Is America actually more "Free" than most other Democractic Countries?

[Martini Enfield]

In This thread on National Anthems (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=442766), the point was raised that America's status as "Most Free" country might actually be more PR than actual fact- and I'm inclined to agree with Calm Kiwi on this.

That's not to say the US isn't a "Free" country, but that citizens other Democratic countries- such as the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, most of Europe, India, Japan, and all the other countries we traditionally associate with "Civilisation"- are just as "Free" as those of the US.

I mean, in all these countries, Parliament is made up of elected representatives (and not Juntas headed by people with ornate hats whose titles begin with "Generalissimo", "Comrade-Premier", "The Most Holy", or "Dread Pirate"), and, for the most part, I'd posit that people in most democratic countries have pretty much the same freedoms as people in the US- not necessarily explicitly spelt out in a Constitution, but present in some form or another. We've all got the right to freedom of speech (with varying degrees of restrictions, but nothing that's really likely to affect the average person's right to voice their opinion on anything), habeas corpus, the right to vote, etc.

I've visited the US a number of times and I certainly don't think I'm any "less free" living in Australia or NZ as I would be if I lived in the US- if anything, I'd argue there are more laws and taxes in any given US State than there are in a comparable Australian one (or all of NZ, for that matter). For example, I don't have to worry about working out the sales tax on something I've purchased by mail order from New South Wales, or whether I owe duty on a bottle of bourbon purchased in Melbourne but consumed in partly in South Australia and partly in Queensland. If I win big at the Casino, I don't have to pay tax on the winnings, and if I am pulled over for an RBT and one of the passengers has a bottle of alcohol in his or her hand, I don't need to worry about being fined for breaking an "open container" law (to name an example from another recent thread).

I've also spent quite a bit of time in the UK, which people accuse of being a "Nanny State", but again, I don't think your average person in the UK is "Less Free" than someone in, say, Massachusetts. Similarly, people living in South Australia aren't "Less Free" than people in Oregon, and, if anything, I'd argue gun owners in California are "Less Free" than gun owners in New Zealand.

So, what sayeth you? Is America really the most "Free" country, or are there just a lot of people in the US who believe their own PR? The lines are open... let's hear your views.

[RickJay]

Being a Canadian who works on both sides of the border, there's no difference in freedom. I'm sure a variety of folks will claim the U.S. is more free because you can own guns easier, but

A) You can own guns in Canada, and
B) That's a miniscule part of what an average person's "freedom" entails.

[MrDibble]

I'd argue that in a lot of ways, some other countries (Canada, the UK, hell, even South Africa) are more free than the U.S. - certainly, for a particular minority, who in those countries are free to marry who they choose regardless of gender.

Also, in a lot of other countries, fire-at-will doesn't exist, there's national healthcare and there are long mandated leave periods, so workers are a little more free of economic 'enslavement" than US ones. Of course, non-US employers are then less free. But it's a question of priorities, IMO.

[jjimm]

Warning: you are now entering a cite-free zone.

I think the difference is that constitution.

Many arguments I've seen on the SDMB bang on about the "problem" of "Federal government". Well for the most part, that's what we all have in the "Free World". With the exception of Australia, the vast majority of everything is centrally administered, and local governments generally enforce relatively minor things like garbage, parking, etc.

If you look, therefore, at how the US constitution, and add in how much control the Federal government has over John Q. American, and how his freedoms are enshrined in the founding of the country, it does seem to be a lot "freer" than the rest of us.

In my opinion, the reason this is a myth is that the states themselves have a much greater influence on people's lives. And many US states' ordinances appear to be far more draconian and micromanagerial than our centrally legislated stuff. (E.g. my having to drive over the state line from CT into NY on a Sunday to buy a can of beer.)

However, there's absolutely no way of answering the question, as we have different standards about what is free. As alluded to in the OP, I too can drive around the place with a carload of people who are chugging beer bongs and vomiting out the window, and as long as I'm sober, that's fine with the cops (though I might be a bit annoyed). On the flipside, few of us in the UK give a shit about guns, and having them heavily legislated against doesn't affect John Q. Brit.

Again, we appear to have high taxes over here in the UK. However, I seem to recall that the overall tax burden between the UK and the US, once local and sales taxes are taken into consideration, is pretty much exactly the same.

There's a libertarian meme, too, that our NHS makes us less free. For me, I think it makes us more, as we don't have to pay those whopping great insurance premiums, and getting sick doesn't cripple us - unless it's a disease that does, in fact, cripple us.

In other words: unanswerable.

[MrFantsyPants]

Well, what freedoms are present elsewhere that are denied to americans?

- Freedom to marry whomever you want
- Freedom to be gay, and defend your country at the same time
- Freedom to smoke pot

Keep in mind, too, that a number of states still have laws on the books saying that atheists cannot vote, hold public office, or testify in court. So, freedom of religion - yes. Freedom from religion - not so much.

[Ravenman]

It bugs me to no end that the Independence Day festivities on the National Mall here in DC involve passing through metal detectors and not being allowed to drink a beer. :mad:

Land of the free, my ass.

[tagos]

Well, what freedoms are present elsewhere that are denied to americans?

- Freedom to marry whomever you want
- Freedom to be gay, and defend your country at the same time
- Freedom to smoke pot

Keep in mind, too, that a number of states still have laws on the books saying that atheists cannot vote, hold public office, or testify in court. So, freedom of religion - yes. Freedom from religion - not so much.

And then there's all the 'freedoms from' some other countries have more of. Freedom from fear that an accident or illness will lead to financial ruin etc balanced against freedom from the taxation involved. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

[RickJay]

Keep in mind, too, that a number of states still have laws on the books saying that atheists cannot vote, hold public office, or testify in court. So, freedom of religion - yes. Freedom from religion - not so much.
Which states are those, and are these laws actually enforced, or buried in some dusty book somewhere and nobody remembers they exist?

[XT]

Well, one could say that here in the US we have the freedom from ridiculously high levels of taxation or for paying an arm and a leg for fuel for our cars. We are free from some (though not all) of the nanny government intervention in some of the countries mentioned thus far in the thread. Certainly other countries have freedom of speech...but in some cases it is a selective freedom based on their governments (I've seen a lot of instances where things concerning WWII and the holocaust are banned, for instance).

I think it boils down too what you are used too. I found a lot of the European ways confining both when I visited and talking to people who live in various countries (it varies quite a bit however depending on which country you are talking about). When I was in Japan and South Korea I felt VERY confined at times and would definitely feel uncomfortable if I lived there all the time with some of the restrictions. Canada...less so...I really didn't feel that confined or uncomfortable when I lived there. It was just subtly...different.

I guess the answer is that every system has it's good points and bad ones...and it's all about what the majority of it's citizens think and feel. By and large American's are comfortable with how things are here. As the majority of citizens of other Democratic nations (and even some un-Democratic ones) are comfortable with how THEIR system works.

-XT

[Captain Amazing]

Which states are those, and are these laws actually enforced, or buried in some dusty book somewhere and nobody remembers they exist?

I'm not sure that any state has those laws, but if any state did, they would be unenforcible, and a case of archaic laws that just never got removed.

Any such law would certainly be unconstitutional.

[Northern Piper]

Link to Freedom House's map (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=21&year=2007&display=map) of the world, assessing comparative freedoms in different countries.

[Ravenman]

I found a lot of the European ways confining both when I visited and talking to people who live in various countries (it varies quite a bit however depending on which country you are talking about). When I was in Japan and South Korea I felt VERY confined at times and would definitely feel uncomfortable if I lived there all the time with some of the restrictions. Canada...less so...I really didn't feel that confined or uncomfortable when I lived there. It was just subtly...different.What did you find "confining?"

[Pleonast]

I think a big part of what Americans think of as freedom as actually not a matter of law, but of custom. Specifically, America has a culture of individualism: do whatever you want, it's not anyone else's business. European, and especially East Asian, countries have a culture of community: following the norms of and supporting your group is more important than your individual activities. This is a generalization, of course, but there is a real difference.

When I visit my in-laws in Korea, this cultural force is very apparent. Anyone who doesn't follow cultural norms is subject to huge pressures from their family, friends and co-workers. In America, you can just say "screw that" and do whatever you want. In Korea, your friends will try to dissuade you, because they will stigmatized because their friend did something "different". Fortunately for me, my foreign face gives me and my family an automatic get-out-awkward-situation card.

So even though you may have the legal right to do something, if you do something outside of the societal norm, others will not make it easy for you. America feels more "free" because our culture is more accepting of differences.

[jsgoddess]

More free in some ways, less free in others.

The older I get, the more at odds I feel with the balance of freedoms in the US. Guns aren't important to me, affordable health care is. We officially have freedom of the press, but it's all about money. We officially have freedom of speech, but tell that to Fred Phelps. I'm free to have a Judeo-Christian religion. Yay me.

The people who crow about the freedoms in the US are the people whose pet freedoms are being honored. The rest of us know that it's a matter of luck as to whether we can find a place where what's important to us is protected.

[Lemur866]

Well, another thing to remember is that back in 1776 there were damn few republics of any sort, much less liberal republics. Sure, we inherited a lot of our notions of freedom from the UK, but in 1787 when the US constitution was ratified the United States WAS the most free country in the world.

Now, it just so happens that some of you other countries have caught up to us, and are now just as free as we are, after various trials and tribulations and the occasional shortening of a king or two, or various continent ravaging wars. So that rhetoric that America is the Land of the Free is a bit outdated nowadays.

Also keep in mind that up until the late 80s, the decidedly unfree communist bloc was still a going concern, and plenty of people were convinced that totalitarian dictatorship was a more effective (for certain values of effective) system than liberal democracy and would eventually win out.

[tagos]

So even though you may have the legal right to do something, if you do something outside of the societal norm, others will not make it easy for you. America feels more "free" because our culture is more accepting of differences.

I hear what you're saying but in the USA this 'freedom' seems to be quickly subject to social and legal sanction when the country is engaged in a bout of collective hysteria like the 1950's communist witch-hunts or not supporting 'the war'.

There are times when dissent does not seem to be tolerated by a segment of the population.

[XT]

What did you find "confining?"

It's a long list. Certain laws. The tax burden and how deeply some of their social type programs run. Some of their employment laws or practices. Again, it varies from country too country. I particularly found Japan too be very confining too me as an American.

My point however was that THEY don't see it that way, by and large. It's what you are used too. In the US the majority of our citizens are comfortable with the way things are...things that make folks from OTHER Democratic countries uneasy or that THEY feel are 'confining'...or just odd.

I think this kind of thread is a backlash against how arrogant some American's are about OUR freedom...as if the way we do it is the only way. The converse however is also true...they way THEY may do things isn't necessarily the way WE like it either.

-XT

[Maastricht]

...We are free from some (though not all) of the nanny government intervention in some of the countries mentioned thus far in the thread. Ha! That may be so, but do you have any idea how much freedom it generates knowing that the state will pick up the tab if we get sick, lose our jobs, get in an accident or cause involuntary harm to others? That if we are poor, the state ensures our kids will have mostly equal opportunity to good schooling? How much more free at our jobs we feel knowing our boss can't fire us at will, like American bosses can? Security, not having to worry, not being subject to the whim of your boss, the money of your clients, the fiercer lawyer of your opponent... I can' t think of anything that frees the mind more.

I guess the answer is that every system has it's good points and bad ones...and it's all about what the majority of it's citizens think and feel.I completely agree :)

[Pleonast]

I hear what you're saying but in the USA this 'freedom' seems to be quickly subject to social and legal sanction when the country is engaged in a bout of collective hysteria like the 1950's communist witch-hunts or not supporting 'the war'.

There are times when dissent does not seem to be tolerated by a segment of the population.Yes. Americans can be just as intolerant as anyone else.

But there's more to freedom than just political freedom. In Korea, there's strong social pressures on every aspect of your life: the school you try to get into, the clothes you wear, the "class" of your spouse, the number of children you have, the church you go to, the gifts you give your elders and superiors, where you live... There's very little part of your life that society doesn't have expectations about. Political ideology is only a small part of it.

Americans often focus on the few things where we feel our freedom is restricted, losing sight of the wide latitude we have in most of our life choices. We don't have complete freedom, but in my opinion the U.S. feels qualitatively more free. And yet Korea is a free country: the population can and does force the government to do the people want.

[Captain Carrot]

I'm not sure that any state has those laws, but if any state did, they would be unenforcible, and a case of archaic laws that just never got removed.

