people had the third highest income tax among industrialized countries in 2007, according to the latest OECD statistics, behind Denmark and New Zealand.

Since the latest tax data was released Wednesday, national media have scrambled to analyze it, building top-10 lists and graphic breakdowns of income differentials between sexes, age groups, cities and towns.


So who's Norway's richest man? Tobacco mogul Johan Henrik Andresen, worth $2 billion, has surpassed last year's No. 1, industrialist Kjell Inge Roekke, according to Dagbladet.

Norway's richest woman was stock market investor Tone Bjoerseth-Andersen, whose wealth of $107 million placed her behind 24 men, the paper said.

Members of the royal family are not on the list because they don't pay taxes. Others excluded from the list include people whose details are kept secret for security reasons and the homeless.


'Super-duels'
NRK's online edition compared the income of Norwegian celebrity couples — called "super-duels" — while newspaper Aftenposten's Web site ranked common Norwegian first names by wealth under the headline "How rich is your name?"

It found men named Terje tend to do very well, while among women, Marit is a sure winner.

Most other European countries, including Britain, Italy and the Netherlands, have very different attitudes toward transparency and privacy and would be horrified at such a scheme. Last week the Spanish government for the first time released information on how much each member of the Cabinet is worth — assets and debts — but data on private citizens is still private.

In Norway's neighbor Sweden, however, anyone can order a printed edition of the Taxation Calendar, which lists the earnings of people in mid-to-high-end income brackets. The information is also available online, but anonymous checks were barred in 2007 after a public outcry. Swedes whose finances have been viewed online are now notified by mail about who checked their details.

Christine Ingebritsen, a professor at the University of Washington who studies Scandinavian economics, said the Norwegian tax list exemplifies a time-tested, distinctly Scandinavian custom of egalitarianism.

"This is how you make sure that you're being legitimate in the eyes of the community — you show that the wealth of a CEO isn't off the charts," she said. Unlike the U.S., Norway "places the wealth and health of all as a priority above the individual success stories."


Still, even in egalitarian Norway the tax list has plenty of opponents. A 2007 survey by research group Synovate revealed that only 32 percent of the Norwegian public wanted the tax list published, while 46 percent were against it.

Georg Apnes, the director of Norway's Data Inspectorate and a member of the Conservative Party, called the tradition of publishing and combing through the tax list "repulsive" and "disgusting" on an NRK morning news program.

"It reflects very poorly on our culture and on our society," he commented.


Here is one of the skattelister sites online listed by municipalities, etc. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...elist%26hl%3Den

Edited to include the following: Imagine the implications within industry. One can now see if his fellow worker (doing the same job) is getting paid more or less. There will be social implications as well as neighbors will suddenly feel different toward each other (though certainly not in every case, it depends; for example how would you feel knowing what your neighbors, family members, fellow workers make a year?). This was a Norwegian practice until 2004 but now that the right leaning gov was replaced by a left leaning one they have reinstated this policy. It certainly enforces accountability though, grossly massive salaries will be much harder to justify and maintain.
edikroma
Best. Idea. Ever. awesome.gif
Arcturus Jefferson
QUOTE
Members of the royal family are not on the list because they don't pay taxes. Others excluded from the list include people whose details are kept secret for security reasons...

How egalitarian. rolleyes.gif
Flatlander
Gold-diggers and conmen in Norway no longer have to rely on Facebook to pick their targets ... hurrah for progress.
edikroma
Well, to be fair, I think currently, if you work for a major state University, your income is already public knowledge. But an entire nation?
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE
"Isn't this how a social democracy ought to work, with openness, transparency and social equality as ideals?" wrote Jan Omdahl, a columnist for the tabloid Dagbladet.


facepalm.gif


The government publishing tax information on private citizens...incredible. How far do we go?


EDIT:
QUOTE
But an entire nation?

Why not? You don't work for yourself, you work for the glory and welfare of the nation. Now people can see your income so they can decide if you are making too much and they can decide how much of your income they want. This is indeed how a social democracy ought to work
Kenadian_2006
That's not transparency, that's just a gross violation of individual privacy. If someone wants their neighbour to know how much they make they'll bloody well tell them.
Sal Paradise
Why do they think people need to know this?
Tyler DurdenCC
QUOTE
The data shows that former cross-country skiing great Bjoern Daehlie still has plenty of cash — 29.3 million kroner — $5.4 million — to be exact.


