News A question about objectivity in politics

[Informal Logic]

Russ, I'm not playing games.

Someone is projecting himself on you--don't worry too much about it.

 

[Rev Prez]

I think it was Karl von Clausewitz who said that war was a continuation of politics by other means (not sure, though).

He didn't say it, he wrote it in a not so very long book that very few people who throw around the butchered quote have ever read. And Clausewitz argued that war is a continuation of policy/political commerce, not politics; it is an instrument to achieve a political objective. This is by no means the only scholarly definition of war, and its a definition that's really only useful in the strategic study of warfare between nation-states.

 

[SOS2008]

I know what you mean, SOS2008. It takes me so long to respond to all the posts I mean to respond to because it takes ages to formulate correct, accurate arguments and find supporting evidence.

Thank you for all this information you have provided - it provides a lot of evidence for arguments I'm going to be formulating in this thread, and I will be using lots of it over time. Whew - it seems like a formidable task, but I'll take it slowly and give the key points of my argument over time. This may take more than just *days*, though

I would like to use more academic sources, but you are correct about the time and access constraints. And now I keep thinking about things from the Marxist versus Capitalist perspective. I plan to delve more into the superstructure topic with regard to socialization and human nature... Beginning real quick:

...I've studied political sciences for two years and I am next semester about to start my engineering studies. But I think this topic could use its own thread and especially more knowledgeable participants than myself.

In the U.S. most universities require PoliSci 101 for all majors, but this class tends to be very geocentric with focus on U.S. constitution, etc. How does Finland compare?

 

[loseyourname]

In the U.S. most universities require PoliSci 101 for all majors, but this class tends to be very geocentric with focus on U.S. constitution, etc. How does Finland compare?

Geocentric means focused on the earth, silly. Should we be studying Martian politics?

 

[Informal Logic]

Geocentric means focused on the earth, silly. Should we be studying Martian politics?

That is the common definition, along with reference to geographic coordinates of longitude and latitude (mapping), or other fields such as geocentric and anthropocentric approaches to critical environmental regions for example. However in the social sciences, probably more specifically political science, the term is used with regard to mindset.

One of the biggest examples of a mindset was the geocentric theory in which the Earth was the center of the universe. The geocentric theory is the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe while the sun, moon, planets, and stars made a complete revolution around the Earth each day. This theory was represented well by Claudius Ptolemy. ...Yet, today the geocentric theory seems preposterous, since after all, we know that the Earth is not the center of the universe, and in fact that the Earth makes one revolution around the sun each year.

We are born into a world of traditions. The traditions that we are born into have sets of rules, written and non-written. We are taught or influenced by our parents, teachers, environment, mind(s), the language(s) we speak, and our biology to believe in certain things and act in certain ways. From this we form a belief system, or mindset. A "mindset" is a perceptual set and through this set we perceive the world. A mindset acts like a filter. It filters out any mental conceptions or realities that do not fit our mindset.

http://becomingone.org/bp/bp2.htm

In other words Americans see themselves as the center around which everything else revolves, and this mindset is a result of a focus on themselves, perpetuated for example by our education system and other socialization that may not be very objective.

 

[loseyourname]

Are you sure that any of what you just posted indicates that the word 'geocentric' has any meaning in politics? I've heard of people being accused of being ethnocentric and culturally biased, but never geocentric. If you say so, though.

 

[russ_watters]

If you feel sources of information are so wrong, why don't you provide sources that are true?

That's just it - I have and so has alexandra! She is saying things that directly contradict her own facts! She is looking at a blue sky and calling it green. I don't think I can continue with this thread if this absurdity doesn't end. It just keeps getting worse and worse. The crack about sweatshops in the GD thread has three separate, obvious absurdities. I can't begin to fathom how such a thing can be posted with sincerity. That put me over the top.

But in case you missed it, http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm again is the poverty rates for various races in the US since 1959. As you can see, they are, overall, about half today what they were in 1959.

The thing that is hardest to accept about this thread is that these are simple facts. Its not like they require interpretation or are hard to find. A quick google will set you straight if there is any question. That jaw-dropping magnitude and prevalance of factual errors in this thread makes it difficult to accept that people are sincere in their arguments.

alexandra, if you wish to continue discussing this stuff with me, I must insist on sticking to facts and scientific analysis (ironic, the name of this thread). No more word-games, no more contradicting/ignoring facts, no more ignoring of reality. A good starting place would be Marx's prediction on poverty, paraphrased from before:

-------------------------------------------------
Marx's prediction: Under capitalism, poverty will increase until all but a few wealthy people will be poor.

