::::::::
Just thinking
I am not patriotic...but I AM appreciative in the sense that people, nations, cultures, societies etc. can win my appreciation, but it is won only by the acts of people who can not "inherit" appreciation, pride, fame or honor from previous generations, nor pass it on to their kids or their nation/state/town etc.
In my opinion.
But I can be appreciative of certain features of my country of birth - because the people that have and are constituting and perpetuating the political and social life is upholding a system worth appreciating.
Even more so since I came to USA.
A more socialist "pooling" of "from all according to ability, to all according to need", might not last long in USA the way it has in Sweden - the system here is both perpetuated and perpetuates a mentality of far too much suspicion and opportunism. Too many individuals and sub-national groups looking out for themselves on the account of others believing others would do the same.
I guess most people would like a more collectivist sharing of resources - such as a tax pooling into a generally distributed basic social security - but at the same time they do do not feel that a majority is ready to do the same but instead would abuse the system. Nobody wants to be the one getting screwed due to being naive.
Social welfare by redistribution is a fragile system that requires a mentality among the majority of trust that most will not take unduly advantage.
I believe that part of what makes Sweden such a desirable place to live and work and grow old and have kids ( every time I mention the benefits provided free of charge to all paying taxes according to income I see the same glazed over look), is also what has made it such - the lack of recognition and others wanting to exploit it. That coupled with a culture very Lutheran in it promotion of "silent righteousness" - you do your share and do not take what you do not need, as a matter of pride and principles, and you do not make a fuss of your accomplishments.
With all is disadvantages, it is a system that has worked well enough to puzzle analysts and political scientists for decades.
But I was vindicated in my questioning of the "USA Inc." model for provision of the basic human rights- that is, making that too another commercial product feeding into the same "ideology" of greed that leads to so many breaches of the same human rights - in a feature in Democracy Now today.
I quote from the broadcast:
* Jeanne Lambrew. Senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and an associate professor at George Washington University where she teaches health policy and conducts policy-relevant research on the uninsured, Medicaid, Medicare, and long-term care:
". But I will say that we, in the US, are fairly unique, in that we have this expectation that goes back decades that our employers will do what government has failed to do, which is to provide affordable access to health benefits. The truth is, the unions -- AFL, SEIU before, when it was part of it -- were really instrumental in making that happen. But both costs have gone up at such a rate that it's very difficult for businesses to continue do that, and vice versa. We've seen the economy change. We have many people who are, you know, part-time workers in kind of the new entrepreneurial jobs, independent contractors, who simply cannot get coverage through an employer-based system. So employers should do the best they can for their employees, and it's a necessary part of the system, but it's not sufficient. We need to kind of build on what we have today, but also create new systems for the people who can't access employer-based coverage. We think it's bigger than that. We think we need to kind of move towards a 21st century health system..."
I rest my case...
