How are European nations 'less free' than the U.S.?

[Johnny L.A.]

For the purposes of this thread, guns are 'off the table'. Please leave guns out of it.

I often hear at Conservative-leaning message boards and from Conservatives in real life that American 'freedoms' are under attack. Obama is Stalin, the government is going to turn us into slaves, blahblahblah. An old acquaintance found my email address and started sending me email forwards. (I never get Liberal email forwards. All of the ones I get are from Conservatives, and they send A LOT of them! Fortunately they've mostly given up on me. Mostly.) He repeated the oft-heard claim that Americans are losing their 'freedoms', so I challenged him on it. I gave him a couple of off-the-cuff examples of how Europeans and Canadians have more 'freedom' than we do and asked him to provide counterexamples (excepting guns). His reply was basically, 'Well, you may have a point -- a small point -- but WE'RE LOSING OUR FREEDOMS! :eek: '

So the debate is this: Except for guns (and yes, I know there are gun owners in Europe), how are the citizens of Western European nations less free than U.S. Americans?

[sailor]

They have to speak French and German and other unnatural languages. Since they are little kids they are forced to attend schools where they are brainwashed into speaking like that.

[Little Nemo]

There are restrictions on individual freedoms that Americans have. For example, the United Kingdom can legally censor the press, France prohibits some religious practices, Germany bans some political views, and Norway regulates what names you can give your children.

[athelas]

That, and also higher tax rates, which some would count as limiting freedom to spend what you earn.

Also in general, labor markets are more rigid, meaning businesses make a long-term commitment whenever they hire someone. Sounds good, right? Problem is, when you can't fire the bad workers, you're much more careful about hiring, resulting in higher normal unemployment rates. Also this can create a "two-tiered" labor market, as in France.

[Johnny L.A.]

That, and also higher tax rates, which some would count as limiting freedom to spend what you earn.

On the other hand, those taxes support things such as health care that you would have to pay for out-of-pocket if the taxes weren't there.

[Captain Amazing]

Many Western European nations also have higher marginal tax rates than the US. The highest marginal US tax rate is 35%, and most western European nations have highest marginal tax rates from 40-50% (Denmark's is 62%). So, in that sense, Americans, especially richer Americans, have more freedom to choose how to spend their income than Europeans. Along with that, most Western European countries have governments that provide more social services than the US (national health care, extended poverty and unemployment help, etc.) So, in that sense, the government has a more direct role in the lives of their citizens.

[MPB in Salt Lake]

Less of a selection of certain consumer goods in supermarkets and other stores?

This is more pronounced in some countries than others, and is not (to me) a big deal............

ETA---This is probably not really much of an example such as Johnny L.A. was looking for. (sorry)

[Johnny L.A.]

Along with that, most Western European countries have governments that provide more social services than the US (national health care, extended poverty and unemployment help, etc.) So, in that sense, the government has a more direct role in the lives of their citizens.

So the higher taxes are offset by benefits the citizens receive. How do these benefits make the citizens less free?

[Der Trihs]

On the other hand, those taxes support things such as health care that you would have to pay for out-of-pocket if the taxes weren't there.Which of course means you are more free to leave a job you hate, rather than staying because you need the medical benefits. One problem with this "America is the freest country in the world !" bit is that it always assumes that the government is the only thing that can take away freedom.

[Johnny L.A.]

Less of a selection of certain consumer goods in supermarkets?

For example?

[Captain Amazing]

So the higher taxes are offset by benefits the citizens receive. How do these benefits make the citizens less free?

If the government is taking care of them, that makes them less free, because it makes them dependent on the government to take care of their needs.

[MPB in Salt Lake]

For example?

Its rare to see Czech beer for sale in the Netherlands, you dont usually find Dutch beer for sale in Germany................

Thankfully each of the countries I mentioned seems to brew some mighty tasty suds in thier own rights!!!

[Johnny L.A.]

If the government is taking care of them, that makes them less free, because it makes them dependent on the government to take care of their needs.

How does it make them less free?

[jtgain]

I would also point out their laws against holocaust denial which would be unthinkable restrictions on speech in this country.

[Captain Amazing]

How does it make them less free?

Because, if you believe, like the writers of the e-mail do, that government is, at best, a necessary evil, and that people should be free to succeed or fail on their own merits, then expanding the role of the government and expanding the social safety net is dangerous, because it helps to isolate people from the consequences of their actions, and, by increasing the role of government, it makes them believe that it should be the role of the government to provide for their needs.

[Der Trihs]

If the government is taking care of them, that makes them less free, because it makes them dependent on the government to take care of their needs.That's somehow "less free" than being crushed into poverty ? Or being dependent upon some employer ? What makes employers pushing you around more free than a government doing so ?

[Captain Amazing]

That's somehow "less free" than being crushed into poverty ? Or being dependent upon some employer ? What makes employers pushing you around more free than a government doing so ?

In my understanding, I'd think they would say that if you were pushed around by your employer, you're free to quit and find a better job, and if you're poor, you're free to use your skills and talents to improve your life, but you're not free to refuse to pay taxes.

[Johnny L.A.]

Because, if you believe, like the writers of the e-mail do, that government is, at best, a necessary evil, and that people should be free to succeed or fail on their own merits,
I follow you this far. I don't agree with it, but I see the reasoning.

then expanding the role of the government and expanding the social safety net is dangerous, because it helps to isolate people from the consequences of their actions, and, by increasing the role of government, it makes them believe that it should be the role of the government to provide for their needs.

This does not follow.

I understand what you're saying: That if the government's role (through expanding the safety net) is to provide services to people, then people will come to believe that the government's role is to provide services to people. But what I don't see is this: How does this make people less free? For example, most people believe that it is the role of government to build roads. (I haven't seen anyone calling for the privatisation of all roads.) Does the government therefore take away our freedom to take Highway 99 through Central California instead of the 5? Does the government say, 'Since we provide the roads, you have to go to Las Vegas before you can go to San Diego'?

[Der Trihs]

In my understanding, I'd think they would say that if you were pushed around by your employer, you're free to quit and find a better job, and if you're poor, you're free to use your skills and talents to improve your life, but you're not free to refuse to pay taxes.In other words, they pretend that potential loss of freedom from a government helping you is important, but actual loss of freedom from anything else is not. They aren't really pro-freedom ( the opposite, if anything ); they are just anti-government.

