Eeeh, OK?

Few ideological causes ever united Bernie Sanders, an American politician so left-wing he could run for office as a European centrist, and Charlie Kirk, a Trumpian firebrand. A rare point of agreement among them, oddly, was the appeal of Sweden.

Sure, that's because one side of that "confrontation" is incorrect... #1538321, #1495232, #1502292. Wanna guess which one??

To the gruff senator the Scandinavian country is a wellhead of socialist good sense that America should emulate. For the conservative stalwart, who was murdered a year ago while preaching his right-wing credo at a university, the home of IKEA and Spotify was equally worthy of admiration. Yet to him Sweden thrived not because of its large state but in spite of it—it was all down to an innate don’t-tread-on-me individualism a Texan might recognise.

"What might be is that both have a fair claim: Sweden is the paradoxical home of individualism done collectively."

The socialist case was more accurate before the state was sharply slimmed down in the early 1990s.

Here's Sweden's (outrageous) gov spending as a share of GDP, from the IMF datamapper

The mollycoddling literally starts in the cradle; new parents are showered with up to 480 days of paid leave. Other lefty shibboleths include free universities, low income inequality and the rich world’s most sweeping rent controls. Two-thirds of working Swedes belong to a trade union, the most of any country bar tiny Iceland.

(don't ask about the quality; or the waiting lines; or the income levels #1533994)

"Yet it is equally fair to argue that Sweden has a libertarian side."

income taxes high, redistribution high, OK fine but:

• cherishing individual freedom, "as ferociously as a Montana survivalist." (Nordic leave-me-alone mentality, Covid mania resistance case in point
• public services often delivered/managed by private sector #1495232
• no inheritance tax
• no minimum wage (but unions maintain massively elevated wage floor, resulting in ~5% point higher structural unemployment rate than e.g., America)

All this has resulted in Sweden having around 50% more billionaires per person than America. If this is socialism, it is a variant that is surprisingly good for yacht sales.

Interesting twist:

In developed countries collectivism and individual liberty are generally treated as rivals: the more responsibility government assumes, the less room remains for citizens to fend for themselves. Sweden followed a different path. During the 20th century the state expanded not merely to soften inequality or insure people against hardship, but to reduce their reliance on other people—including their own families. A large impersonal state is seen as bolstering autonomy: when in need, Swedes feel it is better to be beholden to an impersonal bureaucracy than to a parent or some charity. Seen this way, a bigger state translates into more freedom, not less.

American parents sending their offspring to college must submit proof of their incomes for the youngsters to qualify for scholarships. In contrast, young Swedes are assumed to be on their own: the income of their parents is irrelevant. Their independence is a gift of the state, expensive as it is to sustain.

archive: https://archive.md/sl8io