Any such law would certainly be unconstitutional.
There are several states with laws like that, in fact. IIRC, about a dozen states, mostly in the South and Northeast, have or had laws restricting elected office to those who believed in God. Most of them have been overturned since, but I believe LA and AR still have them on the books, though I'm pretty sure they're not enforced.*


(I did research on this last year for a thread in GD, but alas the file with my results is on my old computer at home (150 miles away), and I seriously doubt any of my family would be able to find it, so I won't provide a cite for the moment. If anyone asks, I will try to give one.)

[XT]

Ha! That may be so, but do you have any idea how much freedom it generates knowing that the state will pick up the tab if we get sick, lose our jobs, get in an accident or cause involuntary harm to others? That if we are poor, the state ensures our kids will have mostly equal opportunity to good schooling? How much more free at our jobs we feel knowing our boss can't fire us at will, like American bosses can? Security, not having to worry, not being subject to the whim of your boss, the money of your clients, the fiercer lawyer of your opponent... I can' t think of anything that frees the mind more.

Well, again it's a matter of perspective. I don't worry about those things that you seem so worried about. If my boss fires me (something that is HIGHLY unlikely) then I will go and get another job. I actually have decent medical insurance, and my kids go too very good public schools. No complaints. I'm hispanic and I think I pretty much HAVE an equal opportunity if I work hard. Which I do. As far as security in my retirement, I invest heavily, have a large 401K, and I'm not counting on the gubberment too provide for my retirement. Having all of that extra disposable income that would otherwise go to the gubberment means I can take care of this stuff myself...and probably retire early (I'm currently shooting for some time in my mid-50's)

I would feel uncomfortable and confined when the government, who I generally find inept, is taking care of me in the fashion you seem to crave. I would absolutely hate and resent living with the things you list so glowingly as things you like. Just as, I would presume, you'd feel about living here in the US and dealing with how it is here.

Differences make the world go round, ehe? :)

-XT

[jjimm]

(I did research on this last year for a thread in GD, but alas the file with my results is on my old computer at home (150 miles away), and I seriously doubt any of my family would be able to find it, so I won't provide a cite for the moment. If anyone asks, I will try to give one.)I don't think archaic, unenforced laws necessarily indicate a country's freedom. The BBC recently released a poll (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7081038.stm) of the most ludicrous laws in the UK, including that it's illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament. I wonder if they have the death penalty for that?

[Lemur866]

I hear what you're saying but in the USA this 'freedom' seems to be quickly subject to social and legal sanction when the country is engaged in a bout of collective hysteria like the 1950's communist witch-hunts or not supporting 'the war'.

There are times when dissent does not seem to be tolerated by a segment of the population.
You seriously think this? So what do you think would happen to someone in the US if they announced they don't support the war in Iraq? What would we hysterical Americans do to such a person? What social and legal sanctions would that person be subject to?

Honestly, it can be astounding the misconceptions some of you foreigners have about America.

[Maastricht]

Specifically, America has a culture of individualism: do whatever you want, it's not anyone else's business. European, and especially East Asian, countries have a culture of community: following the norms of and supporting your group is more important than your individual activities. This is a generalization, of course, but there is a real difference....America feels more "free" because our culture is more accepting of differences.I can't speak for Asia, but from what I know first hand of Holland (I'm Dutch) and the rest of northwest Europe, I'd says the differences in individualism are minimal, culture-wise. Minimal, but I must agree that there are differences. For instance, if you are rich enough in the USA, you will have more freedom, more power and more privileges, then if you have the same amount of cash and live in Northwest Europe.
Also, Pleonast has a point, in that Holland certainly allows less religious individualism/eccentricity within the country. I can't imagine a European equivalent to some outlandish religious practices, like the Mormon polygamy where families marry off their sixteen year old daughters to 40 year old guys. there would be too much public outrage; we're too feministic and too atheist. And the governmetn would heed that outrage, as there is no powerful fundametnal freedom of religion in play.
Another example is that Holland does have its own religious sects (Eastern religions and Scientology rather then Christian-based sects, though). But they all seem to be watered down versions of the American ones. If they get too cut off from the world, the government raids them and either makes arrests or sends in a batch of social workers.

As for the other brands of eccentricity, I think it's just easier to be really weird if your yard is big enough so your neighbours can't see in. If you have your own stretch of forest or your own valley, even more so. And owning such an amount of physical space, believe me, is a rare thing in the Netherlands. The country is one big suburb, and anyone living in the woods will usually have to allow a dozen frequently used hiking trains over his land.

[XT]

You seriously think this? So what do you think would happen to someone in the US if they announced they don't support the war in Iraq? What would we hysterical Americans do to such a person? What social and legal sanctions would that person be subject to?

:eek: The other day, in a very public restaurant I actually said I disliked Bush and that the war in Iraq was a stupid fucking adventure that the US should never gotten involved in.

I was quietly escorted from the building and beaten with wet noodles in a back ally until I was willing to go back in and say what a great guy Bush was and how wonderfully the Iraq war has gone for the US...

-XT

[BobLibDem]

You seriously think this? So what do you think would happen to someone in the US if they announced they don't support the war in Iraq? What would we hysterical Americans do to such a person? What social and legal sanctions would that person be subject to?

Honestly, it can be astounding the misconceptions some of you foreigners have about America.

Ask the Dixie Chicks about freedom of speech and what hysterical Americans do to them.

[XT]

Well...ask them then. They seem too be doing fine...what do you think they would say?

-XT

[Lemur866]

What about the Dixie Chicks? A couple of yahoos declared they weren't going to listen to the Dixie Chicks any more or buy their records or go to their concerts. And two years later they're selling more records and performing more concerts. They lost some of their fans, but gained new fans and were lionized as courageous defenders of free speech.

And now you know....the rest of the story.

[Paladud]

People, let's not be disingenuous here. Broader healthcare coverage and worker protections provide security, not freedom.

[Bytegeist]

. . . it's illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament. I wonder if they have the death penalty for that?

No, but those charged with this crime have the right to remain silent.

[BobLibDem]

Well...ask them then. They seem too be doing fine...what do you think they would say?

-XT

I think they would say that being "patriotically incorrect" on the eve of the Iraq invasion cost them a heck of a lot of money and more than their share of death threats. At the time of the prewar hysteria, speech was most definitely not free in the US.

[chowder]

No, but those charged with this crime have the right to remain silent.
But anything they do say may be etc etc

[XT]

I think they would say that being "patriotically incorrect" on the eve of the Iraq invasion cost them a heck of a lot of money and more than their share of death threats. At the time of the prewar hysteria, speech was most definitely not free in the US.

:dubious: Completely ridiculous claim. Bob...both you and I heard exactly what they had too say. Despite their anti-war, anti-Bush speech. If it wasn't 'free' then, you know, we wouldn't have heard it. See?

The fact that PEOPLE (i.e. their customers) might have taken exception too what they were saying and decided too take their custom elsewhere really has zero to do with free speech. The Government didn't stifle them...didn't censor them...didn't ban them. Some PEOPLE decided not too by their records (while others who probably never gave them a second thought before decided to give them a try). See how that works?

As for costing them money...do you have a cite? If so...does your cite indicate that the money they lost was due to their stance on the war/Bush...or due to normal trends in pop culture type bands? IIRC, they are making more money now than ever...but if you have some indication this isn't so, please provide a cite so we can take a look.

Regardless, even if they have lost all of their money due too their stance ( :dubious: ) it still has nothing too do with free speech. Quite the opposite IMHO.

-XT

[jjimm]

xtisme, while Bob's statements are rather hyperbolic in nature, I do think that examples about societal taboos in other countries (e.g. those given about Korean society earlier in the thread) may be legitimately countered by a similar example about the US.

[BobLibDem]

From the BBC. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2972043.stm)

The Grammy-winning act's CDs have been destroyed by protesters and their tracks were dropped from some radio stations' playlists following Maines' remarks.

Getting off the radio playlist costs money, simple as that.

Robison said: "I'm concerned about my safety. I'm concerned about my safety for my family. "When you're getting death threats... at our concerts this year, we have to have metal detectors, and to me that's just crazy.

So being critical of Bush cost them money and death threats, just as I said. Being known as the "Dixie Sluts", and "Saddam's Angels" isn't exactly good for business. The message from a small but vocal minority of Americans was clear- support the war, support Bush, or it's going to cost you.

[Autumn Almanac]

Another example is that Holland does have its own religious sects (Eastern religions and Scientology rather then Christian-based sects, though). But they all seem to be watered down versions of the American ones. If they get too cut off from the world, the government raids them and either makes arrests or sends in a batch of social workers.So the idea that the government can arrest you for belonging to a religious sect that's "too cut off from the world" makes you feel more free? :eek: Am I missing something here?

[XT]

Bob...your article is from 2003. It's been 4 years since then, ehe? Do you have something a bit more up to date?

xtisme, while Bob's statements are rather hyperbolic in nature, I do think that examples about societal taboos in other countries (e.g. those given about Korean society earlier in the thread) may be legitimately countered by a similar example about the US.

Oh, I think there are plenty of such examples here in the US. I just don't think this is one of them. I see this as more an example of market forces in the US at play...and a bit of (well thought out) hype by the Dixie Chicks that had the result of boosting their long term sales and market share.

-XT

[BobLibDem]

I apologize if my cite was from the height of the patriotic frenzy that I was referring to. How many people didn't come out against the war after seeing what happened to the Dixie Chicks? Not only was their speech suppressed, but many others that we'll never know about. At this same time, the American media walked away from their watchdog role and stopped asking the hard questions that needed to be asked. The press had become the tool of this outlaw administration. Market forces can stifle expression just as much as jackbooted secret police.

[Desert Nomad]

Well, Americans are not legally allowed to visit Cuba (per US, not Cuban law). So, no, we are not so free.

[jtgain]

From the BBC. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2972043.stm)



Getting off the radio playlist costs money, simple as that.



So being critical of Bush cost them money and death threats, just as I said. Being known as the "Dixie Sluts", and "Saddam's Angels" isn't exactly good for business. The message from a small but vocal minority of Americans was clear- support the war, support Bush, or it's going to cost you.


Are you serious about this?

Apart from the death threats, which are illegal and enforced, what right to the Dixie Chicks have to my entertainment dollar? None.

They have the freedom to say what they want. I have the freedom to not patronize certain (or all) music artists. That's about as free as you can get.

What would you propose? A law forcing every American to buy a Dixie Chicks CD to protect their freedom of speech?

[Autumn Almanac]

Getting off the radio playlist costs money, simple as that.

So being critical of Bush cost them money and death threats, just as I said. Being known as the "Dixie Sluts", and "Saddam's Angels" isn't exactly good for business. The message from a small but vocal minority of Americans was clear- support the war, support Bush, or it's going to cost you.Obviously the death threats they received were criminal and deplorable. But that fact that people chose not to buy their albums because they disagreed with their public statements... that strikes me as a great example of the consumer's freedom to vote with his or her wallet. What's so special about the Dixie Chicks that they deserve to sell a particular number of albums no matter what? And what would you propose as a solution to this problem-- having the government require people to purchase Dixie Chicks albums? Or maybe you can choose not to purchase their CD, but only if you cite an "approved" reason: don't like country music, okay; offends my political sensibilities, not okay.

[BobLibDem]

What I propose is that everyone stop pretending that we have free speech when we have so many willing to take away your livelihood if you don't toe the patriotic line. Sure people can vote with their wallets, you can't stop that. Just don't pretend that the US tolerates dissent.

[Cervaise]

or for paying an arm and a leg for fuel for our carsFWIW, gasoline's a dollar a gallon in Libya.I particularly found Japan too be very confining too me as an American.Shoulda packed in your own condoms, amigo. :p

[Autumn Almanac]

What I propose is that everyone stop pretending that we have free speech when we have so many willing to take away your livelihood if you don't toe the patriotic line.Personally I'm quite grateful for the freedom to spend or not spend my money whichever (legal) way I please, and not to have to justify my choices to anyone, especially the government.

And by the way, the next time Toby Keith threatens to put a boot up some Muslim guy's ass, I'm sure you'll run right out to buy his album. After all, you wouldn't want to be one of those evil fascists who takes away someone's livelihood just because you don't agree with their politics... right? ;)

[Richard Parker]

One area for consideration is free speech. My understanding that the free speech protections are much stronger in the US than elsewhere (see, e.g., Germany's criminalization of some forms of political speech, restrictions on hate speech in UK, etc.).

[RickJay]

People, let's not be disingenuous here. Broader healthcare coverage and worker protections provide security, not freedom.
Depends on how you define "freedom." You're applying a definition that reflects a particular ideological view. It isn't necessarily the same definition others would use.

[jjimm]

Personally I'm quite grateful for the freedom to spend or not spend my money whichever (legal) way I please, and not to have to justify my choices to anyone, especially the government.Something we all enjoy, of course.