[Little Nemo]

Because, if you believe, like the writers of the e-mail do, that government is, at best, a necessary evil, and that people should be free to succeed or fail on their own merits, then expanding the role of the government and expanding the social safety net is dangerous, because it helps to isolate people from the consequences of their actions, and, by increasing the role of government, it makes them believe that it should be the role of the government to provide for their needs.Really this is stretching the definiton of freedom past the breaking point. Even if you accept the dubious premise that there is a freedom to fail, the government is not taking it away by offering a social safety network. Anyone who wants to fail can still choose not to accept the government handouts.

[sailor]

In my understanding, I'd think they would say that if you were pushed around by your employer, you're free to quit and find a better job, and if you're poor, you're free to use your skills and talents to improve your life, but you're not free to refuse to pay taxes. So if the places where the government has least controls are the freest places then Somalia, Afghanistan and a bunch of African countries are the freest in the world whereas America is very comparable and in the same range as European countries.

In fact, some things are *more* regulated in America. In Spain you can say "fuck" on TV and show nudity as much as you like and the government will say nothing at all.

Whereas in America is you put something on TV which the government doesnt like you can go to jail for a few years.

So the notion that America is freer is just bullshit. There may be particular things which are prohibited here or there but the notion that America is "the freest country in the world" is just bullshit propaganda.

Tell me what you boast and I'll tell you what you lack and all that.

[yojimbo]

Its rare to see Czech beer for sale in the Netherlands, you dont usually find Dutch beer for sale in Germany................

What? I lived in A'Dam and you're wrong. In Dublin you can get a wide range of beers from all over the world in most off-licences and supermarkets.

Ireland has goodly taxes, big gov, religion and many other things that you could point out, but we're higher than the US in the 2009 Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/Default.aspx).

You can cherry pick this shite all day. Depending on your POV many western democracies could be held up as freer that the rest. You'll never get agreement. Also for every clueless ill-informed example we Euros will come up about the US an American will do the same for European countries.

[Johnny L.A.]

In my understanding, I'd think they would say that if you were pushed around by your employer, you're free to quit and find a better job, and if you're poor, you're free to use your skills and talents to improve your life, but you're not free to refuse to pay taxes.

How about this, then?

You have a job with health insurance. You want to move across the country, and to do that you have to quit your job. But you have a chronic or other disease, and you will not be covered under the new employer's health care policy. You cannot buy private health insurance because of your condition. (I recall one poster here saying that he or she cannot buy health insurance at any price.)

In this case you are not free. You are forced into a position of involuntary servitude.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Really this is stretching the definiton of freedom past the breaking point. Even if you accept the dubious premise that there is a freedom to fail, the government is not taking it away by offering a social safety network. Anyone who wants to fail can still choose not to accept the government handouts.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness, and the pursuit of epic fail.

[athelas]

How about this, then?

You have a job with health insurance. You want to move across the country, and to do that you have to quit your job. But you have a chronic or other disease, and you will not be covered under the new employer's health care policy. You cannot buy private health insurance because of your condition. (I recall one poster here saying that he or she cannot buy health insurance at any price.)

In this case you are not free. You are forced into a position of involuntary servitude.That is a function of our employer-linked healthcare plan, which exists for historical, not ideological, reasons, and which both 2008 Presidential candidates wanted to change.

In Europe, however, rigid labor markets mean you have less of a chance of finding a full-time job, wherever you ended up. And if you were, say, a Muslim youth in the banlieus of Paris, there are more institutional barriers to you getting a job (again, because of job protection, not discrimination per se) than if you were in the US.

[Maastricht]

Quite literally, people in the Netherlands have shorter work days, work weeks and more vacation days then comparable jobs in the USA. So have more free time on our hands = are more free. For instance, most women work a 32 hour work week or less.

[Krokodil]

Because of their parliamentary systems of government, they can (and frequently do) dissolve their governments between elections with specious votes of No Confidence. I secretly envy this about them.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

This may or may not still be true, but much of my family lives in Canada, eh (Toronto). Back in the early 70's the school day started with Christian prayers. As Jews, they felt less freedom of religion through state mandated prayer.

ETA: I think American ideas of freedom cannot be measured in actual enumerated rights. I think it's greatest impact is that the concept of freedom is woven into teh fabric of society. We are very wary of any action that seems to limit our freedom and fight very hard to ensure we have access to them. Rather than specific rights, per se, freedom heads our list list of societal priorities. That is not to say that other countries do not value freedom, but is may not be a defining more as it is here.

[athelas]

Quite literally, people in the Netherlands have shorter work days, work weeks and more vacation days then comparable jobs in the USA. So have more free time on our hands = are more free. For instance, most women work a 32 hour work week or less.On the other hand, part of that is because of job scarcity. For example, Sweden's real unemployment rate is 15% (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c18430e6-fc0b-11da-b1a1-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1). Again, Europe is a nice place to work - if you have a job and don't have to move.

And before someone trots out how GDP doesn't matter, this (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/11/xxx.html):"so what if Germany is poorer than the United States?"

It is not my belief that the Germans will be consumed with envy. I do think that a) the Germans will be missing out on some wonderful gains, b) there is no real standard for "a satisfactory level of well-being," c) a poorer Germany will be much less able to help the truly desperate parts of the world, if only by accepting immigrants, d) this is not a long-run political equilibrium in Germany, and e) at the global level, it is important that Western and European values are prominent, and this does require good or at least a decent growth performance. Furthermore it is possible to believe a)-e) without seeing status games in relatively healthy Western societies as zero or negative sum.

On growth, keep the following in mind: If we are comparing a two percentage point boost to the growth rate, and starting at real income parity, a time horizon of only 55.5 years is needed to establish a 3:1 ratio of superiority in income.

[IdahoMauleMan]

How does it make them less free?

Because they don't have a choice, dude. If they think the product the government is offering them sucks, they can't take their money and go somewhere else. The government already has their money, and there is nowhere else.

Not having a choice to do what you want with your money = not free.

Employers and entrepreneurs are considerably less free to fire workers in Europe. There are some staggering severance payment requirements in Spain and France that effectively keep uncompetitive businesses limping along for years, wasting capital, because the cost of a shutdown is even worse.

Licensing hurdles to start a business are also staggering in Europe. It is practically impossible to start a bank in Spain, for example.

There are certainly some areas where I would argue Europeans are more free, but these are usually trivial social things. Drinking in the street in London, for example. Red light districts and marijuana shops in Amsterdam. Euthanasia.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Education is another area- We have more self directed opportunities for higher ed. We do not have tracking in the same sense, and more opportunities to move from school to school. Community Colleges help studnets who want to change careers or who weren't "college material" in high school and want to change teh track of their lives.

