Having such a severe punishment is probably more of a deterrence against risky behavior in the upper 5% of society, rather than a burden on the impoverished.
Without knowing anything about it, I would assume that the politicially-negotiated subsistence amount is probably quite lenient to lower-income folks.
I don't know how our delinquency rates compare to the rest of the world, but there's quite a bit of it. My take is that these laws are due to somewhat unflattering protestant cultural heritage, rather than a deliberate decision to encourage financial responsibility. I struggle to see how the possibility of lifelong debt slavery is moral.
It's just - I do have a bit of a problem with the underlying morality of this system, and our (Norway's) culture is so homogenous that few locals ever question these things. It's refreshing to share this on a forum where lots of people are curious and have an open mind.
It's not like this is a massive social problem. People who end up in this kind of misery still have a roof over their heads and get to eat and have good healthcare access. But they wouldn't really expect to ever get back on their feet status wise, and that's sad.
> Norwegians tend to be more financially responsible
I'd say that's being responsible, period. A lot of Americans aren't