I knew I should have taken up skiing!
deja
QUOTE
Defenders of the system say it enhances transparency, which is essential for an open democracy.

I wish someone would explain to me how this type of transparency furthers "open" democracy.

"Well see, I know it seems like it violates your privacy, but transparency is important in a democracy, so while you may at first feel embarrassed about everyone knowing you had syphilis a few times back in college, you're missing the big picture!"
Barron von Hammer
QUOTE (deja @ Oct 22 2009, 01:12 PM) *
I wish someone would explain to me how this type of transparency furthers "open" democracy.

"Well see, I know it seems like it violates your privacy, but transparency is important in a democracy, so while you may at first feel embarrassed about everyone knowing you had syphilis a few times back in college, you're missing the big picture!"



And that is the problem I have with it, at the very least this opens up a door to all kind of problems. Here in the States employers can check one's credit, legal status (do you have a record, etc), and in some cases even your college transcript. Imagine having your gpa posted.

It also takes away any leverage you have as prospective companies can see what you are making ad reward pay not on ability but on what you are used to, etc.
deSouza
Norway keeps going up on my concept
flak attack
So, who else thinks this is going to lead to a spike of burglaries?
Chrono
So, I guess this falls under the Ministry of Truth?
Kenadian_2006
I guess that falls under laughable 1984 comparison and hyperbole.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 22 2009, 03:49 PM) *
I guess that falls under laughable 1984 comparison and hyperbole.

Nope. When you follow the assumption that all of what you produce is rightfully the property of the state if it decides it must redistribute them in the interest of welfare, it is only natural that the state will want to look at all of your finances in order to determine what you should owe. When you follow the assumption that democracy is right and just and that voters must be perfectly informed, it is only natural to release all asset information to the public so that voters can decide for themselves how just society is and how much needs to be changed.

Social democracy is such a beautiful thing

These are YOUR beliefs in action.
Disgusted by them?
Good. You SHOULD be.
Bob Janova
It's funny how some people go completely mad when another country with different cultural norms does something that they would disagree with. I actually think it's a great idea, it makes it much harder to have hidden discrimination in pay, and easier to trim inequality.

As the quote says, Norway already did this except during 2004-7 under a rightist government.
deSouza
QUOTE (flak attack @ Oct 22 2009, 06:36 PM) *
So, who else thinks this is going to lead to a spike of burglaries?


I'd be impressed if there was a burglary hype since this is going on since 2007

QUOTE (Chrono @ Oct 22 2009, 06:48 PM) *
So, I guess this falls under the Ministry of Truth?



Protip: The government has that sort of information.
It doesn't often publishes, but Id say that the ministry of truth would keep that kind of info to itself.

QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 22 2009, 07:40 PM) *
Nope. When you follow the assumption that all of what you produce is rightfully the property of the state if it decides it must redistribute them in the interest of welfare, it is only natural that the state will want to look at all of your finances in order to determine what you should owe. When you follow the assumption that democracy is right and just and that voters must be perfectly informed, it is only natural to release all asset information to the public so that voters can decide for themselves how just society is and how much needs to be changed.

Social democracy is such a beautiful thing

These are YOUR beliefs in action.
Disgusted by them?
Good. You SHOULD be.



This has nothing to do with following assumptions of material goods belonging to the state.
The state already has that kind of information and effectively acts as owner of people in most countries, even preventing them from coming and going as it pleases. I dont see you complaining about barring illegal immigrants...
This is the state loosening its grip and giving society information.
All those things that were carefully guarded by bureaucrats are now (or, better said, since 2007) available to the public, and not just available, easily available, making sure people actually know each other's economic situation beyond appearances. Yes, it follows the assumption that democracy is right, yes it is releasing asset information so that voters can decide how just society is (and how crooked some might or might not be!), and that is essentially a beautiful thing. Thats how it should be everywhere.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (deSouza @ Oct 22 2009, 05:01 PM) *
This has nothing to do with following assumptions of material goods belonging to the state.
The state already has that kind of information and effectively acts as owner of people in most countries, even preventing them from coming and going as it pleases. I dont see you complaining about barring illegal immigrants...
This is the state loosening its grip and giving society information.
All those things that were carefully guarded by bureaucrats are now (or, better said, since 2007) available to the public, and not just available, easily available, making sure people actually know each other's economic situation beyond appearances. Yes, it follows the assumption that democracy is right, yes it is releasing asset information so that voters can decide how just society is (and how crooked some might or might not be!), and that is essentially a beautiful thing. Thats how it should be everywhere.