[SenorBeef]

So the higher taxes are offset by benefits the citizens receive. How do these benefits make the citizens less free?

It may or may not be offset. If someone were better able to spend their resources to fulfill their needs, then forcing them to buy into a certain set of benefits is a loss for them - their resources did not translate into the best possible life for them.

Someone may have a different idea about what products or services they value, or they have a different idea about where to get superior quality or value. By forcing them to give up their resources to the government, which then makes the choice for them, it's quite clear they're less free to choose how they'd like to spend what they have.

This is even assuming the government has good intentions and is genuinely trying to tax in order to create a better life for its citizens. Often government works to protect the interests of the powerful at the expense of the interests of the weak.

[cckerberos]

So if the places where the government has least controls are the freest places then Somalia, Afghanistan and a bunch of African countries are the freest in the world whereas America is very comparable and in the same range as European countries.
So? All that means is that freedom is not an absolute good.

It doesn't seem all that debatable to me that, using the meaning of "freedom" common in the US, that the US is more "free" than many European countries. There are more restrictions on political speech and EU economic regulations are farther reaching. But still, on an absolute scale I wouldn't say that we're more than a notch or so apart.

In my experience Americans and Europeans are often talking past each other on this question, with Americans emphasizing the "freedom to" and Europeans emphasizing the "freedom from." The two strike me as being very different (and largely contradictory) concepts and shouldn't be equated.

This occurred to me while I was taking a graduate course on the somewhat nebulous concept of "human security." Much of the reading materials discussed things like the "freedom from hunger" or "freedom from violence" as being goals for human security. I, as an American, had always had thought that freedom and security were, as in overused Franklin quote, inherently in conflict with each other. But in a lot of these materials freedom and security were essentially interchangeable. In a sentence talking about "freedom from hunger" you could instead talk about "food security," for example.

In any case, I guess my point is that I think that in such discussions on freedom it's necessary for the OP to delineate what they mean by "freedom."

On preview: Maastricht's post is a good example of what I'm getting at. From my American perspective the amount of time someone does or does not work is completely irrelevant to how free they are.

[Captain Amazing]

Anyone who wants to fail can still choose not to accept the government handouts.

You can't choose not to pay for the government handout, though.

[Gorsnak]

There are certainly some areas where I would argue Europeans are more free, but these are usually trivial social things. Drinking in the street in London, for example. Red light districts and marijuana shops in Amsterdam. Euthanasia.

Some of us think that trivial social things like euthansia, equality for gays and lesbians, and putting a stop to drug prohibition are actually pretty important. Possibly even more important than the right to start up an unregulated bank in Spain.

[Gorsnak]

Seems a lot of the "Europe is less free" posters are operating on the assumption that the government is the only entity that limits freedom. I can't see any reason to accept this assumption.

[IdahoMauleMan]

Some of us think that trivial social things like euthansia, equality for gays and lesbians, and putting a stop to drug prohibition are actually pretty important. Possibly even more important than the right to start up an unregulated bank in Spain.

I meant trivial in the sense that - with the exception of restrictions on same-sex marriage, which you introduced, not me - you can pretty much find a way to do the other things I mentioned....even if they're technically illegal, and get away with it most of the time.

That's why I called those freedoms 'trivial'.

Try and start up an unregulated bank in Spain and see if you can get away with it.

[Johnny L.A.]

So 'freedom' means the freedom to break the law?

[Little Nemo]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness, and the pursuit of epic fail.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; or the right to fuck things up beyond all repair.

[bump]

Really this is stretching the definiton of freedom past the breaking point. Even if you accept the dubious premise that there is a freedom to fail, the government is not taking it away by offering a social safety network. Anyone who wants to fail can still choose not to accept the government handouts.

That's just it though... you're free to not take the handouts, but you're not free to pay that 50% marginal tax rate to pay for them, and IMO, that makes you less free to use your money as YOU see fit.

That's what freedom's about- having the ability to do things YOU want to do, or be protected from having others (government, other private citizens, etc...) doing things unto you.

I think there's a certain amount of looking at the US system as having more potential reward at the consequence of more potential risk, while the European system and safety net tends to remove a lot of that risk, at the cost of a certain amount of potential reward.

I'm with cckerberos- he said it better than I did when he said that the US is about "freedom to", while the Europeans are about "freedom from".

[Johnny L.A.]

I'm with cckerberos- he said it better than I did when he said that the US is about "freedom to", while the Europeans are about "freedom from".

'Freedom to' and 'Freedom from' are both 'freedom'. If I am free, should I not be able to chose?

[Little Nemo]

You can't choose not to pay for the government handout, though.So? You pay taxes in the United States and you pay taxes in Europe. Neither place has a freedom from taxes. So the question isn't whether you pay for it; the question is whether you're required to do it. And nobody's required to collect welfare, so you're free from it if you wish to be.

Anyone can invent "freedoms" and then play word games to justify anything they want as a "freedom". I think the government should pay for my health care because otherwise my freedom from being sick is infringed. I think the government should give me free beer because otherwise my freedom from sobriety is infringed. I think the government should pay my cable bill because otherwise my freedom to watch televison is infringed. And I think Libertarians should be banned because they're trying to inhibit Republicans and Democrats in their freedom to get elected.

[cckerberos]

'Freedom to' and 'Freedom from' are both 'freedom'. If I am free, should I not be able to chose?
But they're not both "freedom" if that term is to have any practical use. Unless you can come up with a definition for freedom that neatly includes both concepts?

[mecaenas]

I meant trivial in the sense that - with the exception of restrictions on same-sex marriage, which you introduced, not me - you can pretty much find a way to do the other things I mentioned....even if they're technically illegal, and get away with it most of the time.

That's why I called those freedoms 'trivial'.

Try and start up an unregulated bank in Spain and see if you can get away with it.

If your argument is that the US is more free because of its laws enshrining freedom and Europe is less free, then you can't suddenly turn around and claim "America is number 1 in its laws! Except Europe beats it in category A by law, but dont worry just break the American law. America is therefore number 1!"

If you're going to claim that law is meaningless in talking about American freedom, but law means everything when measuring European freedom - it doesn't add up, and quite frankly reeks of dishonesty and blind jingoism.

[SenorBeef]

"Freedom from" is essentially a useless concept to me. It inherently requires that you are entitled to the services of another person. You can't have a natural right that depends on the service of others. If you have "freedom from food" that means that you're entitled to have a farmer work for you. If you have "freedom from sickness" then on some small level you're enslaving a doctor. Is "freedom from not having a yacht" so fundamentally different here?

