We live in violable time. People are offended – and irritated, angered, indignant. Some are so angry that it goes completely overboard. For most impulse control pretty good, but one should not read far in comment fields before one discovers an aggressive tone. There, people like the person, not the case.
How is it been like that? It is hardly so man has become more vulnerable than before. The explanation is technological. 100 years ago you managed not to provoke more than those you could shout to the plow or boat. Today, you can provoke millions of people with simple steps on your mobile phone.Unpopular themes
What infringe? Clearly drawings, but also attitudes and opinions. Comments about the oil industry violates oil workers. Proposed hospital Nordby violate people in Sorby.
Economists cut mostly clear, inflation figures and economic analyzes have little provocation force. But economists know that there are three unpopular topics they can write about without risking networks proportionality: regional policy, subsidies and welfare programs.
And then revealed several interesting aspects of provocation anatomy. Those who provoked, have generally precede a list of approved opinions or a pre-defined morality definitive. Take a (hypothetical) example. One Saturday in nice layer says economist Hansen: “Norway remains with resource intensive social arrangements.”
This teeth Jensens wrath, and he believes Hansen is heartless, unscrupulous or worse (use your imagination). Instead of discussing how Norway would allocate scarce resources, it becomes a sore exchange about who is a good person.
“Taking the weakest party”
In a wider perspective is here economists are struggling – and I must take care not to go in indignasjonsfellen. It is harder to defend a system, an allocation scheme or a budget requirements than to stand on the same side as the individual who fight for a special privilege or an exemption from a cruel rule.
budget constraint lures not forward chants. Cost estimates produces not good feeling. The future is not present – and can not applaud. Those who support individual cases, however, has a virtually unassailable moral position.
For those “take the weakest party” and “fighting against the cold market forces.” They heartwarming – and the others have not.
Not everyone can get exceptions
They do not have to defend it intellectually demanding point that not everyone can get exceptions, limit must go place. Not everyone in the world can benefit from Norway’s wealth, then we are not rich.
By redefining the issue from turning about the welfare of all in the long term to be one of concrete welfare for one person In the short term, they ensure its position as the heartwarming.
Assume further that Hansen proposes to look at the sick pay scheme. We are, after all, one of the world’s healthiest people – but are among those with the highest absenteeism. It’s strange.
She suggests that reduced salary first day could be a possibility. There do not want to hurt the legitimate sick, only the illegitimate “sick.” This could give the really sick more resources – not less. Jensen provoked already on the word “reduced”. He believes Hansen is heartless since she thinks of the welfare of the weak. Is it appropriate tag?
Sickness affects the sick
Maybe not. In Norway, we worked 3.9 billion each year. It is this that creates the Norwegian welfare. It is the pot that keeps the roads being built, schools kept in operation – and sick people treated. The 3.9 billion hours is Norway wallet. If it is reduced by seven hours because Ola are away from work, it goes beyond any.
The seven the hours welfare contributions is perhaps not particularly visible, but the contribution exists. Some rough calculations suggest that with Swedish absence levels had in Norway we had 60 million hours more, and the hours could have gone to better roads and hospitals. Absenteeism affects the sick. So brutal is the world.
From this we conclude that the absence is not illegitimate. Delete not. Are you sick, you’re sick. Done talking. There are two other issues we’re talking about. One is that Jensen is not alone in caring about the weak – although he gladly believe it yourself.
The second is that the real debate is difficult because it involves choosing among two evils: A string sickness scheme will strike some innocent sick, but save some innocent accident victims with surgery needs because it contributes to more labor input, which enables better roads and more hospital.
A mild sickness scheme will not affect any innocent sick, but touching any innocent accident victims because it implies that Norges wallet lose millions of working hours.
This unpleasant choice not disappear by Jensen alleges that it does not exist. A string sickness scheme affects someone sick. A mild sickness scheme affects other sick. So complicated is the world.
Reduces discussion quality
But does it really matter that people are violable? Yes, because it reduces the quality discussion. The pensive reluctant to participate since even subdued reasoning seems to trigger violent reactions.
The result is political debates that are competitions in indignation. It means easy answers to difficult questions – answers that weakens society.
Follow Aftenposten opinions on Facebook and Twitter
Published:
No comments:
Post a Comment