Can you find me the law that says it is illegal to talk about Tiananmen Square in China? I'd love to read it.
What actually happens is that when you talk about it, you lose your job, etc. Rarely does the government step in. Which, and correct me if I'm wrong, sounds like what you're advocating as "free speech".
The Great Firewall and Social Credit system are both run by the government and definitely penalize this behavior.
Of course there's no law explicitly saying "you can't talk about Tiananmen Square" because that law would be talking about Tiananmen Square which is the opposite of what they want.
You can definitely talk about it. How else would people know not to talk about it? The behavior that the government penalizes is advocating action against the government.
But people don't talk about it. It's enforced socially. That's my point. You don't talk about Tiananmen Square, you don't gawk at Falun Gong protesters, etc. Even many Chinese expats act like this. It's just something people know not to do because they don't want to be seen as a bad person and lose friends, jobs, and so on.
That happens completely outside the government's influence.
The US has 60x the population of Norway on 25x the land.
Honest question: given what you know about politics in Norway, do you personally believe Norway’s complexity reduction through agreement on common standards can scale to a country the size of the US?
Could 60 Norways mutually agree on common standards?
The US is a federation of 50 states and in theory is highly liberal. Therefore at most your example should scale at the state level. As most states have fewer inhabitants than Norway then I don't see your point.
This fictional scaling problem makes as much sense as correlating the effect of some public policies on the height of the political leader or average temperature. It's a silly scapegoat that makes no sense at all.
Well there's only two other countries with more than 330 million people so that's a bit of a poor argument to make, and it assumes that the well-functioning systems in (most, if not all) other western countries won't scale - I'm not entirely sure where such an assumption comes from.
Probably a refusal to imagine it as a possibility in the first place, I suppose.
Well "flawless" is obviously a disingenuous expectation on your part.
I would direct you to the United States which has a pretty amazing public healthcare system called Medicare that has an 80+% approval rating among those lucky enough to be on it.
I would argue that obtaining a high quality education and developing meaningful life philosophy are two separate areas. Colleges need to move away from the teaching life philosophy to everyone. If people already know what they want to do with their life then just let them take the essential courses to get valuable skills/education. If people want to learn about meaningful life philosophy then they can do that on their own.
And then they end up with vapid, shallow, self-obsessed life philosophies - see, every self-help guru peddling individualistic nonsense.
Part of the purpose of teaching philosophy is you get rigour from actually testing those ideas out in a place where people are going to scrutinise the ideas. That’s why philosophy exists, and history, and a whole load of other humanities subjects.
In my experience, the people that latch onto self help gurus, preachers of weird beliefs, and peddlers of odd lifestyles, are usually graduates of college. They were taught to be skeptics by how education is done now. So they reject traditional things and yearn for yogis and the like.
The city uses an expanded definition of homelessness that includes people who are "doubled-up" in the homes of family or friends [1]. The survey referenced in the source you've linked counts people dealing with LGBTQ-related issues that, while terrible, aren't what most people think of when they picture homelessness in SF.
The "man shooting heroin on the street" sorts of homeless folks are, in my limited experience volunteering, generally not from SF but some other part of CA.
It depends—when I was at one of the really visible companies, it wouldn’t have surprised me if as much as a third of the people I screened had lied on their resume. I’d ask folks to write functions to count the number of times the letter ‘a’ appears in a string, stuff like that. Did not need to compile or run.
I had a person break down and confess, and we spent the rest of the interview talking about how their codecademy lessons were going.
And they also don't tie (through culture and regulations) access to health insurance (and therefore care) to employment situations.
Really... break ties between "employment" and "health insurance". It's a massive distortion of the 'free market', which is typically a conservative crowing point.
What actually happens is that when you talk about it, you lose your job, etc. Rarely does the government step in. Which, and correct me if I'm wrong, sounds like what you're advocating as "free speech".