Which isn't to say that it's not necesarily a good idea for a society to collectively agree to provide these things. But to abuse the word "freedom" in this context makes it meaningless.

[mecaenas]

As for America or Europe being more or less free, I'd say it's a meaningless comparison given the breadth and depth of the cultures and countries of Europe when compared to the, by comparison, largely homogenous culture and society of the US. Just because the EU has about the same geographic area and about the same total population doesn't mean it's just like the US. There's a much bigger difference by every measure between France and Germany than Ohio and California.

As for country-to-country, I'd say by and large it's about evenly balanced and while Americans may get upset at the comparatively high level of taxes and therefore social services and safety nets, it doesn't make the English or French less free because its what their society values. An Englishman's desire to be free of illness isn't trumped by an American's freedom to spend their money with a separate company with a different logo and slightly different product.

[Revenant Threshold]

The slander and libel laws are considerable stricter in the UK (no idea about the rest of Europe, i'm afraid), to the extent that people will attempt to have their cases heard over here, if possible. So that would be a greater limit on free speech.

[Gorsnak]

I meant trivial in the sense that - with the exception of restrictions on same-sex marriage, which you introduced, not me - you can pretty much find a way to do the other things I mentioned....even if they're technically illegal, and get away with it most of the time.

That's why I called those freedoms 'trivial'.

Try and start up an unregulated bank in Spain and see if you can get away with it.

So having to fill out some forms and meet some qualifications before you can be entrusted with billions of dollars of other people's money* is a greater restriction on your freedom than being put in prison if you get caught using a recreational drug that will hurt no one but yourself? Seems a rather bizarre argument to me.

*Note that tighter bank regulations seem to have an inverse correlation with banking sectors failing spectacularly and plunging the world into prolonged recessions. One might think that reasonable measures to protect the freedom of the common folk from being fleeced by investment bankers actually increases freedom rather than decreasing it. Bit of a tradeoff, granted, but it always is.

[Johnny L.A.]

"Freedom from" is essentially a useless concept to me. It inherently requires that you are entitled to the services of another person.

What about freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Or freedom from being forced to follow the beliefs of a religion of which you are not a part?

[Maastricht]

Maybe it boils down to this:

In the USA, enterprising individuals have a lot of freedom, even to exploit other individuals;
in Europe, the masses have more freedom from being exploited by enterprising individuals.

[SenorBeef]

What about freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Or freedom from being forced to follow the beliefs of a religion of which you are not a part?

Neither requires anyone to serve you. To be free from unreasonable search and seizure is a protection against government action. To be free from hunger is to be able to force others to serve you. At this point you're playing semantics more than substance.

[Johnny L.A.]

'Freedom from hunger' also means that a person can use his energies to better himself, and by extension, society. So the farmer ultimately benefits.

[cckerberos]

'Freedom from hunger' also means that a person can use his energies to better himself, and by extension, society. So the farmer ultimately benefits.
But whether he benefits or not is unrelated to how free he is.

[XT]

So the debate is this: Except for guns (and yes, I know there are gun owners in Europe), how are the citizens of Western European nations less free than U.S. Americans?

It's fairly obvious to me at this point that you are using a different definition of the word 'freedom' than I (and others in this thread) are using. So, you might want to start off by explaining what freedom means to you...because you have been given several examples of how Europeans are 'less free' than American's in certain terms. I don't really see how this is in dispute...European's themselves acknowledge this, and are really fine with it. In fact, they WANT to trade certain freedoms in exchange for other things they (and obviously others on this board) feel are more important.

Personally, while I like (some) European countries and I have friends in several European countries, I find the level of regimentation a bit distasteful. Basically, they like the way things are in their countries...and I, by and large, like the way things are here. Which is probably why they live where they live and I live in the US...works out well, ehe?

If you ask people to explain why they think Europe is 'less free' than the US (in some instances), and they explain it to you, and they do so in a rational, non-Rah Rah Go USA!! type way, but you disagree with them, then my advice is to check your initial premise. Perhaps the problem is that they are defining 'freedom' in different terms than you are? It's a thought...

-XT

[SenorBeef]

'Freedom from hunger' also means that a person can use his energies to better himself, and by extension, society. So the farmer ultimately benefits.

As I said in a previous post, "Which isn't to say that it's not necesarily a good idea for a society to collectively agree to provide these things. But to abuse the word "freedom" in this context makes it meaningless." You seem to be confusing the idea of costs and benefits of policies with freedoms.

It may be good policy. It may be something a society can collectively agree on. But why frame it in the context of freedoms and rights when it should be debated in the context of policy, of costs and benefits?

If the government removes the ability for people to seek treatment outside their system, they've clearly restricted freedom. The taxes they use to fund the system are a restriction of economic freedom - they've decided to spend your health care dollars rather than you. It's possible this is a good thing overall, depending on the system, and the values of the society that implements it. But it's not freedom - not from a natural rights perspective.

A society in which people are left to their own devices, to spend their income on services and products they feel appropriate, rather than having it taxed and the decision made for them, all else being equal, is clearly economically freer than a country that decides what services and products you'll have. Again, this is aside from the issue of whether it's a good idea or a successful policy.

Edit: I'm not necesarily advocating the position that the US is freer than Europe, by the way, I'm just addressing the point philosophically. It once was, certainly, but the US has been going downhill fast for quite a while in this regard.

[Johnny L.A.]

So, you might want to start off by explaining what freedom means to you...

The reason I started this thread is that everyone talks about 'freedom', but they don't say what it is. In conversations with Conservatives I get the impression that they think it's something like: 'Freedom means I get to do what I want to do, and you get to do what I say you get to do.' Or: 'I get to benefit from the services our government provides, but if the government tries to make me pay for them then they're stealing.' I'll give examples. A Conservative will insist on personal freedom. But if a woman wants to exercise her personal freedom by having an abortion, she should be jailed. In the same vein, many Conservatives in this country are religious. Part of their religion says that a person becomes a person as soon as the sperm penetrates the wall of the egg. Other people disagree, often in accordance with their own religious (or non-religious) beliefs. So in effect the former insists that he be able to practice his religion as he sees fit, but other people may not if they disagree.

What about taxes? Conservatives want them lower. Libertarians want them gone. Generall it's OK to tax people to pay for police. Many Conservatives are law enforcement officers. Same with fire departments. Most agree that roads should be supported by taxes. (Though truckers complain and make it known that they pay $40,000/year in road taxes. And why not? Trucks do more damage to the roads, and they're making money by using them.) But suggest that taxes should be used to pay for a national health care system, which is beneficial to individuals and to society as a whole, and it's 'Oh, no! They want to steal my money and give it to deadbeats!' Taxes are fine as long as they benefit them directly. What they don't see is that other people also think taxes are fine for their benefit.