[Lemur866]

Something we all enjoy, of course.
Well, of course. I'm just annoyed by BobLibDem's assertion that we don't have freedom of speech here in America because a few people decided not to patronize the Dixie Chicks because of their political statements. That's simply nonsense.

[Sarahfeena]

People, let's not be disingenuous here. Broader healthcare coverage and worker protections provide security, not freedom. That's exactly right. I think that generally speaking, freedom is traded for security. Think of "at-will" employment laws. Basically, these laws say that I can quit my job any time, and I can lose my job any time. If a law was passed that is designed to give me job security, let's say that my employer is not allowed to fire me except for cause (regulated by strict guidelines), I am not more free, and he is decided less free.

[XT]

FWIW, gasoline's a dollar a gallon in Libya.

Feel free too tell the Europeans about it, ehe?

Shoulda packed in your own condoms, amigo.

Well, it's a point. :p

Well, Americans are not legally allowed to visit Cuba (per US, not Cuban law). So, no, we are not so free.

American's can legally travel too Cuba (I've actually been there myself, but don't tell anyone). Does this change whether you think we are free now?

What I propose is that everyone stop pretending that we have free speech when we have so many willing to take away your livelihood if you don't toe the patriotic line. Sure people can vote with their wallets, you can't stop that. Just don't pretend that the US tolerates dissent.

Me thinks you don't actually understand the concept of 'free speech', Bob. I also think that you are drinking the kool aide regarding the supposed negative effects it had on the Dixie Chicks...even in 2003 when your BBC article was written. You claimed they took a huge financial and emotional hit...but when asked for a cite you gave one from 2003 (by the BBC for gods sake). We've now had a bit of time to judge the effect...why not show an up too date article clearly showing the Dixie Chicks languishing in poverty and crushing social stigmatization due too their heroic anti-war stance?



Seriously...what is your alternative too people being able too decide for themselves if they want to buy Dixie Chick albums based on their political mouthings? Force American's to buy the same number of CD's as before their stance? Do you suppose this will make us free? Free as our Euro buddies, some of who make it illegal to discuss some subjects (like aspects of the holocaust)?

-XT

[jjimm]

American's can legally travel too Cuba (I've actually been there myself, but don't tell anyone). Does this change whether you think we are free now?Well, you have to get a license to do so (unless you're someone deemed an "unlawful combatant") according to travel.state.gov (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html). Or if you cheat in some way.

AFAIK, I don't need a license from my government to go anywhere in the world. I think in this one respect you are in fact less free than I am.

[kingpengvin]

Free as our Euro buddies, some of who make it illegal to discuss some subjects (like aspects of the holocaust)?

-XT

By aspects I assume you mean like trying to teach it didn't happen happen in Germany. I guess it is a horrible shame some countries don't allower deniers to stand out in the street, set up websites or openly teach in their view in a classroom to rally folks to their cause. But in this case I don't see that limitation as a great loss to humanity.

[Sarahfeena]

By aspects I assume you mean like trying to teach it didn't happen happen in Germany. I guess it is a horrible shame some countries don't allower deniers to stand out in the street, set up websites or openly teach in their view in a classroom to rally folks to their cause. But in this case I don't see that limitation as a great loss to humanity. Well, maybe it's not. But that's not really the point when we are speaking of freedom, is it?

[Richard Parker]

And as I said above, it isn't just limited to holocaust denial. The UK is well-known, for example, for it's strict anti-defamation laws (which are a limit on the freedom of speech).

[kingpengvin]

Doesn't the US have Slander and libel laws as well?

[Der Trihs]

Well, one could say that here in the US we have the freedom from ridiculously high levels of taxation or for paying an arm and a leg for fuel for our cars. That's "freedom" bought by passing the costs on to our children. Our extravagance and neglect will be paid for by them more than us, but it will be paid for. How free are they going to be ?

People, let's not be disingenuous here. Broader healthcare coverage and worker protections provide security, not freedom.And as pointed out, security allows freedom. If your every choice is dictated by survival or your debts or the boss you can't afford to irritate, you aren't free at all.

You seriously think this? So what do you think would happen to someone in the US if they announced they don't support the war in Iraq? What would we hysterical Americans do to such a person? What social and legal sanctions would that person be subject to?Being put on a terrorist watch list comes to mind. Getting strip seached at airports. Having your phone tapped and e-mail read. Having your boss find an excuse to fire you. Getting beaten in an alley by some patriots.

If a law was passed that is designed to give me job security, let's say that my employer is not allowed to fire me except for cause (regulated by strict guidelines), I am not more free, and he is decided less free.Of course you are more free with such laws. Your employer then has less power to pressure you into, say, dressing like he likes, or in the absence of sexual harassment laws his sexual advances. And those laws were written precisely because your employer has power over you, and just walking away isn't an option for many or most people.

One of the common threads I've noticed in discussions about American freedom, is the idea that only coercion from the government counts. A corporation can be every bit as oppressive as any government.

[Richard Parker]

Doesn't the US have Slander and libel laws as well?

Yes, but I think it is much harder to prove your case as a plaintiff in the US than in Commonwealth countries. This is why many corporations choose to sue potential defamers in the UK if they have the choice of venue.

[jjimm]

And as I said above, it isn't just limited to holocaust denial. The UK is well-known, for example, for it's strict anti-defamation laws (which are a limit on the freedom of speech).Can you provide specific examples? Being "well-known" for something, and actually exhibiting that, are often a distance away from each other.

There are similar laws in the US and UK, with different means of application. In English law, you can say what you like, but if I object to what you say about me, then the burden of proof is on the person who made the allegation (which seems fair to me). That's a difference of application in the courts, rather than "limiting freedom of speech", IMO.

[Autumn Almanac]

One of the common threads I've noticed in discussions about American freedom, is the idea that only coercion from the government counts. A corporation can be every bit as oppressive as any government.Ultimately, no matter who you are or what your job is, you can quit that job and walk out the door if you want to. You'll lose your income and have to deal with the consequences of that, but you are always free to make that choice. If the government puts you in jail, you are absolutely not free to leave. They will kill you if you try. That's a pretty fundamental difference.

[Richard Parker]

Can you provide specific examples? Being "well-known" for something, and actually exhibiting that, are often a distance away from each other.

There are similar laws in the US and UK, with different means of application. In English law, you can say what you like, but if I object to what you say about me, then the burden of proof is on the person who made the allegation (which seems fair to me). That's a difference of application in the courts, rather than "limiting freedom of speech", IMO.

The laws are different, and the means of application are different. The result is a difference in what you're free to say in the US versus what you're free to say in the UK.

It isn't limited to defamation, either. It is harder to get a protest permit in the UK as well, for example.

[jjimm]

It isn't limited to defamation, either. It is harder to get a protest permit in the UK as well, for example.I hate doing this, but: cite?

2,000 demonstrations on one day (http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/parliamentprotest/2007/04/2000_mass_lone_demonstrations_on_21st_april.html) in Parliament Square. ETA: and that was just to protest that permits were required!

[Voyager]

Well, of course. I'm just annoyed by BobLibDem's assertion that we don't have freedom of speech here in America because a few people decided not to patronize the Dixie Chicks because of their political statements. That's simply nonsense.
I actually have never heard of anyone complaining that people didn't buy their CDs. I have heard people complaining that the owners of radio stations on the publicly owned airwaves refused to play their records and organized bonfires and other such crap. That's very different.

As for them not having a problem today, that might have something to do with the broad and majority opposition to the war. That George Clooney could make Thank you and Good Night doesn't mean that McCarthyism never happened.

As for the OP, there are so many dimensions of freedom that I think it is futile to try to order reasonably free countries. There are indicators of lack of freedom, but none of the countries in question fall under that.

I think that the claim that the US is the most free is another example of our exceptionalism, just like the claim that we have the best healthcare system.

[Lemur866]

Being put on a terrorist watch list comes to mind. Getting strip seached at airports. Having your phone tapped and e-mail read. Having your boss find an excuse to fire you. Getting beaten in an alley by some patriots.

:rolleyes:

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Specifically, America has a culture of individualism: do whatever you want, it's not anyone else's business.(bolding mine)

HA HA HA, HEE HEE HEE!!! Oh my side hurts!!

Sorry.

First a few caveats:

1. I am responding to a post that was very early in this thread.
2. I have not yet read any posts past that.
3. I agree that America has a culture of individualism, to a point.

But... "Do whatever you want, it's not anyone else's business." ?????? To me, that sounds more like the Netherlands or other parts of Europe than the USA.

Smoke a joint after work? Go topless to the beach? Visit a prostitute? Get elected to significant public office as an Atheist?"

That shit don't happen here. We like individualism here as long as everyone does it the same way. Nice and cowboy whitebread Jesus-like.

[Der Trihs]

Ultimately, no matter who you are or what your job is, you can quit that job and walk out the door if you want to. You'll lose your income and have to deal with the consequences of that, but you are always free to make that choice. If the government puts you in jail, you are absolutely not free to leave. They will kill you if you try. That's a pretty fundamental difference.Not really. Dead because you can't afford medical treatment is just as dead as if your are shot in the face. Or driven to despair and suicide, or dead because you are forced to take a dangerous job, or so on. And severe suffering and deprivation are only arguably better tha being dead; I'd rather put a bullet in my head than end up homeless.

[Der Trihs]

Deleted duplicate post

[Richard Parker]

I hate doing this, but: cite?

2,000 demonstrations on one day (http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/parliamentprotest/2007/04/2000_mass_lone_demonstrations_on_21st_april.html) in Parliament Square. ETA: and that was just to protest that permits were required!

My understanding is that permits are required for more types of protests and the process is more challenging. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

I don't have time to give you a thorough account of comparative law, but here's a
few cites from various law review articles on the differences in speech protections:


In stark contrast to the protections offered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the English judicial system, which lacks a written constitution or civil rights protections substantially equivalent to those offered by the U.S. Bill of Rights. Under English law, any published statement that injures the reputation of another person is defamatory. In contrast to defendants in the United States, defendants to an English defamation action bear the burden of proving truth. Additionally, English law fails to distinguish between private figures and public ones.

. . .

The United States District Court reflected on the global nature of the Internet and noticed that "there is little doubt that Internet users in the United States routinely engage in speech that violates, for example, China's laws against religious expression, the laws of various nations against advocacy of gender equality or homosexuality, or even the United Kingdom's restrictions on freedom of the press."

. . .

[UK politicians] felt that the actual malice standard was unnecessary, and they left in place existing law which allows plaintiffs to more easily recover against media defendants than in the United States. As a result, British plaintiffs have been able to recover substantial judgments against newspapers and broadcasters.

[Autumn Almanac]

Not really. Dead because you can't afford medical treatment is just as dead as if your are shot in the face. Or driven to despair and suicide, or dead because you are forced to take a dangerous job, or so on.Okay, so to bring it back to the Dixie Chicks, let's say they release a new album and it just plain sucks. Selling albums is the Chicks' only source of income, but the public refuses to buy this one. You are arguing that the Chicks have an absolute right to sell their services for money, regardless of whether anyone else wants to buy those services.

What's the remedy? I guess you could convict everyone who didn't buy their album of murder, since declining to pay someone money for their services is equivalent to murdering them. Yes?

[Sarahfeena]

Of course you are more free with such laws. Your employer then has less power to pressure you into, say, dressing like he likes, or in the absence of sexual harassment laws his sexual advances. And those laws were written precisely because your employer has power over you, and just walking away isn't an option for many or most people. Making it illegal for an employer to sexually harass employees is a law that curtails a specific freedom in order to gain a specific benefit. In terms of maintaining freedom, this kind of law is always preferable to one that has blanket restrictions for no specific benefit. Remember that employers aren't all large corporations. I work for a company with one employee...me. Should I be entitled to more freedom than my employer is?

[Der Trihs]

Okay, so to bring it back to the Dixie Chicks, let's say they release a new album and it just plain sucks. Selling albums is the Chicks' only source of income, but the public refuses to buy this one. You are arguing that the Chicks have an absolute right to sell their services for money, regardless of whether anyone else wants to buy those services.

What's the remedy? I guess you could convict everyone who didn't buy their album of murder, since declining to pay someone money for their services is equivalent to murdering them. Yes? :rolleyes: I said nothing of the sort. The whole point of my argument is about people being fired for reasons that have nothing to do with how good a job they do. And the Dixie Chicks are a bad example; they were still allowed to produce and sell their product.

[XT]

AFAIK, I don't need a license from my government to go anywhere in the world. I think in this one respect you are in fact less free than I am.

I'm at work so this is totally from memory, but I thought at one time there were travel restrictions on citizens of the UK too go to India and Pakistan. I'm fairly sure there are other restrictions on travel for citizens of the UK...as well as travel restrictions in other countries in Europe (I seem too recall the French had several, for instance). I could be wrong...this is from memory.