The fact: In the past 50 years, poverty rates have decreased by half in the US and the world in general.

The conclusion: Marx was wrong.
----------------------------------------------------

alexandra, if you cannot acknowledge this simple, straightforward fact and the associated failure of Marxism in this specific case, we really can't continue. And that makes the title of this thread laughable.

edit: oops - looks like I was wrong about one of my facts: The global poverty rate hasn't dropped by half over the past 50 years, its dropped by half over the past twenty years. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20194973~menuPK:34463~pagePK:64003015~piPK:64003012~theSitePK:4607,00.html . The marjority of that comes from Chinese economic reform (capitalism being allowed in China).

 

[Joel]

I agree that an increasingly bigger proportion of western industry is knowledge based, and I would even add to your argument against my point by admitting something I had not taken into consideration (I usually post really late at night when I should be sleeping after a full day's work, but I just can't resist this intellectual stimulation ). Technological developments do mean that existing natural resources (which are finite) can be exploited in different and more efficient ways so, as you say, "the issue is at least more complicated than a zero-sum game". I would not agree with you, however, that total wealth of all individuals is increasing. Perhaps this is the case in some societies, but it is not the case in general, eg. in the US (as discussed in previous posts looking at the increase in poverty). In some societies, a small group of people are getting more and more wealthy while a large group of people are becoming more impoverished. SOS2008 refers to some interesting articles that support my argument at least regarding what is happening in the US.

The other way to go is to post when you should be working. Not that I would do that...

I agree that not all individual's wealth is increasing and in the US the amount of people living under poverty levels seam to have increased slightly during the last couple of years (while the amount seam to decrease in development countries, according to Russ' link to the world bank). However, I actually thought about the total or average wealth, measured by GDP*, which I think is also increasing globally. And please correct me if I am fumbling in the dark here, but aren't you and SOS' links talking about wealth distribution (in the USA), not total or average amount of wealth?

*OECD economic statistics about USA: http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/viewhtml.aspx?QueryName=29&QueryType=View&Lang=en

 

[Joel]

He didn't say it, he wrote it in a not so very long book that very few people who throw around the butchered quote have ever read. And Clausewitz argued that war is a continuation of policy/political commerce, not politics; it is an instrument to achieve a political objective. This is by no means the only scholarly definition of war, and its a definition that's really only useful in the strategic study of warfare between nation-states.

I admit, I've only stumbled across Clausewith in lecture notes and I quoted him wrong. My bad. But why is the definition only usefull in strategic studies between nation-states? He was talking about nation-states, but couldn't the concept be used to understand other armed conflicts as well?

 

[Joel]

Are you sure that any of what you just posted indicates that the word 'geocentric' has any meaning in politics? I've heard of people being accused of being ethnocentric and culturally biased, but never geocentric. If you say so, though.

I can't remember stumbling across 'geocentric' in this context before either - only 'ethnocentric'. But what sos is saying is non the less crystal clear to me.

 

[Joel]

In the U.S. most universities require PoliSci 101 for all majors, but this class tends to be very geocentric with focus on U.S. constitution, etc. How does Finland compare?

First, I'm under the impression that US undergraduate programs are 4 years, while european (including finnish) programs are generally 3 years, at least partly because the first and second degree education is more extensive here. With that said, only majors in all social sciences usually have a compulsory course called 'The finnish political system', which is something of mix between political history, PolSci and an introduction to the EU. As a major in PolSci, we begin with courses about finland, its position in the EU and general courses of political thought. But as a small country, I think international and EU understanding is important, so the graduate studies are often theoretic or internationally oriented. (Everyone does the masters degree).

By comparing the courses offered in the http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/opetus/vol/perus/files/index-en.html you will see the difference clearly; finland first and international later.

Generally, I do not think it can be avoided that social science programs are more or less regio- or ethnocentric, but it has both its goods and bads. Simply put, I couldn't possibly represent finland or offer development aid to an african country if I didn't know how my country has survived to this day.

 

[Joel]

For anyone interested, just another OECD link on US economics: http://www.oecd.org/document/27/0,2340,en_33873108_33873886_31457883_1_1_1_1,00.html

Ps. Here is what it says about poverty levels:

...