And yes, I know I'm speaking in generalities. But if you've read some of the posts I've read on far-right forums, you might see where I'm coming from.

I often hear that the U.S. is 'the most free country in the world', usually from people who have never been out of the country except on military deployment. So I asked how Europeans are less free than we. You're right, people have given examples. I don't think I've disputed them (the European examples). I've taken issue with other opinions though.

So getting back to your question, what does freedom mean to me? It's hard to say. We live in a society, and in any society some freedom is lost for the greater good. I should be free to keep all of the money I make; but I don't want to turn the roads over to for-profit companies and pay a road bill to each entity every time I go for a drive. I should be free to ride my motorcycle without wearing a helmet, but I know that if I am severely injured there is a cost to society. Freedom is being able to disagree with the government; to associate with whom I please; to worship or not as I see fit; to choose my profession; enjoy due process of the law; and other things.

It would be nice if Americans were free to take a vacation in Cuba if that's what we want, or for it not to be illegal to smoke a Cuban cigar in a country where Cuban cigars are legal. Americans should have the freedom to change jobs when they want to or need to, and still have medical coverage. We should be free to marry whom we wish, even if that person is of the same gender. There's room for improvement.

[Johnny L.A.]

'm not necesarily advocating the position that the US is freer than Europe, by the way, I'm just addressing the point philosophically. It once was, certainly, but the US has been going downhill fast for quite a while in this regard.

The Conservatives on other boards and IRL do take that position, and that is why I started the thread. As far as I can see, Europeans enjoy the freedoms I mentioned in my last post. Media censorship was mentioned on the first page, and that is definitely a curtailment of freedom. Holocaust denial being a crime is as well. But it still seems to me that on the whole Europeans are not less free than we are.

[SenorBeef]

A Conservative will insist on personal freedom. But if a woman wants to exercise her personal freedom by having an abortion, she should be jailed.

I'm not looking to hijack this thread by discussing the implications of this, but it amazes me that no one can seemingly even understand the main pro-life position.

The desire to have abortion outlawed doesn't stem from not believing that a woman has personal rights. It stems from the idea that the fetus is an individual, and an individual's right to life trumps a woman's desire to terminate the pregnancy. And so they think that abortion should be outlawed for the same reason infant murder should be outlawed - you're denying the individual their right to life.

So let me rephrase your statement to how emphasize they see this argument:

"A Conservative will insist on personal freedom. But if a woman wants to excercise her personal freedom by killing her 6 month old infant, she should be jailed."

The issue at the crux of the issue is not whether or not woman have rights to their own body, but if the fetus is an individual that has rights of their own.

Again, I didn't raise this point to create an abortion hijack - but rather to attempt to hopefully enlighten your misunderstanding of an apparent contradiction.

[Johnny L.A.]

Again, I didn't raise this point to create an abortion hijack - but rather to attempt to hopefully enlighten your misunderstanding of an apparent contradiction.

I understand the position. But that position is, in my opinion, largely based on religious belief.

[Nava]

So the higher taxes are offset by benefits the citizens receive. How do these benefits make the citizens less free?

Many people in the US think that people in countries with socialized health you can't choose your doctor: you can, but the misconception is widespread.

Some things which are considered "freedom of speech" in the US are banned in some European countries: burning a US flag is legal in the US but illegal in Spain (burning of flags is illegal in Spain, period, being viewed as a direct attack on the entity represented by that flag).

European anti-discrimination laws tend to be wider than the US: this translates to "less freedom to discriminate". Of course, we don't see them as a limit on the freedom of bigots, but as a protection of people (as everybody can be subject to bigotry).
In Spain our Constitutional Court decreed that the paragraph of our Constitution which indicates that certain forms of discrimination are unacceptable is "only a list of examples, the actual meaning is that people won't be discriminated by reasons which are not relevant to the matter at hand (so for example in jobs people will be selected by their ability and willingness to perform the job and not for any other reason)." In the US it is generally understood that, while it is illegal to discriminate someone who is part of a "protected group" or by specific reasons which are specifically listed in anti-discrimination laws, it is legal to discriminate by any reason which is not specified in the law. Therefore, people in the US discriminate for reasons of nationality (which is not protected) but not of national origin (which is protected); they may discriminate someone for being a nerd (not protected) but not for his religion (protected)... in Spain (at least theoretically) there is no freedom to discriminate on grounds of being a nerd.

[SenorBeef]

An atheist libertarian could easily come to the conclusion that a fetus is a life, and hence has rights. There's a large overlap on religious issues here, but they're not necesary. It's a tricky judgement call that ultimately is subjective, on which I think reasonable people can disagree. I've already taken this hijack further than I meant to ... but I still think you entirely mischaracterize the argument. Your other points are closer to a realistic view of the viewpoint you're trying to understand.

[griffin1977]

As Brit living in the states, I'd really say Britain is certainly not "less free" than the US. Obviously if you think the be-all and end-all of freedom is the right to have guns, and low taxes, then yeah the US is more free. But in most every-day ways, its clearly not.

I can't count the ways, some trivial, some less so, that impinge my life and freedoms, far more than the ability to but a firearm, or a few percentage points of tax (and it is only a few percentage points, though I do live in CA) and that wouldn't happen in the UK. A few obvious ones...

The freedom for a 20 year old adult (not that I am) to have a beer.
The ability to buy cold medicine without handing over my driving license (and having the details recorded)
The freedom to buy fireworks (not that seems to stop anyone around my neighbor, oh yeah sticking it to The Man:) ).
The freedom to have a beer while riding in the passenger seat of a car


And several that effect me less day-to-day, but on a philosophical level are pretty serious if you think about it:

The state has the right to seize my property if I am SUSPECTED of a drug crime.
I can be prosecuted for DISCUSSING the circumvention of copy-protection schemes
If I have legitimate prescription to a medicine the state deems to enjoyable i can't get it without sending TWO copies of EVERY prescription to the relevant government bodies so they can keep track of what medicine I'm taking.
Some state laws EASILY trump anything the UK has to offer when it comes to restricting freedoms, these don't effect me all that much, but are a pretty big deal for a country claiming to be the "free-est". (Anti-sodomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_States), anti-sex toy (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180191546), and anti second hand game (http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/05/29/trade-used-games-florida-get-thumbprinted)).