This entirely follows the principle of material goods belonging to the state when the state is carrying out social justice. Otherwise, there is absolutely no need for this information to be distributed.

I suspect this MAY be a political ploy, but I'm not up-to-date on Norwegian politics
deSouza
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 22 2009, 08:07 PM) *
This entirely follows the principle of material goods belonging to the state when the state is carrying out social justice. Otherwise, there is absolutely no need for this information to be distributed.

I suspect this MAY be a political ploy, but I'm not up-to-date on Norwegian politics


It follows the principle that society is open and people have nothing to hide.
Taxes follow the principle that material goods belong to the state...
What state has no taxation, by the way?

Its not a political ploy, its an habitual practice there that was interrupted in 2004-2007 and is now back.
Bob Janova
QUOTE
This entirely follows the principle of material goods belonging to the state

You'll have to explain this more, because I'm not seeing it at all. As deSouza says, the state (even your American state ...) already has all this information in its tax office. Deciding to make it available to everyone doesn't move any material goods anywhere.
King Diamond
QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 22 2009, 10:35 AM) *
That's not transparency, that's just a gross violation of individual privacy. If someone wants their neighbour to know how much they make they'll bloody well tell them.


No kidding, do the Norwegians own their citizens to the point where they feel they can invade their privacy without consent?
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Bob Janova @ Oct 22 2009, 05:23 PM) *
You'll have to explain this more, because I'm not seeing it at all. As deSouza says, the state (even your American state ...) already has all this information in its tax office. Deciding to make it available to everyone doesn't move any material goods anywhere.

Because without a quest for social justice there is no reason for the information to be distributed. Especially with the names attached.

Under a more sensible government with a more sensible society, the proper response would be "so what?"
Roland Verne
The release of Skattelisten in Norway is an old tradition, and, according to the Prime Minister, it will continue to exist, although there have always been protests against it.

We all know the income of our neighbours... dry.gif
Chrono
QUOTE (Bob Janova @ Oct 22 2009, 10:53 PM) *
It's funny how some people go completely mad when another country with different cultural norms does something that they would disagree with.


K guys, no more whining about America.
Bob Janova
What does a 'quest for social justice' have to do with ownership of material goods?

E:
QUOTE
K guys, no more whining about America.

Touchι, but when I go completely mad and start talking about 1984 you can really make that point wink.gif
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Bob Janova @ Oct 22 2009, 06:23 PM) *
What does a 'quest for social justice' have to do with ownership of material goods?



What do you think taxing people's money to provide free healthcare to poor people involves?
Loki Ire
Posting every citizen's bank and credit card receipts also enhances transparency. After all, you've never purchased anything you wouldn't want the entire world to know about, right?

If the government of Norway is doing that without the consent of the citizenry, then they need to rise up and take back control of their own country. If the citizenry allows it, then I truly feel sorry for them.

It's always sad and a bit upsetting to see a human being forsake liberty to embrace a gilded cage.
King Diamond
QUOTE (Loki Ire @ Oct 22 2009, 04:25 PM) *
Posting every citizen's bank and credit card receipts also enhances transparency. After all, you've never purchased anything you wouldn't want the entire world to know about, right?

If the government of Norway is doing that without the consent of the citizenry, then they need to rise up and take back control of their own country. If the citizenry allows it, then I truly feel sorry for them.

It's always sad and a bit upsetting to see a human being forsake liberty to embrace a gilded cage.


I'm right there with you.....
Bob Janova
QUOTE
What do you think taxing people's money to provide free healthcare to poor people involves?

Oh right, you're one of those 'public services are theft!' people. You still haven't said how that's related to this transparency though. Norway was funding a decent welfare system whether it published this or not.
Loki Ire
QUOTE (Bob Janova @ Oct 22 2009, 07:47 PM) *
Oh right, you're one of those 'public services are theft!' people.


No, I think he's one of those "taking someone's money at gunpoint is theft!" people.

-----

From the office of US Congressional Representative Dr. Ron Paul:

Kenadian_2006
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 22 2009, 05:40 PM) *
Nope. When you follow the assumption that all of what you produce is rightfully the property of the state if it decides it must redistribute them in the interest of welfare, it is only natural that the state will want to look at all of your finances in order to determine what you should owe. When you follow the assumption that democracy is right and just and that voters must be perfectly informed, it is only natural to release all asset information to the public so that voters can decide for themselves how just society is and how much needs to be changed.

