The Pigouvian culture and polity that is Sweden

A Swedish town has become the first in the country to introduce an official begging permit, requiring anyone who asks for money in the street to pay SEK 250 (£21) upfront for a licence.

Valid for three months, the permit can be obtained by filling in a form online or at a police station and requires a valid ID. Anyone found begging for money in Eskilstuna, west of Stockholm, without one faces a fine of up to SEK 4,000 (£342).

Here is much more, via Shaffin.  Note that some beggars are trying to circumvent the ban by “selling blueberries.”


How can there be any need to beg in that Nordic socialist paradise? Not only do beggars have to pay for a permit, they also need to present a valid ID that will have a disparate impact on Roma! Where are the EU and UN commissions on human rights to denounce this egregious injustice?

At least they understand that "bureaucratising" something makes it more difficult.

Derangement syndrome has destroyed your tiny brain.

It's not even ODS or CDS anymore, it's just LDS (Liberal Derangement Syndrome, not to be confused with the Mormon church)

Lemonade stands were recently legalized in Texas. I suppose I can make a joke about Texas small government paradise but no I don't have derangement syndrome like you do.

OK, a little off topic but you brought up the Lone Star state.

People in Texas are a little pissed off about what happened in El Paso, and they know Trump is part of it. Especially Hispanic Texans, many of whom voted Trump in 2016 as the Republicans like to point out.

It's very possible El Paso turns Texas blue (just this once, as an anti-Trump vote) in which case the Dems could nominate George McGovern's corpse and they win in a landslide.

And those people think that they don't need a permit / sanitary check to sell produce? I do not know Swedish laws, but I would assume the fine for selling food without any paperwork is even higher, than a fine for begging. I am no prophet, but I think their plan to “sell blueberries" won't quite work.

Swede here. You don't need a permit unless you're renting a spot in a town square for example. So you're free to set up shop at the side of the road with no permit. I guess customers can so easily assess the condition of their berries before buying, so there's never been much of a need for anybody to step in and regulate sanitation.

That is quite weird for me. I am from Russia and trading produce on the streets without a permit is at least 3 different administrative offences with 3 different (not huge) fines. Albeit, I must say, we still have a lot of elderly people selling their (supposedly) grown stuff all over any major city. As usual, the written law and enforced law are two different things in Russia.

It isn't weird to me either, living in Germany. Scale matters, of course, but picking a few cartons of blueberries and selling them would not be the sort of thing that anyone would care about in terms of regulations.

I've never heard of anyone needing a permit in Britain to set up a roadside stall selling fruit, veg, flowers, plants, and so forth. The customer pops his money in a box and makes off with his purchase. I assume the stall holder empties the money box each time he visits the stall to top up his supply of produce, or as darkness falls.

in britain gypsies used to sell lucky heather.

I recall the dark days in NYC (the 1980s) when, at every intersection, helpful men (known as squeegee men) would offer to squeegee the car windshield, better to see NYC through. I understand that the squeegee men have returned, not at every intersection, but many. I'd rather have fresh blueberries.

Interesting that the Guardian article doesn't denounce this law as a backlash against Muslim immigration. Perhaps that topic is simply too hot to raise.

Because all social problems, and thus all political problems, are intractable separations of "race, color or creed"

Or so says modern conservatism in direct opposition to Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I'm afraid we're going to have to deal with this as a nation. Our foundational ideas are at risk. And there are way too many people on the right who say "it's OK to not like Mexicans or Africans or Muslims, as long as you don't actually go out to kill them."

Again, this is a good take on the accommodations we, as a nation, have made for xenophobia.

Not your best trolling. Non-responsive word salad is prior's shtick, and anyway it's just too obvious to the casual reader that the topic is Sweden, not the US.

That's not a very good answer. if you said "Muslim immigration" and "simply too hot to raise" it must be because you think (1) Muslim immigrants are bad and (2) that's "too hot" to talk about here, in America.

Hey, unless you want to tell me I've missed it, and you do actually welcome legal (point system scoring) immigrants of any "race, color or creed!"

You’re off by a few thousand miles.