On the other hand, poverty rates have edged up again, and, although they are still below their previous peak in the 1990s, they are very high for some population groups. Continued efforts are necessary to ensure that improvements in social conditions in the 1990s, highlighted in the 2002 Survey, are not reversed.

 

[antfm]

The fact: In the past 50 years, poverty rates have decreased by half in the US and the world in general.
alexandra, if you cannot acknowledge this simple, straightforward fact ...

russ, that is not an objective, simple, straightforward fact. Many experts have critisized those reports of the World Bank. For instance:
http://www1.fee.uva.nl/pp(bin/130fulltext.pdf

Some experts like Pogge and Reddy had already strongly disagreed with the methods to estimate poverty employed by the World Bank in previous years reports.

 

[antfm]

sorry, the right link is:
http://www1.fee.uva.nl/pp/bin/130fulltext.pdf

 

[Joel]

Speaking of wealth indicators, here is an article presenting a few more: http://www.nnn.se/n-model/indexes.htm - Anyone up to the challenge of defining 'wealth', eh?

 

[russ_watters]

russ, that is not an objective, simple, straightforward fact. Many experts have critisized those reports of the World Bank.

The article discusses issues had with that definition ($1 a day, $2 a day), but those issues do not affect the trend in the data (spectacularly decreasing poverty rates). Whether it decreased from 40% to 20% (World Bank's numbers), 70% to 50%, 80% to 40% (numbers I made up) doesn't change the fact that poverty has decreased. Also, the article does not offer competing numbers.

Besides, alexandra has already cited poverty stats based on that type of data, indicating approval of that yardstick (she then contradicted herself by calling income inequality poverty, but that's another issue...).

 

[russ_watters]

Speaking of wealth indicators, here is an article presenting a few more: http://www.nnn.se/n-model/indexes.htm

That's a pretty one sided argument (I don't mean biased, I mean the other side simply doesn't exist), Joel - no economist would ever claim that GDP is the only important factor in determining the wealth of a nation.

Its a little like the common saying about the SAT tests (they measure how good you are at taking the SAT test): ranking nations based on GDP ranks nations based on GDP.

Also, the article leaps off its own point: it really isn't talking about wealth, but about quality of life. They are two completely different concepts - and again, no economist would ever claim they were the same.

edit: also, the purpose/tone of that article seems more political than economic in nature. It's a 'why we are better than the USA' article.

- Anyone up to the challenge of defining 'wealth', eh?

Piece of cake: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wealth

-An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
-The state of being rich; affluence.
-All goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use.

The word "wealth" is about money (or possessions worth money). If others want to choose to measure countries based on welfare, that's fine, but its a different word and the two words are not interchangeable. Personally, I think the most relevant way to measure countries against each other is by height.

 

[russ_watters]

First, I'm under the impression that US undergraduate programs are 4 years, while european (including finnish) programs are generally 3 years, at least partly because the first and second degree education is more extensive here.

In the US, primary and secondary school is about 12 +1 years (kindergarten for the extra year, optional), ending at age 17 or 18. Undergraduate college is 4 years. I too was under the impression that in European countries, they essentially get an extra year of secondary education before college.

Regarding poly sci, I may get flamed for this, but I think it is more relvant for others (Fins, for example) to learn US politics than it is for Americans to learn Finnish politics. Its simply a matter of influence. Since global politics is largely dominated by the US, if you want to learn about global politics, you have to learn about the US. And on a related line of reasoning, learning the 20th century history of politics requires learning Soviet politics, German politics, etc. However, for any country, the primary focus of the political science major should be on that country.

 

[antfm]

the trend in the data (spectacularly decreasing poverty rates)

russ, understand that not everybody, and not for particular ideological interest, admit those estimations of the World Bank. And I mean experts, economists, sociologists, etc. They crtitisize even the characterization of poverty meant by Worl Bank reports.
That they do not present competting numbers doesn't mean that the data of those reports are valid. They are strongly critisized and with very reasoned arguments even for previous years reports, and the World Bank hasn't taken into account that criticism.

Read, for instance:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/05/06/rich-in-imagination/

 

[alexandra]

That's just it - I have and so has alexandra! She is saying things that directly contradict her own facts! She is looking at a blue sky and calling it green. I don't think I can continue with this thread if this absurdity doesn't end. It just keeps getting worse and worse. The crack about sweatshops in the GD thread has three separate, obvious absurdities. I can't begin to fathom how such a thing can be posted with sincerity. That put me over the top.