I would be surprise though if you, a citizen of the UK, have unlimited travel anywhere in the world any time you like with no restrictions.

For my part, getting a license to go to Cuba was roughly the equivalent of getting a travel visa...it was really not that big a deal. Of course, that might be because I didn't actually have too do the donkey work too get it.

By aspects I assume you mean like trying to teach it didn't happen happen in Germany. I guess it is a horrible shame some countries don't allower deniers to stand out in the street, set up websites or openly teach in their view in a classroom to rally folks to their cause. But in this case I don't see that limitation as a great loss to humanity.

It IS a horrible shame IMHO. Because I see it as a slippery slope. Who decides what should and shouldn't be allowed? Based on what?

Regardless, it's an instance where other countries are 'less free' than the US...even if 'less free' simply means they are less free to be ignorant (not that banning this or making it illegal has stamped out such denial in Europe).

That's "freedom" bought by passing the costs on to our children. Our extravagance and neglect will be paid for by them more than us, but it will be paid for. How free are they going to be ?

Well, I think you are wrong of course...quite the opposite in fact, as I don't think such extravagant social programs are ultimately not sustainable in Europe. Also, I don't see it as a lot of freedom when one is bound too take care of ones (myriad) 'brothers'. That is another debate though. The point is that the majority of US citizens want it the way it is. That being the case, it's a measure of our 'freedom' that we have it the way we want it...as it is a measure of other countries 'freedom' that they also have it the way the majority of them want it.

-XT

[Autumn Almanac]

I said nothing of the sort.I stated that being fired by an employer was different than being shot by a jail guard. You replied that it was "not really" different. :confused: In any case, my apologies for misinterpreting you.

[Flipshod]

Freedom entails the freedom to get yourself into a crappy situation where you have fewer options. If you don't feel free because you have a mortgage and your company fires you, that's due to your own previous freedom.

Freedom, in the US sense, means freedom from the government--i.e. sanctioned violence. Getting yourself stuck into coercive relationships with other private entities does not mean you're not free, it just means you're living with the results of freedom, which as stated above, means less security.

That said, we Americans don't have the same social freedoms as some (consensual crimes and all)--the last bastion of the puritan streak that seems to run through our society.

[jjimm]

I'm at work so this is totally from memory, but I thought at one time there were travel restrictions on citizens of the UK too go to India and Pakistan. Utter bollocks.

We get government advisories on travel, but not actual restrictions.I'm fairly sure there are other restrictions on travel for citizens of the UK...as well as travel restrictions in other countries in Europe (I seem too recall the French had several, for instance). I could be wrong...this is from memory.I suggest you are wrong.I would be surprise though if you, a citizen of the UK, have unlimited travel anywhere in the world any time you like with no restrictions.Perhaps you'd be surprised because your government is repressive in this respect? Find me a single example and I'll withdraw the statement. Here is the advice offered by my government (http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1095423800990). That's "advice" by the way, not a requirement that I ask permission.For my part, getting a license to go to Cuba was roughly the equivalent of getting a travel visa...it was really not that big a deal. Of course, that might be because I didn't actually have too do the donkey work too get it.Irrelevant: I don't have to apply to my government to go anywhere in the world I want. You do.

ETA: the above sentence was badly worded. Substitute "anywhere in the world" for "certain places in the world".

[Sarahfeena]

Freedom entails the freedom to get yourself into a crappy situation where you have fewer options. If you don't feel free because you have a mortgage and your company fires you, that's due to your own previous freedom.

Freedom means freedom from the government--i.e. sanctioned violence. Getting yourself stuck into coercive relationships with other private entities does not mean you're not free, it just means you're living with the results of freedom, which as stated above, means less security. That's right. This speaks to something I was going to post in response to BobLibDem (in regards to the Dixie Chicks), but didn't get a chance to, which was that "freedom" is not about not having to live with consequences of your actions. We all make decisions every day about when to speak our mind about things and when not to, based on what we think those consequences might be. This might mean that none of us are completely "free," but only because we have a desire to live in society, not because we are afraid of the government.

[Der Trihs]

Freedom, in the US sense, means freedom from the government--i.e. sanctioned violence. Getting yourself stuck into coercive relationships with other private entities does not mean you're not free, it just means you're living with the results of freedom, which as stated above, means less security.Being stuck in a coercive relationship, regardless of how you got there, IS being less free. Your "logic" allows people to be reduced to what amounts to slavery and still be called free, which is ridiculous.

[XT]

Utter bollocks.

No need too be hostile...I said I was working from memory. A quick google search turned up this:

UK withdraws travel restrictions to India
The United Kingdom has ended travel restrictions on citizens travelling to India and eased restrictions on visits to Pakistan.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said it was no longer necessary for British citizens to avoid travel to India - or for those already in India to consider leaving

I'm not sure what 'travel restrictions on citizens travelling to India and Pakistan' means exactly...maybe, as you say, it's just an advisory.

We get government advisories on travel, but not actual restrictions.

Well, maybe when I read 'travel restrictions' I'm reading too much into it then. Again, no need to get hostile.

suggest you are wrong.

Wouldn't be the first time. If I am, then why not fight my ignorance instead of taking this tact?

Perhaps you'd be surprised because your government is repressive in this respect? Find me a single example and I'll withdraw the statement. Here is the advice offered by my government. That's "advice" by the way, not a requirement that I ask permission.

Perhaps I would be.

Irrelevant: I don't have to apply to my government to go anywhere in the world I want. You do.

Well, there you go...you win. Your government is less repressive and doesn't have their nasty jackboots on the throats of their citizens.

-XT

[Sarahfeena]

Being stuck in a coercive relationship, regardless of how you got there, IS being less free. Your "logic" allows people to be reduced to what amounts to slavery and still be called free, which is ridiculous. As long as you can walk out the door and sell your skills elsewhere, you are not a slave.

[XT]

Being stuck in a coercive relationship, regardless of how you got there, IS being less free. Your "logic" allows people to be reduced to what amounts to slavery and still be called free, which is ridiculous.

And your 'logic' is, as usual, beyond the ridiculous. But then, you have again let your hyperbole run away with the spoon...

-XT

[jjimm]

No need too be hostile...Not being hostile, just responding to your rhetorical challenge: "Does this change whether you think we are free now?"

You chose to counter with a position based on blatant ignorance, and I merely bluntly rebutted you.Well, there you go...you win. Your government is less repressive and doesn't have their nasty jackboots on the throats of their citizens.

-XTRather than misrepresenting my position with overemotional hyperbole, read what I wrote upthread: "I think in this one respect you are in fact less free than I am."

Furthermore, I'm not seeking to win. I said in my first post that the answer to the OP is unknowable because everyone has a different definition of freedom.

[Ravenman]

For my part, getting a license to go to Cuba was roughly the equivalent of getting a travel visa...it was really not that big a deal. Of course, that might be because I didn't actually have too do the donkey work too get it.I'm betting you went before 2003 (or thereabouts). Our freedom to travel to Cuba (so long as the government says it is okay) has been rolled back since then. Cite, (http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/18/Tampabay/Tampa_protest_shows_d.shtml) cite. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1108-07.htm)

And the idea that someone is free to do something so long as the bureaucracy approves it is pretty silly. By that measure, Russians had the freedom to leave the Soviet Union at any time (so long as the commissar approved the request).

Regardless of this philosophical discussion of whether freedom means not having national health insurance or not having to work a day in one's life, every time I see this thread I get steamed again about not being able to drink a beer on the Fourth of July on the National Mall. That's oppression, no doubt about it.

[XT]

I'm betting you went before 2003 (or thereabouts). Our freedom to travel to Cuba (so long as the government says it is okay) has been rolled back since then. Cite, cite.

You would win...I went in the 90's in fact.

Not being hostile, just responding to your rhetorical challenge: "Does this change whether you think we are free now?"

And I was merely pointing out that it isn't (well, wasn't) ILLEGAL for US citizens too go to Cuba. However, I also haven't really kept up on current events wrt going to Cuba (looking at Ravenman's cites).

You chose to counter with a position based on blatant ignorance, and I merely bluntly rebutted you.

'blatant ignorance', ehe? Well, there you go.

Rather than misrepresenting my position with overemotional hyperbole, read what I wrote upthread: "I think in this one respect you are in fact less free than I am."

Understood.

Furthermore, I'm not seeking to win. I said in my first post that the answer to the OP is unknowable because everyone has a different definition of freedom.

And I thought that was a reasonable stance...and one I agreed with.

-XT

[jjimm]

Pax (Americana)?

[XT]

lol...too be sure. :)

-XT

[Ocean Annie]

I suppose it depends on how we define freedom. Do most Americans actually have the freedom to make choices when they are buried in debt, work multiple jobs or fifty hour work weeks, and depend on information that is controlled by a few large media conglomerates? Most Americans seem resigned to a corrupt political system, unfair taxing policies, low quality child services, and the greedy, unscrupulous culture of corporate America.

As corporations merge and conglomerates grow, control of America’s wealth and power is narrowed down to a few. Maybe Americans will continue to buy into the illusion of choice and freedom, but corporate conglomerates actually have the power to bribe law makers and yield massive influence over public policy. It is in essence social control.

[Baron Greenback]

And I was merely pointing out that it isn't (well, wasn't) ILLEGAL for US citizens too go to Cuba. However, I also haven't really kept up on current events wrt going to Cuba (looking at Ravenman's cites).


I hope you didn't spend any of those sweet, sweet dollars in Cuba in the 1990s. Tell me you bought alternative currency in a third-party country, please.

[Der Trihs]

As long as you can walk out the door and sell your skills elsewhere, you are not a slave.And if you can't ? If no one will buy them, for economic reasons or blacklisting or whatever ? Coercion is coercion. Someone forced into humiliation or suffering or death by economic means suffers just as much. Americans just consider that a sanctioned means of oppression and destroying people.

And I didn't say "slave"; I said "what amounts to slavery".

[Maastricht]

So the idea that the government can arrest you for belonging to a religious sect that's "too cut off from the world" makes you feel more free? :eek: Am I missing something here?Yes, you are missing a few points here.

First, that example was given to prove the point that there was, indeed, at least one difference between Holland and some parts of the USA. The difference was that over here, freedom of religion is certainly respected, but not to the extent it would be in the USA.
In the USA, IIRC, religious freedom, and the right of parents to raise their kids outside of society according to their own beliefs, no matter how eccentric those beliefs, are both valued higher then they are in the Netherlands. We place higher the right of kids to be protected by society from those eccentric beliefs but only if society feels the kids are harmed by illegal acts. Judge rulings on this are very nuanced. For instance, we have a small Bible belt in the Netherlands, and some parents there refused to let their kids be inoculated against the main childhood diseases. There was some discussion of the government shouldn't vaccinate those kids anyway, but in the end Parliament decided against it; after all, non-vaccinated kids are not in immediate danger precisely because most other kids are vaccinated. I'm not sure what the ruling would be if a Jehova's witness would refuse, for religious reasons, a blood donation to her kid if the kid was in immediate danger. But I'm reasonably sure that her religious objections would be honored if she refused it for herself, but not if it was her kid who needed the blood.

So in Holland, the government only springs into action if they have good reason to suspect that illegal acts are happening in a sect, like drug trafficking, drug use, or child abuse or severe child neglect. In those cases, (and they happen perhaps once every twenty years) either the police or social services will investigate and they will take action. And they are certainly more inclined to investigate if that sect (social or religious) shuts its members off from the outside world, yes. For instance, homeschooling is a rare thing here, compared to the States, so most sects can't really cut off their kids from the outside world.
Does that make me feel more free? Dunno. Probably not if I did belong to a sect. But I do find it a reassuring thougth that kids run less risk of being raised with beleifs that are too hostile to mainstream society. There's plenty of time for them to develop those ideas on their own during puberty, but at least the kids are a little bit older then.

Secondly, no adult in the Netherlands will be arrested or even harrassed for belonging to any sect, if none of the above illegal acts apply. Don't insult me or your own cultural knowledge by pretending you think otherwise.

[XT]

I hope you didn't spend any of those sweet, sweet dollars in Cuba in the 1990s. Tell me you bought alternative currency in a third-party country, please.

Sorry...no. In fact I DID have some Cuban currency, but I also spent US dollars there. I won't tell you what I spent them on though, so you won't have too be too concerned.

-XT

[Baron Greenback]

Sorry...no. In fact I DID have some Cuban currency, but I also spent US dollars there. I won't tell you what I spent them on though, so you won't have too be too concerned.

-XT

Well, you've just admitted to breaking a law. Freedom?