Social democracy is such a beautiful thing

These are YOUR beliefs in action.
Disgusted by them?
Good. You SHOULD be.


Take your assumptions and shove them back in your own head. These are not my beliefs, and this is not something I condone.
Vaal Satori
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 22 2009, 05:40 PM) *
Nope. When you follow the assumption that all of what you produce is rightfully the property of the state if it decides it must redistribute them in the interest of welfare, it is only natural that the state will want to look at all of your finances in order to determine what you should owe. When you follow the assumption that democracy is right and just and that voters must be perfectly informed, it is only natural to release all asset information to the public so that voters can decide for themselves how just society is and how much needs to be changed.

Social democracy is such a beautiful thing

These are YOUR beliefs in action.
Disgusted by them?
Good. You SHOULD be.


Well you see, there's this other belief that is a fundamental tenet of classical Liberalism. It is the notion of the individual's right to privacy and confidentiality of their personal information. Perhaps you've heard of it. In most cases privacy rights have trumped freedom of information, and this is one of those cases. It's kind of like how publicly broadcasting people's credit card numbers and financial records is and should be against the law.
xoindotnler
QUOTE (Loki Ire @ Oct 23 2009, 01:25 AM) *
Posting every citizen's bank and credit card receipts also enhances transparency. After all, you've never purchased anything you wouldn't want the entire world to know about, right?

If the government of Norway is doing that without the consent of the citizenry, then they need to rise up and take back control of their own country. If the citizenry allows it, then I truly feel sorry for them.

It's always sad and a bit upsetting to see a human being forsake liberty to embrace a gilded cage.

So criminals can find what they want to steal made easy?
King Diamond
QUOTE (xoindotnler @ Oct 22 2009, 05:06 PM) *
So criminals can find what they want to steal made easy?


I don't think he was agreeing with this sick interpretation of "transparency"
Chrono
QUOTE (Bob Janova @ Oct 22 2009, 11:23 PM) *
You'll have to explain this more, because I'm not seeing it at all. As deSouza says, the state (even your American state ...) already has all this information in its tax office. Deciding to make it available to everyone doesn't move any material goods anywhere.


Its a different matter entirely to take information for taxation purposes, than to take said information and use it for different means without one's permission.

Is it okay if the government starts selling citizen information to private companies? I mean, they already have the information.
Mussolandia
What a travesty. Some people have a real problem with the concept of property.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Bob Janova @ Oct 22 2009, 06:47 PM) *
Oh right, you're one of those 'public services are theft!' people. You still haven't said how that's related to this transparency though. Norway was funding a decent welfare system whether it published this or not.

facepalm.gif
The relevant definition does not need to be defined. I didn't even call it theft in this thread, I called it social justice. Do you deny social justice in the West often involves physical redistribution of wealth away from certain income classes and towards poorer income classes?

The quest for social justice and the dogmatic belief in democracy leads directly to this. People's resources are the property of the state, the state is the result of the will of the people, therefore the people in order to be informed must know how rich you are so they can decide how much of your money they want for their healthcare. You don't have to take MY word for it. You can take the guy in the article who said it!

QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 22 2009, 06:54 PM) *
Take your assumptions and shove them back in your own head. These are not my beliefs, and this is not something I condone.

These are not your beliefs yet. These are where your beliefs lead. This is the logical extension of your beliefs. You have a few heuristics to block this kind of thinking, but it directly contradictors your actual beliefs, and I am interested in how you will end up reconciling them.

How are the people supposed to make an informed decision when they don't know how much the country is making? How can they decide whether their society is just enough if they don't know what their neighbors have and what the wealthy people in the country have? How can people be considered members of the same society when they don't disclose their wellbeing to each other? Hmmmmm?


QUOTE (Vaal Satori @ Oct 22 2009, 06:59 PM) *
Well you see, there's this other belief that is a fundamental tenet of classical Liberalism. It is the notion of the individual's right to privacy and confidentiality of their personal information. Perhaps you've heard of it. In most cases privacy rights have trumped freedom of information, and this is one of those cases. It's kind of like how publicly broadcasting people's credit card numbers and financial records is and should be against the law.

Yeah, and that belief is in DIRECT conflict with your other beliefs. So reject your dogmatic belief in democracy or reject your dogmatic belief in social justice. Which is it?

