# The 10 Best Countries To Live In for 2014



## SifuPhil (Jan 19, 2014)

A neat article on TheRichest.com that lists the *top 10 countries to live in*, as determined by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's "Better Life Index". 

For our Australian friends, you are listed as #1! 



> If you want to move up in the world, go Down Under. In Australia, they  live long and well. Life expectancy at birth in Australia stands at 82  years, which is two years more than the average. The Ozzies are more  involved with their government than any other country, with an  unprecedented 9.5/10 for Civic Engagement. It looks like democracy  works, at least for Australians; they’ve got a high level of life  satisfaction, a very high level of safety and are generally in very good  health ...


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2014)

Is voting compulsory in Australia?
interesting article, and at least we made it into the top 10!


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 19, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> Is voting compulsory in Australia?



I believe it is, yes.



> interesting article, and at least we made it into the top 10!



Yes, and I'm a bit surprised that the US made it, but I suppose given their criteria for inclusion I shouldn't be.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2014)

If voting is compulsory, surely that gives Australia an 'advantage' in engaging in the democratic process?

Given who determined the top ten, economic wealth is bound to be important. I know that money is important, but surely it has not become the be all and end all of everything?


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 19, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> If voting is compulsory, surely that gives Australia an 'advantage' in engaging in the democratic process?



I would think so. Of course, the entire "compulsory-voting Democracy" concept doesn't sit well with me ...



> Given who determined the top ten, economic wealth is bound to be important. I know that money is important, but surely it has not become the be all and end all of everything?



"Man cannot serve both mammon and God" - I guess we've made our choice.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 19, 2014)

Yes compulsory voting does tend to focus our attention on them more than most. Whether it's an advantage is moot.  I think basically they brought in compulsory voting because if they didn't no one would turn up!  It ruins a good Saturday out and we have better things to do.

I have no problem with compulsory voting, it may seem to go against the basic tenets of 'democracy' but it does give a far clearer result as to who the population really want to run the Country than if only those bribed to vote, or the die-hard camp followers had all the say in it.

I find it hard to understand why Americans allow so few to vote for their futures.  I find the low voting turnout numbers astounding considering the noise that is made about the rights and responsibilities and 'will of the people'.  But horses for courses I guess.  It explains why it has to be compulsory here I guess, we're even lazier than Americans politically.  We just like to argue about it, not necessarily get off our backsides to vote if we didn't have to.

 But speaking personally I enjoy politics purely for the excuse to indulge in carving them up on the keyboard.  It's the greatest show on Earth and if they make us vote for them then they can damned well earn the privilege the hard way.  By hearing what we really think of them in short and earthy words. There wouldn't be too many pollies here that could possibly take themselves seriously enough to believe we respect them in any way at all.  We tend to vote for their 'teams' rather than for the individual candidates in their electorates.  If we're Lefties we vote for whatever drongo got the nod, and same for the Righties.  The faces just come and go from the ensemble cast. 

The two major Partys' fans are roughly equal but there are always enough in the middle who switch their vote to whoever benefits them most at the time, and isn't a slave to voting whatever their fathers did,   to give a result one way or other. We had a very rare hung Parliarment recently and it was hell on wheels so people got jack of that and made sure one side won by a landslide this time.  

We've had a wonderful time for the last few years shredding them, and each other, on forums over politics, it's a National sport.  



Sadly we've lost a lot of the madder and badder characters now and are left with a fairly bland and boring bunch.  Siiiiiiigh.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2014)

The UK tends to be like the US, people are either apathetic or think that their vote can't make a difference.
personally, for years, I have wanted a box saying 'a plague on all your houses'......

The UK is extremely adversarial, the agermans seem to get on so much better with the continuing coalitions; but that is what the Italians do as well....


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 19, 2014)

We didn't do that 'coalition' to solve the hung Parliarment at all well.  We howled and hollered about it for the whole term.  We're not used to that although I know most of Europe operates on that rather hodge podge system.

We saw all the worms in the can that we'd have rather kept lidded and we didn't like it at all.  It amounted to the Country being held to ransom by a very minority Party who got it's way by supporting the side that was most willing to lay aside it's own principles just to gain power.

That ain't Democracy in my book, nor most's apparently.  Maybe we're just naive in believing the party with the most seats wins and if it's a draw then go and do it again until one wins.  The Right are a long term coalition themselves, but it's a long term union with what was the rural and city forms of the same Party.  The 'new' one was an overnight sellout to the highest bidder....  but off I've gone again... sorry 'bout that.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2014)

I can not believe that everything one side says is always right, and the other always wrong.
We sway, or plunge, from right to left, and everything is therefore based on short-term ism...no planning, and very little reasoned debate.
it irritates me beyond belief..... And that is me off on one too!


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 19, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> I can not believe that everything one side says is always right, and the other always wrong.
> We sway, or plunge, from right to left, and everything is therefore based on short-term ism...no planning, and very little reasoned debate.
> it irritates me beyond belief..... And that is me off on one too!



Well, what absolute truths ARE there in the world? 

None that _I_ can think of. Even scientific constants are subject to change - Einstein's theories are revisited, the freezing and boiling points of water depend upon pressure and chemical additives ... nothing is 100% true, except through the variable filter of perception.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Well, what absolute truths ARE there in the world?
> 
> None that _I_ can think of. Even scientific constants are subject to change - Einstein's theories are revisited, the freezing and boiling points of water depend upon pressure and chemical additives ... nothing is 100% true, except through the variable filter of perception.




Why doesn't that apply to politians?


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 19, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> Why doesn't that apply to politians?



Ah, but it does!