[XT]

I never denied being a law breaker. Technically, ever time I drive I break the law. What exactly is your point? Is the US the only country with laws that it's citizens break?

-XT

[Tristan]

And if you can't ? If no one will buy them, for economic reasons or blacklisting or whatever ? Coercion is coercion. Someone forced into humiliation or suffering or death by economic means suffers just as much. Americans just consider that a sanctioned means of oppression and destroying people.

And I didn't say "slave"; I said "what amounts to slavery".

You always can. You always have the choice to go out and try to find another job. It may not be the dream job, it may not even be what you are trained to do, or want to do, but you can always try.

Failure to find a job you want is not a restriction imposed on you. As I told my brothers, you can always find a job, if you're willing to work. It may be flipping burgers, but you can work.


I'm not sure where you are getting this big "If you quit your job you'll starve to death and thus are being coerced" mindset, as it's pretty much garbage.

[Indistinguishable]

I never denied being a law breaker. Technically, ever time I drive I break the law. What exactly is your point? Is the US the only country with laws that it's citizens break?
You break the law every time you drive? Do you have a suspended license or something, or are you just an incorrigible speeder?

[Der Trihs]

You always can. You always have the choice to go out and try to find another job. It may not be the dream job, it may not even be what you are trained to do, or want to do, but you can always try. And fail, if the jobs aren't there. Or if the corporations are allowed to get away with things like blacklisting employees among themselves, or fixing wages, and so on.

I'm not sure where you are getting this big "If you quit your job you'll starve to death and thus are being coerced" mindset, as it's pretty much garbage.I was responding to the insane idea that government coercion is the only kind of coercion. We have all sorts of laws to protect workers from their employers precisely because that isn't true. And quite often people can't get jobs, or are forced to take jobs that make them sick or kill them.

Of course, most Americans don't care, because they think the poor are evil and deserve to suffer. Americans don't beleive in bad luck, much less unjust persecution. If you are impoverished, it's because you are scum.

[XT]

You break the law every time you drive? Do you have a suspended license or something, or are you just an incorrigible speeder?

Incorrigible speeder.

And fail, if the jobs aren't there. Or if the corporations are allowed to get away with things like blacklisting employees among themselves, or fixing wages, and so on.

If it is a major problem in the US, you should have no issue in providing a few cites as examples, yes? What I'm looking for is that this is a major issue...not something that happens occasionally. Thanks in advance.

And quite often people can't get jobs, or are forced to take jobs that make them sick or kill them.

Quite often? How often? Do you have a cite that this is 'often' the case?

Of course, most Americans don't care, because they think the poor are evil and deserve to suffer.

Most Americans? I'm sure you have a cite to back this up, right?

Americans don't beleive in bad luck, much less unjust persecution.

Really? I didn't know that about Americans. Quite the opposite, I thought Americans were supposed too be very superstitious (believing in 'luck' and all). Do you have a cite for this contention?

If you are impoverished, it's because you are scum.

Interesting. Is this your contention, or are you asserting this is the contention of 'most Americans'? If the latter, do you have a cite for that?

-XT

[Maastricht]

...I would feel uncomfortable and confined when the government, who I generally find inept, is taking care of me in the fashion you seem to crave. Thanks for posting this, I enjoyed pondering it. I think you are right that there is a real cultural difference here, and it is weird to see how "Dutch" I am in those respects. I'd probably feel different if I had been raised in the USA. Makes you wonder how much of one's identity is really one's own.

For instance, and as an addendum to my above points, the Dutch tend to see the government as inept and yet as the one who "ought to do something about it". At the same time, we don't really, deeply believe in the strenght and rights of the individual either. I guess the Dutch attitude can be summed up as: "Both government and individuals can be inept, so we need to make sure they control each other and have a system of checks and balances". The American attitude, if I see it correctly, is more convinced strengh lies in the individual. Or at least a belief that the individual should be strong and able to fight for himself, and if they don't, that reeks of a moral failing.

An example is the infamous Dutch case of three year old "Savannah", some years ago. The story was all over the Dutch national newspaper. Here's the story. A troubled mom, maltreating her kid, had been under surveillance from social services for years, and her kids had been placed in foster homes a couple times but always placed back again. The the mom and her boyfriend, who thought three-year old Savanna was being whiny and irritating, stuffed a washcloth in her mouth, duct taped her mouth and locked her in a closet. The girl died, the mother tried to get rid of the body, and was arrested.
What I want to draw attention to, in this gruesome case, is the public reaction. I think the American reaction to such a case would have been among the lines of outrage at the mom and cries for her to be punished. There was some of that from the Dutch public, but mainly the feeling was along the lines of "Yeah yeah, of course let's arrest that mom and her boyfriend. But why, oh why didn't Social Services do a better job? Dozens of workers were on that case, and they KNEW that woman was a shitty mother, and shitty mothers will be just that! They should have known this was coming!".

I'm not very sure myself what my point is if I combine this post with my previous one, though. I guess the Dutch value the right of biological parents to raise their kids just as highly as the USA does, even if that puts the child at risk. The difference then remains that the Dutch put a slightly less high value on the parental right to raise a kid according to the parents religion.

I'm not saying one is better then the other. It's just cultural differences, and those are interesting if one wants to have an objective look at one's own culture.

[Lemur866]

There's not much point responding to Der Trihs, as Tom pointed out in another thread, just the serious posters.

[XT]

Thanks for posting this, I enjoyed pondering it. I think you are right that there is a real cultural difference here, and it is weird to see how "Dutch" I am in those respects. I'd probably feel different if I had been raised in the USA. Makes you wonder how much of one's identity is really one's own.

As I appreciate this post of yours and enjoyed pondering it as well. I think the point is that there IS no 'right way' or 'most free' way. That determination is entirely up too the majority of the citizens in any truly free nation. As long as the majority of citizens are comfortable with their system and how it works for them, then I think that IS the 'right way'...for them. Too someone from another country (especially if there are fundamental cultural differences as well), it might look terrible...and too them it probably is. As I said, I couldn't live in Europe...visit, sure, but live there? It would drive me nuts. Most Europeans undoubtedly feel exactly the same about the US (though they may not even want too visit I suppose :)). Their system works for them...by and large ours does the same for us.

I'm really a live and let live kind of guy.

-XT

[XT]

There's not much point responding to Der Trihs, as Tom pointed out in another thread, just the serious posters.

Good point. My hope was by asking him for cites he would actually look them up...and find that, while those kinds of things happen from time too time they are by no means the norm. And maybe he would, on looking up those cites, discover that *gasp* that kind of stuff happens in EVERY nation out there...even those 'free' nations in Europe.

Probably ultimately futile, too be sure.

-XT

[jshore]

What about the Dixie Chicks? A couple of yahoos declared they weren't going to listen to the Dixie Chicks any more or buy their records or go to their concerts. And two years later they're selling more records and performing more concerts. They lost some of their fans, but gained new fans and were lionized as courageous defenders of free speech.

As Voyager noted, it was more than just a "couple of yahoos". Major media conglomerates were involved (http://medianation.blogspot.com/2007/02/dixie-chicks-and-clear-channel.html)...Cumulus Media to an extreme degree and Clear Channel to a degree that remains somewhat unclear. See also here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E1DD1230F936A15750C0A9659C8B63).

[Sarahfeena]

And if you can't ? If no one will buy them, for economic reasons or blacklisting or whatever ? Blacklisting? Don't make me laugh. Ask someone in human resources what kinds of negative information they are allowed to give out about an ex employee...pretty much nothing. And as far as economic reasons go...individual employers are supposed to be responsible for the overall job market now?

Coercion is coercion. Someone forced into humiliation or suffering or death by economic means suffers just as much. Since when do people suffer and die due to loss of employment in this country? And humliation is not exactly the kind of thing I think the goverment ought to be in the business of legislating against.

Americans just consider that a sanctioned means of oppression and destroying people. People are oppressed because they have to work for a living?

And I didn't say "slave"; I said "what amounts to slavery". Ooooookay...let me rephrase..."As long as you can walk out the door and sell your skills elsewhere, your situation is in no way akin to slavery."

[Lobohan]

Since when do people suffer and die due to loss of employment in this country?
Well if you have a chronic condition and your employer based health insurance lapses...

[alphaboi867]

I don't think archaic, unenforced laws necessarily indicate a country's freedom. The BBC recently released a poll (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7081038.stm) of the most ludicrous laws in the UK, including that it's illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament. I wonder if they have the death penalty for that?

I had no idea that expectant mothers are free to "relieve themselves" anywhere in England. :eek:

[XT]

As Voyager noted, it was more than just a "couple of yahoos".

And how did that all work out? Are they languishing in obscure poverty? No Grammy's for them?

-XT

[Sarahfeena]

Well if you have a chronic condition and your employer based health insurance lapses... ...what?

[Der Trihs]

Blacklisting? Don't make me laugh. Ask someone in human resources what kinds of negative information they are allowed to give out about an ex employee...pretty much nothing. Exactly my point. Forbidden by whom ? The government, naturally; otherwise they'd cheerfully share or sell everything down to your shoe size.

Since when do people suffer and die due to loss of employment in this country? Loss of medical care, as said. Making companies responsibile for medically insuring their employees is nearly the moral equivalent of giving them legal permission to assault or murder their employees. While slapping a huge tax on the company at the same time, so it's a two-fer.

Ooooookay...let me rephrase..."As long as you can walk out the door and sell your skills elsewhere, your situation is in no way akin to slavery."And if you can't ?

[Shagnasty]

Loss of medical care, as said. Making companies responsibile for medically insuring their employees is nearly the moral equivalent of giving them legal permission to assault or murder their employees. While slapping a huge tax on the company at the same time, so it's a two-fer.

There isn't a single person in this country who will be denied health care. If something happens, just call 911 or go straight to the emergency room. The have to treat everyone until they are stable and any person can repeat the process as much as they feel like. This can cause economic hardship of course but that is mainly a problem for the middle class who have some money to take and not the poor.

I am not saying this system is ideal but you equated it to assault or murder which is horseshit. Companies don't have anything to do with the problem just because they offer group health to some employees. That is a bonus, not an obligation they took upon themselves and there are other channels.

There are many more options for crucial health care than people like you care to admit. Poor people have teaching hospitals, charity hospitals, research programs,, government programs, and pro bono physicians as options for things as serious as cancer to dialysis.

Have you ever actually met anyone that didn't get treatment for cancer, kidney disease, or heart disease in the U.S.? I grew up in a very poor, rural area, and poor people didn't have any problem getting treatment at the state teaching hospital as long as they had someone to drive them there.

The problem comes at the economic level when someone has a house and some assets but not enough. That is a completely different issue than you describe though.

[Hostile Dialect]

I think that Benjamin Franklin rolls over in his grave every time someone says the words "free speech zone", and whenever an aggressive little piggy opens fire on peaceful protesters, old King George is laughing from below.

or whether I owe duty on a bottle of bourbon purchased in Melbourne but consumed in partly in South Australia and partly in Queensland

No such problem exists here, AFAIK, although depending on which states are involved, you may be taking a serious legal risk by transporting the open bottle in your car. Which only proves your point, of course.


Land of the free, my ass.

FTR, it is now illegal for at least one year to drink any alcohol whatsoever on any beach in the city of San Diego.


Any such law would certainly be unconstitutional.

It hasn't been that long that sodomy laws were deemed unconstitutional, and not that long since systematic religious and racial discrimination was the norm in much (to some extent, all) of the US. It also hasn't been that long since my family was almost ruined by a chain reaction that started when one member got branded a "Communist" and practically everyone who tried to defend him (and then defend his defenders, etc.) lost their jobs (at least) as a result.

So what do you think would happen to someone in the US if they announced they don't support the war in Iraq? What would we hysterical Americans do to such a person?

During WWI it was illegal to criticize the government or the President for any reason. I'm not aware of the specific penalty, though. And although it didn't have any effect whatsoever on the freedoms of the American people, that whole "Liberty fries" thing at the Senate bugged the hell out of me, in that we were basically giving the middle finger to free Europe. Of course, the same thing happened in WWI as well, when hamburgers became "Liberty burgers" and frankfurters something else, although that was a different story.


Honestly, it can be astounding the misconceptions some of you foreigners have about America.

Are you not familiar with the story of the Red Scare?

Also, Pleonast has a point, in that Holland certainly allows less religious individualism/eccentricity within the country. I can't imagine a European equivalent to some outlandish religious practices, like the Mormon polygamy where families marry off their sixteen year old daughters to 40 year old guys. there would be too much public outrage...