Not there aren't some pretty good things about the US vs Britain. As I said in the Sakozy vs Burqa thread the idea of a small set of rights that are unalienable, and enshrined in a written constitution is a really good one (and it continues to amaze me who some of the things above got past it). And the UK libel laws are a disgrace.

[XT]

A Conservative will insist on personal freedom. But if a woman wants to exercise her personal freedom by having an abortion, she should be jailed. In the same vein, many Conservatives in this country are religious. Part of their religion says that a person becomes a person as soon as the sperm penetrates the wall of the egg. Other people disagree, often in accordance with their own religious (or non-religious) beliefs. So in effect the former insists that he be able to practice his religion as he sees fit, but other people may not if they disagree.

I don't want to get into an abortion hijack, especially since I'm pro-choice anyway, but this is again an instance where you and the theoretical (or perhaps real) 'conservative' are talking past each other. Basically, someone who is pro-life is of the opinion that a fetus is a human being...so, the 'right' here would be to protect that human life. Now, you may disagree with that (myself, I'm ambiguous on the whole 'when does life begin' question), but it's a debatable point, and one that I don't think shows the hypocrisy you seem to think it does on the part of the nominal 'conservative'.

What about taxes? Conservatives want them lower. Libertarians want them gone. Generall it's OK to tax people to pay for police. Many Conservatives are law enforcement officers. Same with fire departments. Most agree that roads should be supported by taxes. (Though truckers complain and make it known that they pay $40,000/year in road taxes. And why not? Trucks do more damage to the roads, and they're making money by using them.) But suggest that taxes should be used to pay for a national health care system, which is beneficial to individuals and to society as a whole, and it's 'Oh, no! They want to steal my money and give it to deadbeats!' Taxes are fine as long as they benefit them directly. What they don't see is that other people also think taxes are fine for their benefit.

Again, you are talking past those trying to make the point here. Basically, what you are saying is that you are willing to give up the freedom of having more money in your pocket for a greater good...paying for roads or a national health care system or whatever. That's great...but, you don't seem to understand that you are less 'free' (though perhaps more secure, depending on your situation) if the government is deciding how best to spend the money you earn. The rub here is that European's acknowledge this (when they think about it)...and they prefer the tangible security over the dubious 'freedom'. You seem to agree. It's still an example where you are less 'free', however...since others are deciding what to do with your money, and ultimately what's best for you.

And yes, I know I'm speaking in generalities. But if you've read some of the posts I've read on far-right forums, you might see where I'm coming from.

I don't generally frequent right-wing type boards, but I've certainly heard stuff like you are describing before. It all hinges on what you think 'freedom' is, and where you set the priorities for what is important to you. Also, in general, you can find instances that could go either way...like your Cuba example. Personally I think it's moot, since the US seems to be moving slowly to a more European like (and THERE is a generality for you) system. Ironically, I think Europe in the last 20 odd years has moved more towards and American type system, but that's neither here nor there. Ultimately though we will never be just like they are...and they will never be just like we are. Too many people in the US are opposed to the regimented system that the Euro's seem to prefer, while 'Europe' is a pretty diverse place...but by and large, depending on where you are looking, they seem to like things the way they are there. They are willing to give up certain freedoms that we aren't...and vice versa.

I often hear that the U.S. is 'the most free country in the world', usually from people who have never been out of the country except on military deployment. So I asked how Europeans are less free than we. You're right, people have given examples. I don't think I've disputed them (the European examples). I've taken issue with other opinions though.

Just FTR, I think trying to play the 'who is most free' game is a no win situation.

Examples I'd use would be things like freedom of speech (there are some fairly serious restrictions on what you can and can't publish, or even talk about, depending on where in 'Europe' one is checking), search and seizure type laws (again, depending on which country we are talking about...and it's just different, not really a case of which is better), taxes and social programs type issues, and just the general regimentation (mostly not even enforced from the government side...just social customs and mores of the people there). Just a quick example (though I don't know if it's still true), when I was in Germany, I was told you could get a traffic ticket for being rude (or making a rude gesture or even a face) to another motorist. This is something the German's just seem to take in stride...but something that folks in the US would probably balk at if it was actually enforced. Sure, you might say that the 'freedom' to flip someone off is not really important...but it shows a level of daily regementation that would be unacceptable to many American's. And there are such seemingly small examples in several European countries that add up 'less free', depending on how you look at it.

We live in a society, and in any society some freedom is lost for the greater good.

You said it all right there. We give up freedoms for the greater good. European's give up some things American's consider 'freedoms' because they feel it makes them more secure, it's for the greater good, it simplifies their lives...or, because that's the way they have always done things. We make similar calculations here...such as the gun issue you didn't want to bring up. Capital punishment would be another example, I suppose...here the state can, in theory at least, take your life. European's, depending on which country you are talking about, have a 'freedom' from the state being able to do this.

So, when you talk to your conservative friend and s/he says that Europe is 'less free' than the US, instead of debating the point, simply say something along the lines of 'life is full of trade offs', and point out that most European's are quite happy with the way things are...the one's who were unhappy probably moved to the US already. ;)

It would be nice if Americans were free to take a vacation in Cuba if that's what we want, or for it not to be illegal to smoke a Cuban cigar in a country where Cuban cigars are legal. Americans should have the freedom to change jobs when they want to or need to, and still have medical coverage. We should be free to marry whom we wish, even if that person is of the same gender. There's room for improvement.

Being less or more free really has nothing to do with whether or not there is room for improvement. Certainly there is room for improvement in the US (and I, for one, welcome our Cuban overlords....if they bring me boxes of fine Cuban cigars). There is a hell of a lot of room for improvement in Europe too...things only LOOK all rosy and great there (to some lefties). In fact, arguably 'Europe' has MORE problems than the US does....and ironically, there are a lot of European's (and what passes for the right-wing there) who wish they were more like the US. At any rate, the grass only LOOKS greener, depending on which side of the fence you are on, and who's doing the looking. And who has to cut the grass.

-XT

[ruadh]

Capital punishment would be another example, I suppose...here the state can, in theory at least, take your life. European's, depending on which country you are talking about, have a 'freedom' from the state being able to do this.

Pretty much all of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Europe).

Just to throw in my two cents as an American expat in Europe, I think it's safe to say that the US places a higher premium ideologically on individual freedom, although that doesn't always translate to its actual practices, particularly where sexuality is concerned. And there are little things like the Patriot Act that make Europeans laugh out loud when Americans start going on about how free their country is. griffin1977 nailed a few others.

This also comes down in a lot of ways to how you define "freedom". In the US it seems to be wrapped up in laissez-faire economics (and, for some, guns). That's just not the be-all and end-all of what Europeans see as freedom.