A politician's statement on a subject can be and usually is a mixture of truth and fiction. They "hedge their bets" so as to offend the fewest voters while giving them something they believe to be of substance. It is the art of the double-speak, of misdirection and of creative falsehoods.

When the President tells us that terrorism must be stopped, it is a half-truth. Some will see it as an order; indeed, if you work for him (military, government) it IS an order.

But if you're one of the folks who has to submit to a full-body cavity search when you get on the bus to go downtown, you don't see it as being the whole truth. He never mentioned rubber gloves or proctoscopes in his State of the Union speech. 

He doesn't tell us what the definition of terrorism is - he just points out the most recent and egregious example and uses that to build his campaign of conquest. 

He promises to wipe out terrorism, but of course such a promise has no substance in the real world.

We are told to hate terrorists, yet we employ terrorist tactics in our own dealings with other countries. 

Yes, it certainly _does_ apply to politicians.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2014)

Ok, I get where you are coming from.....I still can't get my head round this permanent , 'I am right, you are wrong' and you have it worse than us!
look at the Senate and Congress; they can't agree on anything.
Budgets, Obamacare, NSA... Need I go on?


----------



## That Guy (Jan 19, 2014)

Any country with good waves makes my list...


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 19, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> Ok, I get where you are coming from.....I still can't get my head round this permanent , 'I am right, you are wrong' and you have it worse than us!
> look at the Senate and Congress; they can't agree on anything.
> Budgets, Obamacare, NSA... Need I go on?



I think people feel more comfortable, safer, when they can believe in absolutes. Gray areas usually scare the heck out of them. They can't wrap their heads around the idea that something can be both black AND white at the same time.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 19, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> Ok, I get where you are coming from.....I still can't get my head round this permanent , 'I am right, you are wrong' and you have it worse than us!
> look at the Senate and Congress; they can't agree on anything.
> Budgets, Obamacare, NSA... Need I go on?



That's where I get myself into stoushes, trying to point out there's precious little difference in the politicians of any Party.  They're all career egoists using the Party to further themselves.  There have been too many interviewed who had no compunction about admitting that they were undecided which Party to join when they decided to enter Politics.  So much for ideologies.  These same people then earnestly implore voters that they are the Party with the answers to everything and that theirs is the only one who will look after their interests.  The only Party which understands their needs.  The only one who gives a toss if they starve or not after the election.

I get close to postal about people who pipe up to say they'll be voting for a preening, narcissistic, Machiavellian, viperous show pony because he goes to church and smiles nice. And 'understands' young people because he's forever posting selfies on Twitter!  Boy, and Wow, yes that's the kind of leader we need 'folks' (his favourite saying.)
Or ones who vote for some red headed virago solely because she's female and 'it's high time we had a woman for PM'.....  Hell why?  What difference does that make?  Some of the male PMs we've had have been the biggest 'girls' in Politics.  
That those two were in the same Party got me labelled as 'marketing' the other mob but they're all flawed too, just not quite so spectacularly.

My beef as usual, is with the hype that goes on, and people's gullibility to be distracted from what the basic objectives of the Party are and focus solely on politicians' poisonalities.  It drives me bats!   

Because they are so stuck, like limpets, to a Party they simply can't see that it has changed and no longer represents them at all.
I just try, and hope, to make people think about exactly what it is they think they're voting for.  I don't care what they decide, I don't honestly believe that any Party is all that much better than another in the long run. They all get into trouble by their 2nd term and we tip 'em out and put the other lot back in and then whinge about them for 2 terms.  There have been a few longer runs but few, and the politicians who were around then were a different breed to the media ponces we have today.  They were statesmen then who wouldn't have gotten a vote from today's media addicted, shallow 'looks and TV performance talent' judgement afflicted voters.  I just want them to think a bit deeper than that. AZIF!

We see, and know, in more detail than is healthy about politicians these days than we ever have.  And we know less about what they really believe in, and what the ultimate agendas of their Parties really are.  That stuff is too boring, people just want to see bloopers, and tears, and performances on Today shows, and talk about whether they're too fat to have an IQ, or how smart they must be to be seen wearing some trendy shoe brand. We even had weeks of discussing, and categorizing the 'goodies' from the 'baddies' in the media and Twitter etc determined by how many times they had worn a blue tie!!!   AAAaaaaaaghhhh!


----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 19, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> [ Snip ] *Nothing is 100% true, except through the variable filter of perception*.


Sir.  Permission to use *that* as my tagline , Sir!


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 20, 2014)

:dito:

All of the above Di; just that you expressed it so much better!


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 20, 2014)

Thanks Viv, I do tend to get more 'expressive' about politicians.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 20, 2014)

dbeyat45 said:


> Sir.  Permission to use *that* as my tagline , Sir!



Permission granted, recruit!


----------



## Wylie Kyote (Feb 16, 2015)

Compulsory, preferential voting is not what some people think. It's not all that good for the voter. I've always believed if a politician is worth voting for, a constituent would gladly go to the polling booth.  Secondly, the compulsory, preferential system allows itself to be manipulated by the politicians and is open to corruption. A first past the post, non compulsory voting system cannot be manipulated and is inline with the principals of "true democracy".

Wylie


----------



## Josiah (Feb 16, 2015)

I confess I haven't followed this whole thread, and congratulations to all our Australian members. I guess I'm surprised that New Zealand didn't make the top ten. 
I also don't know why spell check doesn't like Zealand.


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 17, 2015)

UK only number 10?!

Not getting into a politics discussion, but I think every country should have mandatory voting like Australia.  I vote in both the UK and US.


----------