Which is highly frowned upon and, to a great extent, highly illegal here. Some guy named Jeffs is getting nailed for a series of offenses involving a polygamist cult in Utah as we speak. Under state law, BTW, and Utah is by far the most permissive of that sort of thing--which is to say, not that much. And if you don't think there's public outrage over polygamy here, try watching the Polygamy Horror Stories specials that the cable news networks over here trot out on a slow news week.

I think you have a pretty distorted view of what freedom of religion means in American society. I can't blame you, since I'm sure it hasn't been presented to you in an objective manner; of course, I can probably tell you very little about Dutch social policy, so it cuts both ways. But we have raids on religious sects that are, as you put it, "too cut off from the world", as well. Membership in such religions is extremely stigmatized here, and not only do cable news networks routinely rile people up over it, a fair number of our police procedural shows on TV--fiction and nonfiction--use it as a recurring theme, disproportionate to its actual effect on our society. No religion can break the law, and polygamy is illegal here. It may well be practiced more in Utah than in most of Western Europe, but it isn't any less stigmatized or prosecuted.

I see this as more an example of market forces in the US at play...and a bit of (well thought out) hype by the Dixie Chicks that had the result of boosting their long term sales and market share.


Here's a little pop quiz for you. Market forces are the result of:

a. Flying pigs
b. Invisible strings
c. Laughing lagomorphs
d. Laughing leprechauns
e. Societal factors

Wanna hazard a guess?

Personally I'm quite grateful for the freedom to spend or not spend my money whichever (legal) way I please, and not to have to justify my choices to anyone, especially the government.

OK, really, guys, is it that difficult to see that this is a social factor, which is analogous to the social factors mentioned about Korea? Nobody batted an eye when those were brought up as being important in the freedom of a country's people, but somebody brings up American social factors and all of a sudden everyone's Sam Adams. Is this as difficult a concept as you all are making it out to be, or am I the dense one?

BTW, Voyager, the movie is called "Good Luck and Good Night".

[Tristan]

Exactly my point. Forbidden by whom ? The government, naturally; otherwise they'd cheerfully share or sell everything down to your shoe size.

Or not, as personally, if I was getting "blacklisted", I would sue. Even when their ability to do such things wasn't restricted, people still managed to get new jobs after they were fired or quit a job. Imagine that! It's almost as if you were... wrong!


Loss of medical care, as said. Making companies responsibile for medically insuring their employees is nearly the moral equivalent of giving them legal permission to assault or murder their employees. While slapping a huge tax on the company at the same time, so it's a two-fer.

When you finally get tired of this place, I will miss your extreme black and white viewpoint. This line of yours doesn't even really make sense... My job is responsible for providing insurance, therefore they have moral equivalent of permission to murder me? That sounds... I don't know... delusional?


And if you can't ?

Where, in the United States, is this the case? And even if you can't find a job right away there are a ton of state agencies out there, in every state, to make sure you don't end up dead on the side of the road. My wife had an emergency apendectomy with no insurance... bills totalled about $250,000. Signed a few sheets of paper, and she paid $100. Which was broken up into 5 payments. The state ate the rest. Yes, I realize that that cost is passed on to tax payers, but really, that's what a government is FOR.


So, what is the solution for the problem you think exists?

[jsgoddess]

There isn't a single person in this country who will be denied health care. If something happens, just call 911 or go straight to the emergency room.

For acute care, sure.

For day-to-day care, including prescription medication? No.

For mental health care, including prescription medication? No.

If you have (to pick a common ailment) high blood pressure a hospital can't do much for you unless and until you have a heart attack.

If you have diabetes, a hospital can't do much for you unless you get complications.

Most of the "health care" Americans need when it comes to these conditions is in the form of prescriptions and routine doctor visits. Daily care, not acute care.

[Desert Nomad]

American's can legally travel too Cuba (I've actually been there myself, but don't tell anyone). Does this change whether you think we are free now?


Of course it is possible to physically go to Cuba, but you have to be clandestine about it as it IS illegal under US law (why do you think there are no flights directly from the US to Cuba).

Sorry, but restricting citizens movement does not make us very free.

[Desert Nomad]

The US likes to use travel bans/restrictions. In the past 15 years or so, it prohibited citizens from going to Lebanon, Libya and (still) Cuba.

[Randy Seltzer]

I don't know whether we're allowed to post responses to the OP or if we're supposed to be quibbling with each other over the Dixie Chicks, but here's a different perspective.

One freedom that the founding fathers seem to have found quite important is the freedom from unjust criminal prosecution. Most of Europe at the time was using some variant of the Napoleonic code, which included a presumption of guilt in criminal prosecutions. The rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights were somewhat revolutionary at the time. Now, not to say that other justice systems are unfair, but I think it's safe to say that the US criminal justice system is among the top in the world in terms of protection for the accused.

In many other countries, there is still a presumption of guilt. True, you've got to start with a presumption one way or the other, but a presumption of innocence (standard in the US), grants much greater protection to the accused.

In many other countries, including most European countries, there is an inquisitorial system instead of an adversarial system (standard in the US). The adversarial criminal justice system may be monumentally inefficient, but it leads to greater impartiality in deciding criminal cases, which, again favors the accused.

The focus on protecting the accused is, IMO, a focus on individual freedom. It comes at the cost of an abstract "societal freedom," I suppose, in that more criminals go free to roam the streets. But, as was said upthread, we Americans tend to sacrifice the General Good in favor of the Individual Good, for better or for worse.

I'd also like to reiterate a point made upthread. In the days of yore, we were the Land of the Free. I think that now, we are a Land of the Free. We (Americans) certainly have more freedom than, say, the Chinese. But when you try to compare our "degree" of freedom to other civilized countries, you run into problems.

[Ocean Annie]

There are many more options for crucial health care than people like you care to admit. Poor people have teaching hospitals, charity hospitals, research programs,, government programs, and pro bono physicians as options for things as serious as cancer to dialysis.

Have you ever actually met anyone that didn't get treatment for cancer, kidney disease, or heart disease in the U.S.? I grew up in a very poor, rural area, and poor people didn't have any problem getting treatment at the state teaching hospital as long as they had someone to drive them there.

The problem comes at the economic level when someone has a house and some assets but not enough. That is a completely different issue than you describe though.

The destitute children and elderly living well below the poverty line may qualify for government assistance or charity, but the average working American is on her own when it comes to accessing medical care. As you point out, the uninsured and insured alike will likely lose their home if those medical bills go unpaid. I dare anyone to open their local phone book and find an oncologist willing to treat a person who can’t pay. I am confident it will be a difficult or impossible task.

There are fifty million Americans without health insurance and the number is climbing. The United States ranks 37 in the world for infant mortality. The US has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world and higher than many developing countries.

People without health coverage usually don’t seek preventative care because they can’t pay for it. Cancer needs to be detected early for successful treatment. I suppose you can go to the emergency room, but I am pretty sure the ER doesn’t provide chemotherapy.

According to a USA Today report, 18,000 people die annually due to lack of health insurance. The head of a leading HMO asserted that the study was flawed and the number inaccurate. Clearly, any claimes from a large HMO should be considered bias. The HMO is a for profit business. Health care is a profit industry; doesn’t this fact alone work against patient care. Well, I guess it doesn’t if you are rich and can pay for it.

http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=352156

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/omhd/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm

[GreedySmurf]

I'd also like to reiterate a point made upthread. In the days of yore, we were the Land of the Free. I think that now, we are a Land of the Free.

I've been reading this thread with some interest, my personal opinions falling on various sides of the fence.

Just this one comment though irked me, in the days of yore you were the land of the free? Really? Maybe if you had the right skin colour that was the case?

I'm not just throwing stones from my golden throne here, I easily acknowledge Australia's record is hardly better with our aboriginal population, and the UK was neck deep in the African slave trade for a long time before banning it.

But it just irritates when hand on heart someone declares we were the most free nation in the world once upon a time. All hail the symbol of freedom, the Constitution. Only if you don't include the native americans in that freedom, and oh of course, those slaves don't count neither. And while yes, slavery was abolished early on, would you say African Americans had as much freedom as their white countrymen? Not until well into the 20th century they didn't.

On an unrelated tangent to the above, but on topic for the thread as a whole, I think America "seems" to be a freer (is that even a word?) country because, as someone mentioned upthread, there is a stronger individualistic streak Americans seem to have, while Australia (and other commonwealth countries) for example, still value individual endeavour, but I think we still have a social focus on the groups greater good, which can generally only be accomplished through government intervention.

In an illustration, A recent federal budget had a $2 Billion (IIRC) surplus, and the government announced a package of tax cuts. Which of course had nothing to do with a looming federal election :dubious: A few polls were taken as to whether we'd rather a tax cut, or no tax cut and see the money spent on healthcare, education, and infrastructure. The polls were all fairly heavily weighted (IIRC around the 65% mark) towards no tax cuts and spend the money on services. Would I be correct in thinking you would get the opposite response in the States?

[Randy Seltzer]

GreedySmurf - If you apply modern morality to any non-modern situation, you come up with outrageous results.

The freedom that the US founding fathers designed for its citizens was arguably greater than the freedom for the citizens of any other country. At the time, we defined "citizen" as white, male, landed, and let's face it, Christian. But this was the standard moral code of the time.

Imagine if someone visited us from the year 2207, and was horrified that we forced our pets to eat off the floor and didn't let them vote. Our current moral outlook holds this as normal. John Adams, circa 1780, would be just as confused by your outrage WRT minority rights, as you would be by the outrage of the 2207 time traveller.
(WARNING: Don't take this analogy the wrong way - I'm not actually saying that minorities are morally equivalent to house pets!)

[Voyager]

And how did that all work out? Are they languishing in obscure poverty? No Grammy's for them?

-XT
Maybe a majority of Americans figured out they were right after all, and the hyper-patriotic DJs wrong? Kind of like what I said.

[Martha Medea]

A lot of Americans who come to countries like the Dominican Republic often praise the 'freedoms' they enjoy here that they don't have back home.

The freedom to be politically incorrect, the freedom to drive without a speed limit, no seatbelt, no motorbike helmet, swigging a beer... but then they're the first to whine when they're affected by the downside of these freedoms - like a non-functioning justice system that enables thieves and murderers to go unpunished.

People in countries like this also have the freedom to build their shanties wherever they like, without any pesky building regulations or planning permission - in ravines, riversides, flood plains - but are then the first to be swept away when it rains hard, as happened last week.

It's called underdevelopment.

[Flipshod]

...

I was responding to the insane idea that government coercion is the only kind of coercion.

The difference between government coercion, which is backed by society's sanction of violence, and all of the other ways humans are "coerced" is the central distinction.

Life is about being coerced. We have to eat. We have to avoid falling down when we walk. And I know that if I become smitten with a beautiful woman who won't give me the time of day, then I am not truly free! BUt as humans we have to juggle all of the pushes and pulls and figure our way through them.

In fact, the only way to be free of these non-governmental coercions is to give up the freedom from government coercion that we have now.

[Autumn Almanac]

So in Holland, the government only springs into action if they have good reason to suspect that illegal acts are happening in a sect, like drug trafficking, drug use, or child abuse or severe child neglect. In those cases, (and they happen perhaps once every twenty years) either the police or social services will investigate and they will take action. And they are certainly more inclined to investigate if that sect (social or religious) shuts its members off from the outside world, yes. For instance, homeschooling is a rare thing here, compared to the States, so most sects can't really cut off their kids from the outside world.
Does that make me feel more free? Dunno. Probably not if I did belong to a sect. But I do find it a reassuring thougth that kids run less risk of being raised with beleifs that are too hostile to mainstream society. There's plenty of time for them to develop those ideas on their own during puberty, but at least the kids are a little bit older then.Thanks for the clarification.

[XT]

Maybe a majority of Americans figured out they were right after all, and the hyper-patriotic DJs wrong? Kind of like what I said.

Sure, there was a bit of that. I think there was more than a bit of showmanship by the Dixie Chicks as well, playing up the 'poor us!' role, and a bit of over hype on exactly what real world effect all this had on their sales and popularity. Certainly today they are as popular as they ever were (I never liked them, but it had zero to do with their political stance).

Sorry, but restricting citizens movement does not make us very free.

Perhaps you are correct...but I don't think that this particular aspect is really a priority with most of our citizens. As an analogy, say the government banned fish flavored soda. Citizens can no longer buy fish flavored soda at the market...it's now a banned substance. Sure, there would be a minority of citizens who would lament the fact that they can no longer buy fish soda, and they would be quite correct in pointing out that this does not make us very free. The majority of citizens would simply not care about this particular issue as it doesn't impact them.

Here's a little pop quiz for you. Market forces are the result of:

a. Flying pigs
b. Invisible strings
c. Laughing lagomorphs
d. Laughing leprechauns
e. Societal factors

Wanna hazard a guess?

Either pass the drugs or a translation because gods know what you are getting at here. What exactly is your point?