I'm responding to "a backlash against Muslim immigration. Perhaps that topic is simply too hot to raise" guy.

Here's a serious question. How many of you supported Trump's Muslim Ban as originally conceived?

Did you do it because you personally feared Muslims?

Or did you do it because you figured "other people" fear Muslims, and so it was reasonable to violate our "race, color or creed" principles for them?

He was talking about the Guardian, though. How did we get from that to Trump other than your ongoing derangement at the hands of his Twitter feed?

OK, sorry, "Sweden" and "Muslims" and "backlash" is purely isolated and has no bearing whatsoever on shootings in New Zealand, let alone US politics.

There are no global political or social trends to be seen here.

Move along.

no u

Here's the thing. The original article does not say "Muslim" at all. If you are unhappy at the change of direction, Tom is the guy to talk to.

In fact, the article says:

"Critics of the scheme have said it legitimises begging and argued it makes those who are reduced to asking for money, many of whom are Roma from countries such as Romania and Bulgaria, more vulnerable."

That's a cultural stereotype certainly, but a different one than Tom offered. But I'm not saying Tom can't have his say. I'm just responding to it. Free speech all around.

Yeah, but your response was dumb.

Did you read the Slate article? I think it has a key insight. People, even people who opposed the Muslim ban, have been "accommodating" to the idea of fear based on race, color, or creed. This goes for people who say "I'm a globalist, but we have to be sensitive to such and such."

This accommodation has allowed broader opinion, and political action, to shift away from our old beliefs that " all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

It what makes America not sweat it that much when an American teen is locked up by immigration for a few weeks .. because he's not really American. The bar is shifted, or a hidden bar is exposed.

You're an ugly parochial American projecting your TDS onto everything else around the world.

And you sir, think Trump is perversely a get out of jail free card.

Perversely, because Trump himself is a banner carrier for this change. Way back when he said he couldn't trust Judge Curiel because he "is of Mexican heritage" that was straight up racism. He wanted him to recuse himself, for race alone. And all of you who made excuses for it were "accommodating" that racism. At the very least.

And you know, accommodating Steve Sailor or Noah Carl reinforces these things as well. It is actually impossible to have polite armchair racism without feeding the whole social phenomenon which ends in violence, time and again.

If you believe in America's "all men are created equal," or the Bible's "love your neighbor," you actually have to stand up for that. And not just some of your neighbors, with the right skin tone.

Sorry, that one didn't quite take. Could you lecture us all some more, please? A little bit more sanctimony might help, too.

anonymous can be a real sanctimonious knucklehead, but this time he's pretty spot on. Still sanctimonious, but at least correct.

Dubious. A line from the Declaration of Independence doesn't somehow render anything Steve Sailer or Noah Carl have to say as invalid, wrong, unutterable, etc. Their arguments stand or fall on the basis of the evidence they present. In effect, anonymous is making a call for censorship here. I'm fairly certain the founders he's so fond of citing all of sudden had something to say about that subject.

That was not as cute as you think.

To answer "He's not wrong," it's actually not hard to spot the moral high ground, and endorse it. I'm surprised at how few do, here. It's not like it's a king of the hill thing. There is plenty of room for all of us fallible humans near the top. We can all say "be excellent to each other."

Now on Sailer and Carl and speaking truth, the tragedy is that they don't do that, either.

Population geneticists say there is no biological foundation to race, to which they say "conspiracy!"

Which makes them confused or dishonest, explicitly creating a "scientific" racism which rejects science.

Well, at least you managed to stay on topic for a change.

Actual geneticist:

You keep proving the point with more TDS that has nothing to do with the OP.

Do you think this is clever, or do you just get salty when anyone criticizes Trump?

TDS all day, every day. Keep digging.

Serious people today are discussing white terrorism, white nationalism, and Trump's role in it.

If you can't see how that relates to "Muslim backlash" or the passive-aggressive support for "all of the above" on this page, maybe you should do some more thinking.

Why did the FBI Agent's Association need to go out of channel?

Why didn't they simply report to the commander in chief?

Does this feel anti-conservative to you? Why?

