More on the Swedish Model

I agree that the purpose of any state is the security of its citizens, but at what price this comes at is determined by the different forms of government. In some cases a state’s security might come from financial burdens shouldered by its citizens. In other cases their might be a body burden (soldiers in the army) that is taken by the citizens. In some governments the citizens give up most of their basic rights in order to be protected. What is consistent in all these though is the fact that a government can’t provide security without asking some of its people. This seems obvious considering it takes resources to do anything (protection or otherwise), and a state’s people is its most important resource. The question is then do the people see what they’re doing as being a legitimate sacrifice, and this question is left in total doubt if there is no transparency within a government. If you enter the armed forces without knowing what you’re fighting for, the weight you shoulder hardly seems worth it. The same is true when it comes to what you’re fighting against. Had the USA, in the wake of 9/11, just launched a war against the Middle East, I think it would have been hard to convince the America people of its legitimacy. But, by targeting a specific person / political group, you put a face on the enemy and show people what exactly their fighting against. All governments should be responsible for protecting their people, and all governments will in turn ask sacrifices of their people. But when governments hide what their people are sacrificing for, or what their fighting against, the government will slowly start to lose the support of the citizens. In Sweden, this wasn’t a problem because people knew what they were sacrificing for.