-XT

[ForumBot]

Really? I didn't know that about Americans. Quite the opposite, I thought Americans were supposed too be very superstitious (believing in 'luck' and all). Do you have a cite for this contention?
It's known in Psychology as the Fundamental Attribution Error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error)--fundamental because it's so widespread. Essentially, you have to say whether you're referring towards peoples attitudes towards themselves or others, and whether the action they're observing is positive. A quick breakdown:

I Did Well: It must be because I am very skilled.
I Did Poorly: It's due to context (I didn't get much sleep last night, etc.)
You Did Well: It's due to context (You were "in the right place at the right time")
You Did Poorly: It's because you're unskilled.

Essentially, we aren't very good at deciding where context should play and where personal ability is responsible for resulsts. The above is in general the way the typical Western mind works.

Everything's on a continuum, not everybody is the same, yada yada yada. But it's very well established.

[ForumBot]

Also look into the Just World Phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon), which states members of individualistic cultures tend to believe that things happen to people because they deserve it.

[jsgoddess]

Perhaps you are correct...but I don't think that this particular aspect is really a priority with most of our citizens. As an analogy, say the government banned fish flavored soda. Citizens can no longer buy fish flavored soda at the market...it's now a banned substance. Sure, there would be a minority of citizens who would lament the fact that they can no longer buy fish soda, and they would be quite correct in pointing out that this does not make us very free. The majority of citizens would simply not care about this particular issue as it doesn't impact them.


By this rationale, you can't say that people in non gun-totin' countries are less free if they don't want to tote guns. Are you sure you want to go there?

If we measure how much freedom we have based on how many people complain, we have one of the least free countries in the world.

[XT]

By this rationale, you can't say that people in non gun-totin' countries are less free if they don't want to tote guns. Are you sure you want to go there?

Certainly I want too go there. You are building up a strawman for me...and I don't want it. I have maintained through this thread that 'free' is in the eyes of the majority of citizens perceptions. If the majority of it's citizens don't want guns, then they are more free having it this way than having guns imposed on them. And vice versa.

If we measure how much freedom we have based on how many people complain, we have one of the least free countries in the world.

Well, Americans like to complain...so I would say that this IS a good indication of a freedom we enjoy.

-XT

[jsgoddess]

Also look into the Just World Phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon), which states members of individualistic cultures tend to believe that things happen to people because they deserve it.

I didn't know that had a name. Cool.

[jjimm]

xtisme, you're changing the goalposts a lot in this thread. It's only an attack on freedom if people don't really care about it? What about principle? Or the reason the Constitution was written in the first place? A benign dictatorship can do well for years, but that doesn't mean the people are more free than those within a democracy, which necessarily has checks and balances to cope with things that might not yet be occurring.

(And please, it's "to" not "too". Irrelevant to the argument, and not meant to attack you, but the constant recurrence of this typo is driving me nuts!)

[Sarahfeena]

Certainly I want too go there. You are building up a strawman for me...and I don't want it. I have maintained through this thread that 'free' is in the eyes of the majority of citizens perceptions. If the majority of it's citizens don't want guns, then they are more free having it this way than having guns imposed on them. And vice versa. That's kind of what I was initially thinking in response to this whole thread. One of the ways we could define freedom is having a system of government that gives the people a lot of power in terms of changing laws to suit them. The more things that are controlled Constitutionally, the less free I would consider a country to be.

[XT]

It's only an attack on freedom if people don't really care about it?

I didn't say that. I acknowledged that by depriving us of our chance to go to Cuba we have less tangible freedom than you have, who can go there any time. Most Americans, however, don't care...its not an important issue to them. That's the reality.

What about principle?

I'm big on principle myself. I'm also opposed to most government intervention (being a small 'l' libertarian type)...so, I'm not keen on the government telling us where we can go and what we can do. However, most of my fellow citizens don't care about this particular issue..and most of them don't feel 'less free' because they can't go to Cuba.

A benign dictatorship can do well for years, but that doesn't mean the people are more free than those within a democracy, which necessarily has checks and balances to cope with things that might not yet be occurring.

Well, contrary to popular belief, we don't HAVE a benign dictatorship. We actually do have a functional democracy (well, semi-functional). If the majority of our citizens thought going to Cuba (just to use this example again) was important...well, then things would change and we'd be smoking fine Cuban cigars in Havana. I'm all for it myself...but until it gets on the radar in the US in a big way it ain't gona happen.


(And please, it's "to" not "too". Irrelevant to the argument, and not meant to attack you, but the constant recurrence of this typo is driving me nuts!)

Apologies. It's habit. I'm not a very good writer, as you have no doubt seen for your self...and my grasp of syntax, spelling and such is tenuous at best. Try and ignore the poor grammar.

-XT

[XT]

That's kind of what I was initially thinking in response to this whole thread. One of the ways we could define freedom is having a system of government that gives the people a lot of power in terms of changing laws to suit them. The more things that are controlled Constitutionally, the less free I would consider a country to be.

Well, it's a trade off. You don't want a situation where you get a tyranny of the masses kind of thing either. We have a fairly decent balance (well, for most of our citizens...I'd rather it was different, but I'm in the minority) that by and large a majority of our citizens are content with. That IS freedom IMHO.

-XT

[Hostile Dialect]

Either pass the drugs or a translation because gods know what you are getting at here. What exactly is your point?

I don't know what's so hard about this. I explained it in several different ways in the last post. I'll try again, I guess.

Remember when someone said upthread that Korea's citizens are (about) as free from governmental interference in their lives as we are, but their lives are less free in some ways because of cultural factors--specifically, the fact that family and friends expect each other to conform to rigid social roles? The entire Dixie Chicks thing is just an example of a similar phenomenon in the US, nothing less, nothing more. It's illustrative of the fact that some peoples' lives are less free in some ways because of cultural factors, not because of the government. But all of a sudden half of the people participating in this thread are Patrick Henry, screaming for liberty and assigning all sorts of unsavory motives to the person who first mentioned the Dixie Chicks and then to everyone who pops in to defend him. Nobody claimed that the government has anything at all to do with the Dixie Chicks getting death threats and stuff. The point was that each society encroaches on its individuals' freedoms in certain ways by imposing expectations above and beyond those put in place by the government. This was all crystal clear to everyone when we were talking about Korea, but once somebody mentioned a freedom-limiting societal factor in the United States, you'da thought someone set off a roadside bomb on Pennsylvania Ave.

If the majority of our citizens thought going to Cuba (just to use this example again) was important...well, then things would change and we'd be smoking fine Cuban cigars in Havana.

I don't think you're really that naive about the willingness of the Congress to achieve the goals of the people.

[LonesomePolecat]

I hear what you're saying but in the USA this 'freedom' seems to be quickly subject to social and legal sanction when the country is engaged in a bout of collective hysteria like the 1950's communist witch-hunts or not supporting 'the war'. There's a lot more hysteria about racism these days than there ever was about communism, and the witch-hunt for racists has gone on for decades longer than McCarthyism.

[BrainGlutton]

There's a lot more hysteria about racism these days than there ever was about communism, and the witch-hunt for racists has gone on for decades longer than McCarthyism.

Which would not be inappropriate if true (it isn't). The American Communist Party never had a really significant number of members or sympathizers, even at its high point in the 1930s. Racism in America is real and always has been, and much more destructive to our society than Communism, and more deeply planted in our culture and much harder to root out.

[Hostile Dialect]

There's a lot more hysteria about racism these days than there ever was about communism, and the witch-hunt for racists has gone on for decades longer than McCarthyism.

That's like saying that the humanitarian crisis in Burma is like the humanitarian crisis at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Come on, now.

[Ravenman]

There's a lot more hysteria about racism these days than there ever was about communism, and the witch-hunt for racists has gone on for decades longer than McCarthyism.I must be missing the congressional committee whose chairman has claimed to have a list of 205 known racists in the State Department.

Or, for that matter, I must be blocking out the war that has cost 57,000 American lives because of the fear of the theory holds that if one nation falls to racism, its neighbors are next. Look out, Canada!

[Themenin]

The focus on protecting the accused is, IMO, a focus on individual freedom. It comes at the cost of an abstract "societal freedom," I suppose, in that more criminals go free to roam the streets. But, as was said upthread, we Americans tend to sacrifice the General Good in favor of the Individual Good, for better or for worse.I agree with you in principle (although I believe this concept is not a US invention), but in practice, the US incarceration rate is (one of) the highest in the world. The incarceration rate is probably the single biggest instance where 'the land of the free' is on shaky ground. Here in France for example, although the presumption of innocence is in fact coded in law, the right to a speedy trial is purely hypothetical. This means that the state can detain the accused pending trial for periods of more than a year. However, in practice the French per capita imprisonment rate is about 8 times smaller than the US rate. So you might say that the French justice system wields greater powers than the US, but uses them with more restraint. I should also add that French 'vice' laws are extremely repressive by European standards, but the 'turn a blind eye' principal is generally applied, so the prisons here aren't full of prostitutes and drug-addicts.

I'm big on principle myself. I'm also opposed to most government intervention (being a small 'l' libertarian type)...so, I'm not keen on the government telling us where we can go and what we can do. However, most of my fellow citizens don't care about this particular issue..and most of them don't feel 'less free' because they can't go to Cuba.The high-level principles of the US legal system may offer greater personal freedom, but in the application I find the US to be somewhat more repressive than other 'developed' countries I've lived in. This is particularly obvious as regards sex and drugs. The heavy-handed policing of social behaviors has also created an environment where policing in general is heavy handed - shooting incidents, hand-on-weapon traffic stops etc

Regarding the issue of polygamy brought up by Maastricht, is this in fact illegal in the US ? I don't know what the legal situation is regarding polygamy is in France, but the practice is certainly widespread, and I've never heard of anyone being tried for it. Does the US differentiate between de facto polygamous arrangements and legally sanctioned marriages ?

I would say that the US gives greater freedom in the areas of business and how I dispose of my property. So personal Freedom in the US is somewhat tied to personal wealth. Western Europe gives greater freedom from social coercion and from oppression through violence and poverty. Now if we could just start a new country somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic...

[Martini Enfield]

Perhaps you are correct...but I don't think that this particular aspect is really a priority with most of our citizens. As an analogy, say the government banned fish flavored soda. Citizens can no longer buy fish flavored soda at the market...it's now a banned substance. Sure, there would be a minority of citizens who would lament the fact that they can no longer buy fish soda, and they would be quite correct in pointing out that this does not make us very free. The majority of citizens would simply not care about this particular issue as it doesn't impact them.

The problem is when it's discovered that Fish Flavoured Soda provides 100% of your daily Omega 3 intake, yet the Government still decides it should remain a banned substance. Sure, most people still won't care, but suddenly there will be a sizeable number of people who do care, and feel that they are Less Free than their neighbours in North Snowland who can have all the Fish Flavoured Soda they want. (Then again, the citizens of North Snowland may feel they are less free than their neighbours to the south, because their shops are legally prohibited from opening on Sundays, and can only trade between 9am and 5:30pm Monday-Thursday, with Late Night Shopping till 9pm on Friday and opening until lunchtime on Saturday).

I'm not touching the gun control aspect with a 60ft pole, though. ;) :D

[jjimm]

To add to the fish-flavoured soda analogy, when I mentioned "benign dictatorship" above, I wasn't referring to the US. One particular example I had in mind, however, is that of Singapore, which is a democracy in name only. Political dissent is treated very harshly (and corruptly). Yet talk to the vast majority of Singaporeans, and they're amongst the happiest, most contented crowd there is. Regarding political dissent, one might say of Singaporeans, "The majority of citizens would simply not care about this particular issue as it doesn't impact them."

Yet I think we'd all agree that Singaporeans are significantly less free than we are.

[aquarius]

My understanding is that permits are required for more types of protests and the process is more challenging. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
Speaking as someone who was part of the protest mentioned above, your understanding isn't quite right. Protests do not require a permit, except in the area designated in London by SOCPA, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The UK government brought in this law to stop people protesting in the designated area, which is about a square mile in the centre of London, unless they applied for a permit. The police are obliged to grant a permit if applied for, but there still remains the fact that you have to apply. There was an amount of protest as to this law, including by me, which is why I was part of the 2000-strong protest mentioned -- that protest was specifically against the SOCPA law.