I assume you are going to reject your dogmatic belief in democracy. Good for you, democracy is shoddy and doesn't work. Apply this view consistently in your other viewpoints. Like not letting idiots vote, which you stand soundly behind in other threads.
Mack Truck
Disgusting. I couldn't care less if the majority of Norweigans like it - even though according to the article they don't - or if they've always done it, just because the majority wants something that doesn't mean they should be allowed to infringe on other people's rights, especially for something like this that people can do without.
Vaal Satori
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 22 2009, 10:44 PM) *
Yeah, and that belief is in DIRECT conflict with your other beliefs. So reject your dogmatic belief in democracy or reject your dogmatic belief in social justice. Which is it?

I assume you are going to reject your dogmatic belief in democracy. Good for you, democracy is shoddy and doesn't work. Apply this view consistently in your other viewpoints. Like not letting idiots vote, which you stand soundly behind in other threads.


Your argument is ridiculous. The right to refuse vaccinations conflicts with the right to not have one's health put at risk by others. One person's right to freedom of expression conflicts with another's right to be free from noise pollution and harassment. That doesn't mean that in both cases one right should be completely abandoned in favor of the other. It means that the two competing rights should find a balance in society. These things aren't as simple as "you either believe X or Y", and I don't know why someone as intelligent as you would insist on adhering to such radical nonsense.
Kenadian_2006
Rob, being the lazy $@! I am I shall say this. Vaal's post more or less sums up my response. It's late, I'm tired. The nice Carolinian man can answer your questions.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Vaal Satori @ Oct 22 2009, 10:33 PM) *
Your argument is ridiculous. The right to refuse vaccinations conflicts with the right to not have one's health put at risk by others. One person's right to freedom of expression conflicts with another's right to be free from noise pollution and harassment. That doesn't mean that in both cases one right should be completely abandoned in favor of the other. It means that the two competing rights should find a balance in society. These things aren't as simple as "you either believe X or Y", and I don't know why someone as intelligent as you would insist on adhering to such radical nonsense.

You don't believe in balances, though, you believe in heuristics. Because you aren't arguing about a balance in this thread. You are just rejecting it out of hand because of a gut instinct.

Don't argue for something you don't believe in.
Vaal Satori
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 22 2009, 11:54 PM) *
You don't believe in balances, though, you believe in heuristics. Because you aren't arguing about a balance in this thread. You are just rejecting it out of hand because of a gut instinct.

Don't argue for something you don't believe in.


You've completely lost me here. How did I favor heuristics over balances in this post, which had been my only contribution to this thread prior to our exchange? My exact words were: "In most cases privacy rights have trumped freedom of information." That means in some cases freedom of information trumps privacy rights, which means that a balance between the two exists in our legal system. I also gave specific comparisons that should have served as a hint as to which criteria I was using to favor privacy rights in this particular case. When the disclosure of personal information serves to put an individual at significant risk of victimization or jeopardize their financial security or well being, and when the information being disclosed has nothing to do with investigating or prosecuting any criminal wrongdoing on their part, then privacy rights should take precedence. It's the exact same rationale behind preventing us from learning of the identities of citizens in the witness protection program.

What I think is happening here is that you are eager to debate a certain perspective, but no one in this thread adheres to that perspective, so you are simply ascribing beliefs to people that make it easier for you stick to your original line. I would encourage you to pay more attention to what people are saying, and to craft responses that are applicable to their arguments. Don't simply assume someone believes a certain thing, because more often than not you will be wrong and the results will be embarrassing.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Vaal Satori @ Oct 23 2009, 11:32 AM) *
You've completely lost me here. How did I favor heuristics over balances in this post, which had been my only contribution to this thread prior to our exchange? My exact words were: "In most cases privacy rights have trumped freedom of information." That means in some cases freedom of information trumps privacy rights, which means that a balance between the two exists in our legal system. I also gave specific comparisons that should have served as a hint as to which criteria I was using to favor privacy rights in this particular case. When the disclosure of personal information serves to put an individual at significant risk of victimization or jeopardize their financial security or well being, and when the information being disclosed has nothing to do with investigating or prosecuting any criminal wrongdoing on their part, then privacy rights should take precedence. It's the exact same rationale behind preventing us from learning of the identities of citizens in the witness protection program.

What I think is happening here is that you are eager to debate a certain perspective, but no one in this thread adheres to that perspective, so you are simply ascribing beliefs to people that make it easier for you stick to your original line. I would encourage you to pay more attention to what people are saying, and to craft responses that are applicable to their arguments. Don't simply assume someone believes a certain thing, because more often than not you will be wrong and the results will be embarrassing.