Serious people

And please, no "it's at the NYT, so get out of jail free." Answer on substance.

Answer on how Republicans can be the party of "be excellent to each other."

As opposed to

You're almost in China. Just a few more shovels full. You can do it!

We get it, everyone that criticizes Trump is deranged. No one can criticize Trump without being deranged. OK, got it.

Now, care to actually converse? Or just keep being a douchebag?

No this is not 'anonymous'

People who want to talk about Trump, white nationalism, etc. have a zillion other places to go to where it would be on topic.

anonymous is always ready to derail a thread to talk shit about Trump, and this thread about begging in Sweden certainly qualifies.

A sub about Muslim backlash qualified.


Talking about immigrant (primarily Christian) Roma from Romania and Bulgaria would have been very on-topic.

"Trump's Muslim Ban" was conceived by the Obama administration, and the countries picked by them as well. It banned less than 10% of worldwide Muslims, so obviously not a Muslim ban.

Lesson here is that if to you, who the message is coming from matters as whether it's racist, then you're the racist.


How does the link help you? We know Trump did execute the ban, but also the counties were chosen by the Obama administration. So? Again, if you thought choosing these countries was fine when Obama did and racist when Trump did the same, then you are the bigot.

Lies, though it is interesting when you bring "news from the bubble" like that.

Trump spoke specifically for a *religious* ban on the campaign trail. His lawyers later made it a list of countries, to patch it up and try to make it constitutional.

The proposal put forth by the Trump administration was almost verbatim from an Obama proposal. The countries are also the same. That’s because they literally took the Obama proposal, control F’d Obama and replaced with Trump. This is why it withstood constitutional scrutiny. Trump admin doesn’t have either the pull with DoJ legal teams to actually push for real EO’s, nor the internal legal expertise to craft EO’s that can hold up in court.

You’re wrong on the facts, which of course is the least important thing to you.

I said, it was a religious ban on the campaign trail, and modified.

You haven't contradicted that.

You've just said how it was modified.

Indeed, from that Wikipedia page:

"In early May 2017, Spicer was asked by a reporter "If this White House is no longer calling this a 'Muslim ban'...why does the president's website still explicitly call for ‘preventing Muslim immigration?'" After the question was asked, the text "DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION" was noted to have been removed from Trump's campaign website."

A snapshot of the original, religion based, and not country based, call is here:

(I assumed you guys knew this stuff, which is why I said above "How many of you supported Trump's Muslim Ban as originally conceived?

That is, per Trump's website, "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States")

Extra points if you support Muslim refugees!

I was just in Cartagena and only Venezulans beg. Tons of locals sell you tourist crap (fake raybans, cubans,etc.). Most a lot of locals sell you "songs" you never asked for. I had a few sell me a "smile."

I was in New York recently, and my impression was that the homeless kept a lower profile, were less likely to talk to passers-by or panhandle than in Southern California. I asked whether they just arrest them more .. to which New Yorker's were incredulous, thought they had a bad homeless problem.

Anyway, good news everyone, in California they've "reached a deal" that allows arrest again. New Legal Settlement Allows OC To Immediately Arrest Homeless In Certain Areas

Incentive matter.

They should become real estate developers and ask for government handouts

Has anyone tried the Coasean approach: pay the beggars to leave town?

If you're a beggar, presumably you don't have that much money to begin with--so what threat does a fine reasonably have on them?

I think it'd be interesting to see a study done on the efficacy of fines on the absolutely destitute, who are so hopelessly poor that the government has no chance of collecting the fine.

Anecdotally, of course, one hears stories about 'beggars' who are not actually beggars, but rather using it as a means of making money. Would this fine act on *them*, altering their behavior?

Logically, it seems probably not: they're likely to have the upfront cash to invest in the license, and it'll just be a small hit on their overall earnings.

Who, then, would the fine impact? Perhaps some sort of 'beggar-middle-class' who are rich enough to have a significant percentage of the fine amount in savings of some kind but cashflow-poor enough that the license fee could cause them difficulties? That seems like an incredibly narrow slice of the intended target.

Comments for this post are closed