Ah, Russ, come on, don't be like this. What is happening (and it's perfectly obvious to me) is that you and I can be looking at exactly the same set of facts/statistics, but while you have focused on those facts that support your argument and ignored those that don't, I honed in on the facts that you ignored (on the website you referred me to, with the poverty-level graphs). This is precisely what this thread is all about: the 'world-view' one interprets from determines which facts one pays attention to and what one makes of the facts one is interpreting. This does not, however, mean that I am "looking at a blue sky and calling it green". We are looking at things from different angles, and we are both convinced we are correct. I can see how you can decide that you can't continue the discussion if your aim is to convince me to look at the world the way you do. I know that I will never convince you that I am right and you are wrong (although it would be nice because, of course, I am right ). But having to argue against you is good for me, because it makes me consider my beliefs more deeply and forces me to find evidence and arguments to back up the things I say. In such arguments, I sometimes have to re-think my views as well, and this too is good for me. I am sorry you don't feel like you are benefiting from the discussion. In case you're still interested in continuing the discussion, however, I'm curious about something you wrote: "The crack about sweatshops in the GD thread has three separate, obvious absurdities." What are these absurdities? I'd really like to know.

 

[alexandra]

The other way to go is to post when you should be working. Not that I would do that...

I agree that not all individual's wealth is increasing and in the US the amount of people living under poverty levels seam to have increased slightly during the last couple of years (while the amount seam to decrease in development countries, according to Russ' link to the world bank). However, I actually thought about the total or average wealth, measured by GDP*, which I think is also increasing globally. And please correct me if I am fumbling in the dark here, but aren't you and SOS' links talking about wealth distribution (in the USA), not total or average amount of wealth?

*OECD economic statistics about USA: http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/viewhtml.aspx?QueryName=29&QueryType=View&Lang=en

Hi Joel

You're being evil again! Post when I should be working? What a thought! I sleep when I should be working, of course (to make up for not getting any sleep when I should be sleeping because I'm busy virtually coming to blows with Russ!) :zzz:

GDP is a measure of total wealth, as you say. The Wikipedia definition is:

GDP is defined as the total value of all goods and services produced within that territory during a specified period

But a country's GDP can be increasing overall while the society itself becomes more and more unequal because of unequal wealth distribution (ie, there may be an increase in the number of poor people even if GDP is increasing). Here's a link to a short article that outlines some of the problems of using GDP as an economic indicator: http://dieoff.org/page11.htm

 

[alexandra]

I admit, I've only stumbled across Clausewith in lecture notes and I quoted him wrong. My bad. But why is the definition only usefull in strategic studies between nation-states? He was talking about nation-states, but couldn't the concept be used to understand other armed conflicts as well?

Don’t worry about this, Joel. Rev Prez was having a go at me, not you – it was my incorrect quote he was pointing to. In this case, where Prez Rev is concerned I’m the evil one, not you

 

[Joel]

That's a pretty one sided argument (I don't mean biased, I mean the other side simply doesn't exist), Joel - no economist would ever claim that GDP is the only important factor in determining the wealth of a nation.

Yeah, it is one sided and I don't claim GDP is the only measurement of wealth either (even thou no economist I am), but some of the indexes, at least the Human Development index, is support by economists (Sen & Amanda).

edit: also, the purpose/tone of that article seems more political than economic in nature. It's a 'why we are better than the USA' article.

Oh yess, I also think there is political motivation behind the article (the entire webpage makes a point in presenting the 'nordic modell'). But it appears factually correct, even if it also tries to make a point.

Also, the article leaps off its own point: it really isn't talking about wealth, but about quality of life. They are two completely different concepts - and again, no economist would ever claim they were the same.

...

-An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
-The state of being rich; affluence.
-All goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use.

The word "wealth" is about money (or possessions worth money). If others want to choose to measure countries based on welfare, that's fine, but its a different word and the two words are not interchangeable. Personally, I think the most relevant way to measure countries against each other is by height.

