Freedom à la Sahlin?

Så vinner vi valet Politik Debattämnen Debatt Aftonbladet: "Rättvis fördelning, välfärd åt alla och minskade klyftor skapar trygghet och möjligheter som gör att den individuella friheten kan växa. Därför är vår socialdemokratiska dröm om frihet också en dröm om jämlikhet."

Another point of view was declared by Göran Hägglund (KD) during his Sommar program on the radio. It is proably a well known thesis: "Don't fight the rich, fight poverty". That would create the security that Sahlin is requesting at the same time as money would rightfully be returned in the form of philantropy. It would give welfare to all or at least to those that are in need.

I sense in this kind of argumentation that Sahlin wants to take care of all people--"förmynderiet", or "tutelage". "Welfare to all". Luckily most people are OK on their own. I think it is important to make this distinction or otherwise it will be very difficult to discuss individual freedom.

"Just redistribution"? Well, people that give away their own money do this more rightfully than people who give away other people's money. They also invest skilfully in other companies via the stock market. Also, why would shrinking wealth distribution create security and possibilities. Where is the link? Sounds like Sahlin thinks that individual freedom is created by security in the form of welfare. This is interesting because many people apparently think that all people need this security all the time.

Yes, it is good to know that you don't fall below a certain level, from which it is difficult to resurface, but I don't understand why this would be the driving force since most people find security in their abilities and in their jobs. Real freedom is created by government by aiding entrepreneurships and business in general and by aiding science and education.

The last sentense in the citation above is just a rewriting of the Law of Jante. Freedom is when you don't have to worry about people succeeding all around you all the time.

The mystery is why half of Sweden buys into these kind of arguments? In any case they are detrimental to the quest of keeping up steam in the age of globalization. And that steam is what secures our welfare.