Well, the spending has to come from somewhere. But you'd be right to point out that in addition to taxes, we also have to consider government borrowing (which the full publication does to some extent).
Also, the article isn't claiming that Sweden is not a "welfare state". I calls it so in the title. It's claiming that they are paying for it with a higher tax burden on the middle-class.
They were not "doxxed". There is no expectation of privacy when signing an open letter and using your affiliation to boost it.
Also, I don't think they deserve much sympathy. These are the same people who will put your name in a hundred lists and advocate for your firing if you say anything significantly in contradiction to their ideology.
The the reason corporations care about DEI in the first place has to do with civil rights laws, they mostly don't really think that "diversity" is their strength. To learn more about that, you should read Richard Hanania's recent book The Origins of Woke.
Since there has been a backslash against the results of the civil rights laws, they probably have more leeway to act as "rational" economic agents, but at least the formalities still must be observed.
France essentially has inquisition courts, which for example Houellebecq [1] (a prominent author) and Zemmour [2] (a former presidential candidate) had to suffer through.
I've commented about this overall situation in France a few times, and yes, they've gone after fundamental rights also before. Which is kind of weird given their history.
EDIT: Over again, some Americans seem to think that this is about the "freedom of speech", whereas, in reality, it is about the freedom of assembly. That said, the situation seems pretty dire, with organizations classified as terrorists on the streets.
I think this is mostly about searching for the solutions that would prevent people from abusing the fundamental rights to advance their anti-democracy agenda.
That's not how fundamental rights are meant to work. I'm not a monarchist, but I'm happy to allow monarchists (or communists, or Sharia folk, or Baptists) to push for that form of government.
Democracy is a durable form of government unless it's systemically broken.
The 18th-century revolutions that were centered around fundamental rights of man, were pretty hostile to monarchy. France famously guillotined supporters of the monarchy. Even the USA tarred and feathered loyalists or drove them into exile in Canada or the Caribbean. It was only years later, once monarchy wasn’t a realistic possibility any more (or, in France, the public mood had come around to monarchy again) that such advocacy was permitted again. And then later movements for instituting a non-democratic regime, namely fascism or communism, got various degrees of prohibition. So, I’d say it’s pretty normal even for successful democracies to interpret fundamental rights in that light.
I am happy to allow for any state transition that allows for a peaceful reversal of the event (i.e. an undo button). If it's a monarchy, it should be a monarchy with guardrails (i.e. could be deposed by a snap popular vote with 2/3 majority or something)
If the plan of the people, once in power, is to prevent any challenges to their power, we should not run such experiments, and those people do not deserve free speech rights.
Free speech has that paradox unfortunately built into it (see Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance). Universal free speech is a pipe dream you wouldn't enjoy living under.
Don't even attempt to muddy the waters like this. Zemmour has been sued many times, yes, but only convicted twice. The first time, for example, for saying "businesses should discriminate against blacks and Arabs". He was convicted for incitement to discrimination, an offense in many countries. In fact: he was sued for several things he said, like "traffickers are all black and muslim" which he was acquitted for, as while reproachable falls within freedom of expression. Again: only convicted for things which directly contravene specific laws, such as non-discrimination in hiring.
> It would be nice if instead of everyone hating on the prize, we could take a moment and reflect.
Nice can also mean silly and ignorant, as any well-aged dictionary would tell you. [0] We are reflecting, on the corruption and politicization of our institutions.
> Think of what this woman and many other women trapped in these regimes are going through, the sacrifices they've made, and the bravery they show to try to make things better.
Essentially the same Bush-era "plight of the Afghan women" kind of appeal to emotion to justify corruption, interventionism, and war [1].
Also, I'm pretty sure you don't really know much about the political situation in Iran. Mohammadi belongs to a political faction called the Reformists [2], which is filled with regime apologists and charlatans. More specifically, she belongs to a particular branch which is sometimes called Neo-Shariatism [3]. Shariati himself was the "ideologue of the Islamic Revolution" [4], and a full-fledged charlatan who used to falsely claim to have a PhD in sociology from Sorbonne [5].
Mohammadi is currently a political prisoner, but that obviously isn't something which merits a Peace Prize. I'm sure that there isn't a shortage of political prisoners in the Islamic Republic.
Yes. I will stop with these kinds of comments ("hurr durr", "musk sh*tposter") because I didn't realize this kind of talk was discouraged. I can say it in a better way. Thanks for the feedback.
Edit: I think you do a good job moderating this site so I'm sorry to have caused you an issue.
I'd be curious to know how much the real wages have changed since then though. It seems that in the US as whole, it hasn't changed much in the last 50 years or so. [1] However, the data doesn't go back to 1937, and it's for the entire US (not California in particular).
Also, the article isn't claiming that Sweden is not a "welfare state". I calls it so in the title. It's claiming that they are paying for it with a higher tax burden on the middle-class.