I am not that sure, I'd say it is a sound discussion to ask if wealth is only about money (in different forms) or not, and if it then should be called wellfare or not, even from an economic standpoint. Dictionary.com said this:

3. (Econ.)
(a) In the private sense, all property which has a money value.
(b) In the public sense, all objects, esp. material objects, which have economic utility.
(c) Specif. called personal wealth. Those energies, faculties, and habits directly contributing to make people industrially efficient. [Webster 1913 Suppl.]

http://www.dictionary.net/wealth

It also uses welfare and prosperity as its synonymes. I would guess an economic argument about using wealth to represent something else than money has some philosophical basis here.

For example, if a person's longlivety and mental wellbeing increases a persons time and efficacy in the labour market, wouldn't they also increase the wealth he produces?

Altough Sen isn't specific, here is an interesting quote by him on Economics and narrowness:

"Most of modern economics," reminds Sen, "tends to concentrate too heavily on very narrow things, leaving out enormous areas of what are seen as political and sociological factors on the one side, and the philosophical issues on the other. But these issues are often central to economic problems themselves. After all, the subject of modern economics was in a sense founded by Adam Smith, who had an enormously broad view of economics."

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2204/stories/20050225005900400.htm

However, I admit gladly that I am over my head here, so I won't speculate further. I agree that wealth in economics is usually defined as material things with a value measurable in money, but I'm just saying it may be more complicated.

 

[alexandra]

Generally, I do not think it can be avoided that social science programs are more or less regio- or ethnocentric, but it has both its goods and bads. Simply put, I couldn't possibly represent finland or offer development aid to an african country if I didn't know how my country has survived to this day.

Thanks for the interesting information about your studies, Joel. I majored in Political Science at a university in South Africa, and it is interesting to note that the entire three years' of study of my core units focused on general political theory. We read political theory such as Hobbes' 'Leviathan', Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right', Rousseau's 'The Social Contract and Discourses', Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', Mills' 'The Power Elite', Miliband's 'The State in Capitalist Society', and we worked through some of Marx's key writings: extracts from 'Capital Volume 1', 'Grundrisse', 'A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy' and 'The German Ideology'. It was a theory-rich course - very heavy-going, but I learned much from it.

It was only in other units (eg. the 'African Government' units) that we looked at the politics of specific countries, and international affairs were covered separately again. I also studied Industrial Sociology (the sociology of trade unions, where we studied the theory of trade unionism as well as the history of specific trade unions).

 

[alexandra]

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2204/stories/20050225005900400.htm

However, I admit gladly that I am over my head here, so I won't speculate further. I agree that wealth in economics is usually defined as material things with a value measurable in money, but I'm just saying it may be more complicated.

Thanks for this interesting link, Joel. You shouldn't worry about being over your head - we're all learning here

 

[alexandra]

Regarding poly sci, I may get flamed for this, but I think it is more relvant for others (Fins, for example) to learn US politics than it is for Americans to learn Finnish politics. Its simply a matter of influence. Since global politics is largely dominated by the US, if you want to learn about global politics, you have to learn about the US. And on a related line of reasoning, learning the 20th century history of politics requires learning Soviet politics, German politics, etc.

Well, Russ, I could not agree with you more about what you say here! Amazing - we are in 100% agreement on this one I wanted to make some comment to this effect when other PF members told me I had no right to comment on US politics since I am not a US citizen. What the US does affects everyone everywhere, so we had better all be aware of US politics.

 

[Joel]

In the US, primary and secondary school is about 12 +1 years (kindergarten for the extra year, optional), ending at age 17 or 18. Undergraduate college is 4 years. I too was under the impression that in European countries, they essentially get an extra year of secondary education before college.

Hmm, it is 12 years here too. It appears we where wrong, at least partly. Our secondary education ends at 18 or 19 and we begin at 6 or 7. Do you start at 5 or 6 if you don't have the one year of kindergarten? And maybe we learn faster when we are older or just have tougher curriculums? Strange.

Regarding poly sci, I may get flamed for this, but I think it is more relvant for others (Fins, for example) to learn US politics than it is for Americans to learn Finnish politics. Its simply a matter of influence. Since global politics is largely dominated by the US, if you want to learn about global politics, you have to learn about the US. And on a related line of reasoning, learning the 20th century history of politics requires learning Soviet politics, German politics, etc. However, for any country, the primary focus of the political science major should be on that country.

