Is the Scandinavian model the perfect governance system. If one think about it, then the perfect system is the one which brings 'good' to the people. Why have money, if the wealth is distributed amongst the 1 percent, while the rest of the people lives like a third world country. Even taking public service as an example, in Scandinavian countries the police is considered as a symbol of peace, while in a capitalistic society the police is like a wolf pack searching for a prey.
"Perfection" is relative to the beholder. Who decides what is "erfect" or "Ideal," and how do they know it's perfect or ideal? Someone might say communist dictatorship is the perfect government system and give a list of reasons why, and then someone else may come up and say Democracy is he perfect form of gov't and list reasons why. So what makes one right over the other?
[...] is the perfect government system and give a list of reasons why, and then someone else may come up and say Democracy is he perfect form of gov't and list reasons why. So what makes one right over the other?
Nothing in the world could make either of them right, as both premises are absurd.
It's a commonly used phrase to mean an authoritarian gov't. Don't argue semantics.
Nothing in the world could make either of them right, as both premises are absurd.
That's your opinion, given on a hypothetical. The point I'm trying to get across is that there is no perfect gov't system because everyone is going to have a different idea of what that perfect gov't is.
It's a commonly used phrase to mean an authoritarian gov't. Don't argue semantics.
A phrase that is completely erroneous and perpetuates a popular misconception. Therefore, I have every right to argue semantics.
That's your opinion, given on a hypothetical.
Um, no, it isn't. It's the necessary conclusion based on the premises you gave. What any person believes "would be perfect" does not define perfection. Perfection is not relative to the beholder.
A phrase that is completely erroneous and perpetuates a popular misconception. Therefore, I have every right to argue semantics.
You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now. What's your point?
Um, no, it isn't. It's the necessary conclusion based on the premises you gave. What any person believes "would be perfect" does not define perfection. Perfection is not relative to the beholder.
And those premises were hypothetical.
Also, so you're saying that there is an objective perfection? Then what is perfection, and how do you know?
You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now. What's your point?
Um, no. My point is that communism and dictatorship are mutually exclusive. You cannot have a "communist dictatorship" any more than you can have a 1-dimensional sphere.
Also, so you're saying that there is an objective perfection? Then what is perfection, and how do you know?
Yes, as per the literal definition of the word, perfection is the absolute ideal. If it has any flaw or limitation, it isn't perfect. If it is surpassable, it isn't perfect. If it does not satisfy all possible requirements, it isn't perfect. It stands to reason that no government is perfect, because nothing real could ever be perfect.
I'd have to go with a true communist government. Something that will never exist, but neither will a "erfect government system" so I reserve the right to use that non-answer xD