[Der Trihs]

To be free from hunger is to be able to force others to serve you.And to NOT "be free from hunger" means you are the slave of anyone who will feed you. This sort of argument is just another attempt to pretend that government , and the government alone takes freedom away. While other institutions or people are given a pass.

Having all your decisions mandated by necessity isn't free. Having someone abuse you or run your life because you work for them and can't quit without starving isn't freedom. Dying because you don't have enough money isn't free.

An atheist libertarian could easily come to the conclusion that a fetus is a life, and hence has rights.
Only if he's a woman hater. The anti-abortion movement is about the hatred of women, and little else. That definition of a fetus as a being deserving rights equal or superior to the mother is a twisted one that contradicts reality, and the rest of our laws and definitions of what a person is; it is a tailor made definition that has no purpose but the infliction of harm upon women. And no, it's not intended to protect the fetus; the anti-abortionists have never should any actual concern for children, born or unborn. Just in punishing women.

[ivan astikov]

I'm not looking to hijack this thread by discussing the implications of this, but it amazes me that no one can seemingly even understand the main pro-life position.

The desire to have abortion outlawed doesn't stem from not believing that a woman has personal rights. It stems from the idea that the fetus is an individual, and an individual's right to life trumps a woman's desire to terminate the pregnancy. And so they think that abortion should be outlawed for the same reason infant murder should be outlawed - you're denying the individual their right to life.

And how many people who don't believe in abortion are there who celebrate the life of their child from the moment it was conceived? They are called "Birthdays" for a reason, ya know! [/hijack over]

[sailor]

Freedom of expression in America: up to a point.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7414675

6 Years in Prison for Airing Hezbollah TV in NYC
TV station distributor who aired Hezbollah channel in NY sentenced to nearly 6 years in prison

A Pakistani immigrant described by prosecutors as "Hezbollah's man in New York City" was sentenced Thursday to nearly six years in prison for airing the militant group's television station.

U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman handed down a sentence of five years and nine months to Javed Iqbal, who had pleaded guilty in December to providing aid to a terrorist organization.

Iqbal, 45, admitted as part of a plea agreement that he used satellite dishes on his Staten Island home to distribute broadcasts of Al Manar, the TV station of the Lebanon-based Hezbollah, which has been fighting Israel since the early 1980s and has been branded by the U.S. government as a terrorist group.
...
Iqbal's lawyer, Josh Dratel, said his client didn't intend to aid Hezbollah as he tried to build his Brooklyn-based satellite television company, HDTV Limited. You are free to express your opinions as long as they do not conflict with those of the US government, in which case you are off to jail.

[JThunder]

And to NOT "be free from hunger" means you are the slave of anyone who will feed you.No, it doesn't. It means that you get to choose who will feed you, provided that you can and do have the funds to pay for their goods and services.

"But what if you don't have the funds?" one might reply. That's a difficult situation that I think we can all sympathize with. It also explains why the government should facilitate the development of jobs and a strong economy. Whatever the case though, the government does not (and should not!) guarantee financial security for every individual. To do so would be to curtail the individual freedoms of those who earn money through honest hard work and/or accumulate it through cautious spending and sound investment strategies. It would also be completely impractical and would open up the floodgates for abuse.

[JThunder]

And how many people who don't believe in abortion are there who celebrate the life of their child from the moment it was conceived? They are called "Birthdays" for a reason, ya know! [/hijack over]
Of course. Birthdays mark the day of one's birth. They are not intended to demarcate the beginning of one's life.

Which means that this objection/hijack is irrelevant to the question of one's personal liberties.

[Johnny L.A.]

*urgh* Just woke up. Not awake enough to continue right now.

I'll be posting less during the week because of my schedule, but I appreciate the responses so far.

[IdahoMauleMan]

So having to fill out some forms and meet some qualifications before you can be entrusted with billions of dollars of other people's money* is a greater restriction on your freedom than being put in prison if you get caught using a recreational drug that will hurt no one but yourself? Seems a rather bizarre argument to me.



Yes, of course. That's how it works. Thanks for educating me.

An enterprising individual thinks 'Hmmm. I'd like to start a bank, employ some people, and inject a little competition into a moribund, inefficient system dominated by 4 large players and government-run Cajas (savings banks). Billions of dollars will just, you know, sort of appear on my doorstep... because those customers will somehow have their money magically ported over and entrusted to me.' (Entrusted by whom is unclear from your post)

Then the government says, 'No, you have to fill out some forms first'.

And then the enterprising individual says 'Oh rats. That's too much work. Forget it'.

Thanks for the primer. I was totally mistaken.

[Isamu]

A bit of a hijack, but why is this debate limited to Europe vs the USA? Is it automatically assumed that every place besides Europe or the USA enjoys less 'freedom'?

If you feel so, I'm almost certainly sure you're wrong.

[Bryan Ekers]

For example?

I can't recall ever seeing a jar of Baconaise in a Canadian supermarket.


Ironically, at this exact moment I'm watching a documentary (well, a self-congratulatory puff piece) called Escape to Canada, which at first glance I thought was about the underground railroad but is actually about looser rules on marijuana in Canada, AWOL soldiers from the U.S. military fleeing to Canada, and gay Americans getting married in Canada... sooner or later they'll probably talk about health care in Canada, or maybe they did already and I missed it.

[Johnny L.A.]

A bit of a hijack, but why is this debate limited to Europe vs the USA?

And Canada. I intended to mention it but forgot to.

I wanted to avoid people pointing to, for example, North Korea and Myanmar.

[Gorsnak]

Yes, of course. That's how it works. Thanks for educating me.

An enterprising individual thinks 'Hmmm. I'd like to start a bank, employ some people, and inject a little competition into a moribund, inefficient system dominated by 4 large players and government-run Cajas (savings banks). Billions of dollars will just, you know, sort of appear on my doorstep... because those customers will somehow have their money magically ported over and entrusted to me.' (Entrusted by whom is unclear from your post)

Then the government says, 'No, you have to fill out some forms first'.

And then the enterprising individual says 'Oh rats. That's too much work. Forget it'.

Thanks for the primer. I was totally mistaken.
Pleasure to be of service.

Look, if you want to make a real argument for why regulated banking is a more serious restriction on personal freedom than drug prohibition, go right ahead. But saying, "I don't get caught when I get high," just doesn't cut it. It doesn't explain how bank regulations, which are in place to protect the public from the theft and malfeasance of gargantuan proportions that are possible in the banking industry, significantly restrict personal freedom. And it doesn't explain the many thousands of inmates in prison for drug-related offenses.