Because you show absolutely no analysis of the issue at all. I explained EXACTLY the reasoning behind this, and then you simply handwaved it. And then to defend your handwaving, you handwaved some more and said "oh, but THESE things are okay." I never said you didn't have hundreds or even thousands of heuristics that your brain can rapidly fire off to make new rules. I just said that you have them and prefer to use them as opposed to an actual analysis of the issue.

You do this, despite the fact that you can see with your own eyes a nation implementing this kind of policy. A developed nation, no less, not some random third-world one.

Please present your analysis of this issue. Please show your discount rates, the preferences of the society and yourself, the likely outcomes and uses, etc. Until then, your opposition to this is knee-jerk, not founded in rational decision-making. Those of us that are NOT social democrats are under no such requirements, because our beliefs do NOT lead to this conclusion. Your beliefs do and it requires a higher degree of analysis to justify NOT doing this.


Now you MAY have done this, but the post you were defending did not.
Vaal Satori
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 23 2009, 12:54 PM) *
Because you show absolutely no analysis of the issue at all. I explained EXACTLY the reasoning behind this, and then you simply handwaved it. And then to defend your handwaving, you handwaved some more and said "oh, but THESE things are okay." I never said you didn't have hundreds or even thousands of heuristics that your brain can rapidly fire off to make new rules. I just said that you have them and prefer to use them as opposed to an actual analysis of the issue.

You do this, despite the fact that you can see with your own eyes a nation implementing this kind of policy. A developed nation, no less, not some random third-world one.

Please present your analysis of this issue. Please show your discount rates, the preferences of the society and yourself, the likely outcomes and uses, etc. Until then, your opposition to this is knee-jerk, not founded in rational decision-making. Those of us that are NOT social democrats are under no such requirements, because our beliefs do NOT lead to this conclusion. Your beliefs do and it requires a higher degree of analysis to justify NOT doing this.


Now you MAY have done this, but the post you were defending did not.


To be quite honest, it was difficult to take the post of yours I was quoting seriously, due to all of the implicit assumptions and nebulous associations it made. For instance, the following quote:

"When you follow the assumption that democracy is right and just and that voters must be perfectly informed, it is only natural to release all asset information to the public so that voters can decide for themselves how just society is and how much needs to be changed."

First, I would like for you to point to where anyone stated that voters should be perfectly informed about everything. You can't, because it is a fictitious point that nobody made, and something that practically no one believes. Second, how would knowing each person's private financial information have anything to do with determining how just society is, when their data is already anonymously included in the government's statistical compilations? Does it in any way impact one's assessment of society that you know the names of each multi-millionaire living in your state, rather than just how many there are? No, it doesn't. The only possible use for that data would be to aid in the persecution of those individuals, which consequently would make society less just. So to imply that one who was truly concerned with social justice would be in favor of such a disclosure is preposterous.

You then go on to specifically ascribe the beliefs you outlined to Kenadian, despite the fact that you know he believes none of it. That can only be interpreted as a defamatory personal attack on him, and is completely uncalled for.

So really, what kind of a response were you expecting from me and everyone else? You made an incoherent post in an accusatory manner and tried to malign one of the most respected members among us, so you should expect to face your fair share of backlash.
DaJoW
We do this in Sweden as well (also lists of personal debt etc.) and have been for as long as I remember. Nobody really cares because that's just something that happens once or twice a year.
Kenadian_2006
QUOTE (DaJoW @ Oct 24 2009, 09:33 AM) *
We do this in Sweden as well (also lists of personal debt etc.) and have been for as long as I remember. Nobody really cares because that's just something that happens once or twice a year.


Simply different cultures then I guess. The government wouldn't get out of it alive if they did that in the States, I doubt it would be any better in Canada.
New Inca Empire
QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 24 2009, 10:34 AM) *
Simply different cultures then I guess. The government wouldn't get out of it alive if they did that in the States, I doubt it would be any better in Canada.


They tried to do that here, they'd be a revolution. tongue.gif
Tiwaz
QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 24 2009, 04:34 PM) *
Simply different cultures then I guess. The government wouldn't get out of it alive if they did that in the States, I doubt it would be any better in Canada.


Yes this is more cultural then political i think.
kingzog
I'd probably care about this argument a bit more if I knew what the heck a 'Norway' is.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.