I see no need to get upset because of this and I agree. But I think it will be equally important for an american and a finnish global politics major to learn about other influental countries like China (or regions like the EU and middle east). It is also important to focus on one's own country (maybe especially for those interested in international relations) because that's how we can recognize and make explicit our own bias, otherwise we can not hope to learn other countries' politics from their perspective (not to mention that we can not teach others about our own system, which - in my limited understanding - is often how one starts an international career). However, ultimately I think everyone follows their interests and those are not always very reasonable. Why I want to study physics after PolSci is beyond many of my friends, but heh... I'm not reasonable.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Joel, the year of US schooling are
Preschool. 4 or 5
Kindergarten, 5 or 6
FIrst grade 6 or 7,
...yearly for eight years
Eighth grade 13 or 14,
Highschool Freshman 14 or 15,
HS Sophmore 15 or 16,
HS Junior 16 or 17,
HS Senior 17 or 18.

The two year choices is because a birthday that falls just before the opening day will be assigned to the older class, but one that falls just after it will be assigned to the younger class, so there can be almost a year range between the ages of students in the same class.

The reason US schooling is much less rigorous than that in most other countries is that it is locally based. This is a big passionate issue; local control of the schools. Every school district has an elected school board and the principals and school superintendents report to them. The elected board members, like all pols, woo the voters, which means that parent concerns like "practical subjects" and "rote learning is bad, creativity is good" and "too much homework" keep the learning environment simple and weak.

 

[Joel]

Hi Joel

You're being evil again! Post when I should be working? What a thought! I sleep when I should be working, of course (to make up for not getting any sleep when I should be sleeping because I'm busy virtually coming to blows with Russ!) :zzz:

...and I sleep when I should be posting! No wait - that's not right! Despite, I believe firmly that being evil and having a personal approach to these 'humanity-like-subjects' helps understanding them.

But a country's GDP can be increasing overall while the society itself becomes more and more unequal because of unequal wealth distribution (ie, there may be an increase in the number of poor people even if GDP is increasing). Here's a link to a short article that outlines some of the problems of using GDP as an economic indicator: http://dieoff.org/page11.htm

Good site, most of the problems where new to me. Perhaps this would be a good time to decide what we actually want to measure? (In regards to the marx right/wrong discussion it could be a good idea to decide which of today's indicators reflect best upon marx definition of wealth)? Here is a short site presenting GDP, GPI and HDI (the human development index I mentioned earlier): http://www.webassistant.com/site/indicators/blog_1.html (I also posted a peer-reviewd article about HDI in the rachel corrie thread if anyone is interested).
Another relevant question in my opinion is: a how big wealth distribution is too big? Thinking rationally: On one hand, I think some form of wealth distribution is needed to enable a free market that generates wealth. On the other hand, at some point the distribution will become so big that the poorer half will prevent the richer half to generate more wealth through crime and other kind of unstability.
Thinking morally: what is the minimum everyone are entitled to, or are they entitled to anything? Is there a moral question of someone getting too much and what would that be?
Considering the different systems in the Nordic countries, USA and South Africa (of which I only know it isn't nordic or american, do you have any good 'under-a-hundred-pages' paper I could get a crash course with, Alex?) I think it is fare to say there is no one right way, even if every way must adhered to all of the questions to some level.

Alright, I've rambled enough.

 

[Joel]

Thank you, SelfAdjoint.
In Finland there is not a clear cut line, most are recommended to start after their seventh birthday, but parents can ask to have their children tested for school readiness at the age of six. Some don't start until they are eight.
All schools are indeed obligated to follow a minimum (quite extensive) national curriculum to which they can make additions according to their own resources. It sounds quite strange to have democratic elections about what should be taught in school; here it is the ministry of education who decides and also pay for it. Why isn't the local or federal government deciding what is taught in public schools in the US?
Some schools here do specialize (eg. in natural sciences or alternative (creative)-learning methods) and there is quite a lot of electives required by the ministry (roughly 1 to 10 courses in physics, 5 to 10 courses in history, etc.), but at the end of high school everyone must pass the 'matriculation exams' that gives more points for further university studies than the grades given by the school and they are arranged by a committee of university professors, so gaps in the teaching will be revealed. While there are clear differences in quality, I have understood that they are not as big as in central european countries and the US. Still Finland ranks high in international comparisons, such as OECD's Pisa reports.
Here you also apply directly to a specific appartment in Uni and you have to do an entrance exame in that subject, which is the main requirement to be accepted. No reference letters are looked upon.