The major complaint about the law is that a restriction on the right to protest is flagrantly undemocratic, but there are also two other complaints that tend to show up in the arguments of anti-SOCPA campaigners like me. The first is that "protesting" under SOCPA is very, very loosely defined; people have been threatened with arrest for, among other things, wearing a badge or a t-shirt with a slogan on. (The presence of a slogan counts as a protest; it could be a slogan in support of the government!) The second is the pervasive opinion that SOCPA was written as a generic law but in actuality specifically targeted on Brian Haw, a protestor who has for the last five years maintained a static protest against the Iraq war, directly outside the Houses of Parliament. The government don't like him being there, and have repeatedly attempted to restrict his democratic right to protest there; SOCPA seemed to be another attempt to remove Haw's protest while appearing to be a generic law. A court, however, ruled that it didn't apply to him.

Wikipedia has more on SOCPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_Organised_Crime_and_Police_Act_2005) and Brian Haw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Haw), for further research, and Mark Thomas, comedian and activist, has written extensively about the anti-SOCPA protests (http://www.markthomasinfo.com/nsarticles/default.asp?id=20). I should note at this point that (a) SOCPA specifically applies to only one area of London, and democratic protest elsewhere is not restricted and requires no licence or permit, and (b) SOCPA was heavily opposed in Parliament as well as by the police and the public. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that the UK restricts speech or democratic protest in general, and SOCPA doesn't really demonstrate that that state of affairs is changing in my opinion; the most recent news we have is that there's strong appetite inside Government to repeal the law, if they can work out how to do it without an embarrassing climbdown.

Hope that helps; this certainly wasn't meant as an accusation that you were wrong, but just another attempt to fight a bit of mistakenness. :)

[Hostile Dialect]

About 0.71% of all Americans were imprisoned in 2005, beating out second-place Russia with about .52%. South Africa rounded out the top 3 with about .4%. Those were the only ones that were even close; the average European country had about .13%, with Canada and Australia in the same neighborhood. Cite (http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/world-prison-population-list-2005.pdf). (My numbers may be off by .02% or less on either side; I looked at a graph from the cite.)

That may not sound like a big difference, but .71% of the American population is 2,149,710 people (almost equal to the population of Nevada), while .13% of the population of the UK is 109 people.* It's important to note that a disporportionate number of American prisoners are up on drug-related charges, and that drug convictions are disproportionately high for blacks, Hispanics and the poor compared to the actual representation of those ethnic groups among American drug users. The US is indeed more about individual freedom in theory than in practice, especially the individual freedom of people who are poor, dark-skinned and/or smoke pot.

* The actual incarceration rate in the UK specifically is higher, but that's beside the point of this specific example.

Regarding the issue of polygamy brought up by Maastricht, is this in fact illegal in the US ?

I think I've covered that in this thread, but I'll give it another crack: polygamy is illegal everywhere in the US. It's more prevalent in Utah due to that state's overwhelming monopoly on Mormonism; the mainstream LDS church itself has given up polygamy, but Utah and (to a much lesser extent) nearby states Colorado and Arizona have some offshoot cults where polygamy is practiced. However, it's highly stigmatized and heavily prosecuted everywhere. The idea that Americans as a society are OK with polygamy, ritualized sex abuse, and wacko cults is fabricated from whole cloth, probably by some sensationalist media corporation(s) in Europe. In fact, those things are recurring themes in nationwide moral scares here; if anything, we're over-concerned about them, relative to their actual influence on society as a whole.

Does the US differentiate between de facto polygamous arrangements and legally sanctioned marriages ?

Yes. We do have "common law marriage" in some areas, where two unrelated people of opposite gender who live together for long enough are legally assumed to be married, but I've never heard of a Jack Tripper being prosecuted for living with two women at the same time. Here in California (and probably in most other states to a lesser extent), every major city has a significant minority of swingers, open marriages, etc., but each person only gets to marry their favorite partner.

The major complaint about the law is that a restriction on the right to protest is flagrantly undemocratic

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the US government doesn't feel that way, nor do most local police departments IME. Protesting is often a form of Russian Roulette here; I have a handful of protest horror stories from Arizona...

[Richard Parker]

Speaking as someone who was part of the protest mentioned above, your understanding isn't quite right. Protests do not require a permit, except in the area designated in London by SOCPA, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

Well, I don't think you need to apply for a permit to protest in the US either, per se. But various uses of public property do require a permit. I would be surprised if this weren't also true of the UK. Are you telling me that if I want to have a march down a big street in Leeds in the middle of the day, I don't need to apply for a permit?

[Randy Seltzer]

I agree with you in principle (although I believe this concept is not a US invention), but in practice, the US incarceration rate is (one of) the highest in the world. The incarceration rate is probably the single biggest instance where 'the land of the free' is on shaky ground.
My point was that we have a great concern with protecing the accused. Greater, probably, than most European nations. While your point about incarceration rate is probably valid to counter some argument, I don't see how it counters mine.

The statistic you should be using is not incarceration rate, but conviction rate. (I.e. not the percentage of the population that ends up in prison, but the percentage of arrestees that ends up in prison.) I agree that a much higher percentage of our (US) population gets arrested every day, but I think the protection afforded to the accused keeps a sizable percentage of those people out of prison. I know the European criminal justice systems only in theory, but I would hazard to say that conviction rates are higher over there, because it is easier to get convictions over there. And this, in turn, is because the accused has less protection over there.

I have no cite for the above, but I find the theory pretty sound. If someone comes forward with some proof that defendants have greater protection under inquisitorial systems than under the US adversarial system, I'll eat my hat.

[Sevastopol]

If I had to register for the draft, I'd count that a heavy imposition on my freedom.

However, several Western Democracies are as bad, or worse, still requiring military service.

[Marienee]

For instance, and as an addendum to my above points, the Dutch tend to see the government as inept and yet as the one who "ought to do something about it". At the same time, we don't really, deeply believe in the strenght and rights of the individual either. I guess the Dutch attitude can be summed up as: "Both government and individuals can be inept, so we need to make sure they control each other and have a system of checks and balances". The American attitude, if I see it correctly, is more convinced strengh lies in the individual. Or at least a belief that the individual should be strong and able to fight for himself, and if they don't, that reeks of a moral failing.

>snip<

I'm not very sure myself what my point is if I combine this post with my previous one, though. I guess the Dutch value the right of biological parents to raise their kids just as highly as the USA does, even if that puts the child at risk. The difference then remains that the Dutch put a slightly less high value on the parental right to raise a kid according to the parents religion.

I'm not saying one is better then the other. It's just cultural differences, and those are interesting if one wants to have an objective look at one's own culture.

Here's how it looks to me having lived in both places: Both Americans and Dutch guys consider that the state has a responsibility to protect children in the final analysis. I think the primary cultural difference is that Dutch culture does not value methods of childrearing which place the child outside the larger culture. You can raise your kid as a contrarian without interference because the Dutch value their weirdos and outsiders and lone voices in the wilderness (see, Geert Wilders, lol) as also members of the social conversation.

They do not value raising your child not to take part in the social conversation.

Speaking broadly, Americans think being unable to think of something, failure to be resourceful, is a weakness which stinks of a moral failing; Dutch guys think that being unable or unwilling to recognize when you need help and ask for it, failure to take advantage of the resources available, is a weakness which stinks of a moral failing.

In the Savannah case you mention, my own sense is that the outcry is because the social workers had actual evidence that the mother was a threat to the child and disregarded it in the interest of what an american social worker would call family reunification.

[jjimm]

.13% of the population of the UK is 109 people.The UK population is around 60,000,000, so 0.13% of that is 78,000.

[Hostile Dialect]

I know the European criminal justice systems only in theory, but I would hazard to say that conviction rates are higher over there, because it is easier to get convictions over there.

Without having the numbers, I'd have to say it's equally plausible that if conviction rates are higher over there--and I don't see any rational reason to believe that they are--it could also be because they're more selective in who they arrest.


The UK population is around 60,000,000, so 0.13% of that is 78,000.

Yeah, I thought my number looked pretty small. Still, my point stands.

[Plan B]

Link to Freedom House's map (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=21&year=2007&display=map) of the world, assessing comparative freedoms in different countries.Hey, I think it's a pretty good link, even if no one else does. There's also freethe world.com

[Hostile Dialect]

Hey, I think it's a pretty good link, even if no one else does. There's also freethe world.com

It's informative, but the problem is that it rates the US and pretty much all other comparable industrialized free democracies as even in civil liberties. That's great if you want to differentiate free countries from those which are, for lack of a non-Orwellian adjective, unfree. But it doesn't provide a lot of utility in comparing the finer points of modern democracy, at least according to my brief analysis of it. I'll check out your other link though, although frankly I'm a little suspicious that you had to break up the URL. Is it NSFW?

[Beware of Doug]

Speaking broadly, Americans think being unable to think of something, failure to be resourceful, is a weakness which stinks of a moral failingIt goes deeper. Failure of any kind has moral weight here, but the greatest failure of all is to need help you're not entitled to.

[Resistance is Character-Formin]

What I propose is that everyone stop pretending that we have free speech when we have so many willing to take away your livelihood if you don't toe the patriotic line. Sure people can vote with their wallets, you can't stop that. Just don't pretend that the US tolerates dissent.

I'm anti-war, pro-Dixie chick, and pro-free speech, and I still think this is one of the stupidist statements I've ever heard.

[Tibidabo]

:dubious: Completely ridiculous claim. Bob...both you and I heard exactly what they had too say. Despite their anti-war, anti-Bush speech. If it wasn't 'free' then, you know, we wouldn't have heard it. See?



And how do you count the times someone who wants to, doesn't speak out? cos, you know, you don't hear it... :dubious:

[Tibidabo]

You always can. You always have the choice to go out and try to find another job. It may not be the dream job, it may not even be what you are trained to do, or want to do, but you can always try.

Failure to find a job you want is not a restriction imposed on you. As I told my brothers, you can always find a job, if you're willing to work. It may be flipping burgers, but you can work.


I'm not sure where you are getting this big "If you quit your job you'll starve to death and thus are being coerced" mindset, as it's pretty much garbage.


I think your missing it.

Easy example: single mother w/ two kids working two menial jobs just make ends barely meet. Can't quit either job simply beacuse she can't afford to be out of work for even a week. Or can't take the risk that it might take longer.

That's not too obscure, is it?

[Tibidabo]

You're :smack:

[XT]

And how do you count the times someone who wants to, doesn't speak out? cos, you know, you don't hear it...

Well, obviously you can't. So...we can just go on the the evidence of what we DID hear....which was pretty loud and wide spread. If someone out there got stifled then it really didn't seem to have much overall effect...which was the point I was making to Bob. If they didn't speak out because they didn't want to for some reason...well then, that would be their lookout. The government only protects your right to speak...it doesn't help you speak.

-XT

[Tristan]

I think your missing it.

Easy example: single mother w/ two kids working two menial jobs just make ends barely meet. Can't quit either job simply beacuse she can't afford to be out of work for even a week. Or can't take the risk that it might take longer.

That's not too obscure, is it?

I've been there (though, not a mother. Father with wife not working, if I had lost my job we would have been in trouble).

The thing is, while it sucks for this hypothetical mother, if she does get fired or let go, there are programs in place to help her out.

And if she takes what little spare time she has to try to find a different job (hopefully one that pays better), she can quit.

I'm not saying in anyway that the system is perfect, I'm saying that in the US, it would be pretty dang hard to starve to death if you lost a job.

[Magiver]

I woud say, as a general rule, Americans have greater economic freedom. The combination of lower taxes and cheap land make it easier to leverage money into a higher life style.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Freedom to smoke pot

.
Is it really and truly legal to smoke pot anywhere? By legal, I mean also "legal to grow enough for your own use", since you have to get it somewhere.

Though I admit that other countries seem to be a bit less hysterical about it than the U.S. Times change. When I was in Europe in the 1970s, it had the reputation of being much more strict about drugs than the U.S., although even then The Netherlands was the outstanding exception, and I remember being pat- searched on the train at the border entering The Netherlands, because I had just woken up and must have appeared drugged to the customs officers. I mean, I was entering the country...according to common wisdom all the drugs were supposed to be crossing the border in the opposite direction.

Now pot is still illegal in the U.S., though legal in California for medical use, and California is very much at odds with the federal government that still bans all use of pot. One reason we do have so many laws here is that each state has its own codes, and and I've been told that the overwhelming majority of laws that I have to obey on a day to day basis are state laws, not federal. Believe it or not, in some legalistic contexts, the word "foreign" can mean "from another state". It comes up in insurance law. An insurer domiciled in Nevada is considered a "foreign" insurer by California law. Really foriegn insurers, like that little place just inside Mexico where you have to stop on the way to Ensenada, are "alien" insurers.

[Hostile Dialect]

Is it really and truly legal to smoke pot anywhere? By legal, I mean also "legal to grow enough for your own use", since you have to get it somewhere.

Considering how cheap it is in Amsterdam, I don't think that's a big deal. Who needs to buy more than 5 grams of hash in one place anyway?