[Martin Hyde]

So the debate is this: Except for guns (and yes, I know there are gun owners in Europe), how are the citizens of Western European nations less free than U.S. Americans?

Something that must be understood is different societies value things differently. I think that "on the whole" Western Europe and the United States are about as free as we can reasonably expect a modern country to be, more or less. Different societies are going to value some freedoms and not value others, that is inevitable and it's foolish to act as though there wouldn't be areas where "Europe is less free" than the United States just as it is foolish to act as though there are areas where "America is less free than Europe."

As others have mentioned in this thread, Europe tends to be less free in terms of free speech of a political nature. In America there is really no sort of political speech, no matter how odious, that can be legally prohibited. If you want to run a Neo-Nazi Magazine that blasts the Jews, calls for their enslavement, and denies the Holocaust on a bi-monthly basis you can do that in the United States. You'll be very unpopular and possibly gain the attention of the FBI. However you won't be arrested and you won't go to prison if all you are doing is printing it.

America also seems to be freer in terms of depicting violence in video games. I know that in several European countries there is prohibition on the amount of blood and gore that can be in a video game. I'm not sure if it is on the level of statutory prohibitions or if it is just a side effect of a sort of voluntary regulatory body that companies need to appease out of business concerns.

On the flip side America is less free in terms of depicting sex and nudity on screen and in video games than most of the other countries in the modern Western world.

A few things people often forget about European countries is that many of them have monarchs as their ceremonial Head of State. In the United States we get to choose our Head of State in an election, in say, Norway or the United Kingdom it is based on hereditary lineage. This is not a big "freedom" that Norwegians or Brits have given up, because their respective monarchs have no "real" power. However in the U.S. we do get to choose our Head of State (who also happens to wield both the ceremonial duties as well as the actual power of a Head of Government.)

Several European states also have official state churches, which receive funding from the government to the exclusion of other churches. This is strictly forbidden in the United States. Again, this isn't as big a deal as it might sound on a day to day basis but there's no way you can really argue it isn't an example of a European country being "less free" on a certain area.

There is a flip side to it though, in at least several European countries with official state churches those churches have to provide services to people. The official state church of Denmark for example, (at least if my memory serves) can't deny performing a marriage ceremony for a couple on any grounds.

[Martin Hyde]

I think most people that aren't looking to try and "disprove" annoying chain letters they get from conservative friends would definitely agree that less control over your personal income is less freedom.

Just as an example, let's take the case of a sixteen year old.

If a sixteen year old works part time at a grocery store bagging groceries that teenager's parents can actually mandate how he does or does not spend his money. They can say "you need to put half of your paycheck in savings each week" while the teen may want to spend it all on video games.

Now, just because the parents are probably wiser, just because they do probably know best, and just because their rules are actually "better" for the child doesn't mean the child hasn't lost some freedom.

One of the big differences between being a child and being an adult is as an adult you have much more freedom to run your life as you see fit--and this includes running into the ground and falling flat on your face.

Social services, even if they are a good idea both economically and [/b]in terms of policy[/b] are still essentially supplanting one's parents with the government and making children of the population. I have no problem with some degree of this, I have a problem with certain degrees of this, and I think Europeans are the same way. Europeans are just open to more of a nanny state and Americans open to less, but we're on the same "spectrum" just different parts of it, it isn't like we're on totally different wavelengths in this regard.

Freedom doesn't = "good." Absolute freedom is absolute hell, essentially. Government exists precisely because of the fact that some of man's freedom must be restricted and limited. When we were hunter gatherers there was little need for such institutional rules, if a member of a hunter gathering group was particularly harmful to the group as a whole he could just be driven out. When we live in settled and densely populated societies there has to be rules, and rules mean less freedom. That doesn't mean rules aren't good.

I do feel that there is no such thing as a true freedom unless you're "born" with it. I don't feel there is any philosophical validity to the concept of "freedom from hunger" or "freedom to change jobs while keeping medical insurance coverage."

I think in a lot of ways you can look back to hunter-gatherer man and get at what "the true natural" freedoms are. Our ancestors had no such "freedom from hunger." They had the wits they were born with and the skills they were trained to acquire food, they had no right to it and they had no guarantee of it. They had no guarantee of anything like that other than what they went out and earned themselves.

Hunter gatherer man could say what he wanted and think what he wanted, he could go where he wanted and do what he wanted. However, back then and just like today every action has consequences.

I think you're definitely born with a freedom to do stupid things, and that freedom is one of the most important freedoms in terms of the advancement of the human race and the advancement of the individual. A parent can tell you a hundred times not to touch a hot stove but one time touching it will teach you better than all the verbal warnings combined.

To go back to the example of medical care. In a state controlled medical system I have no choice in whether or not I "pay in" but the government gets a great deal of control over how I draw my benefits. If I want to seek treatment from a witch doctor who charges $10,000/visit I doubt very many state-run health care programs would allow this. What if I think a witch doctor is what will cure me? I'd be stupid and wrong, but when government gets to decide for me what stupid things I can do and what stupid things I can't do (with my own money) it is taking a freedom away from me. This isn't something I have a huge problem with because freedoms must be abandoned to make society work.

[MLS]

As for America or Europe being more or less free, I'd say it's a meaningless comparison given the breadth and depth of the cultures and countries of Europe when compared to the, by comparison, largely homogenous culture and society of the US. Just because the EU has about the same geographic area and about the same total population doesn't mean it's just like the US. There's a much bigger difference by every measure between France and Germany than Ohio and California...
Hold the phone, there. Yes, there are significant cultural differences between the various European countries. The differences between, say, New England and Alabama are just as large, except for the fact that people in both areas speak (mostly) the same language.

[sailor]

As others have mentioned in this thread, Europe tends to be less free in terms of free speech of a political nature. In America there is really no sort of political speech, no matter how odious, that can be legally prohibited. If you want to run a Neo-Nazi Magazine that blasts the Jews, calls for their enslavement, and denies the Holocaust on a bi-monthly basis you can do that in the United States. You'll be very unpopular and possibly gain the attention of the FBI. However you won't be arrested and you won't go to prison if all you are doing is printing it. I just posted a cite upthread which proves otherwise. I have cited this several times on this board and it is always totally ignored.

The fact is than in America you are not going to get anywhere good if you have anything positive to say about America's enemies. Nazis today are not American enemies. But try publishing anything which says anything positive of America's enemies and you'll be accused of aiding terrorists.

[Sam Stone]

'Freedom' is not a difficult concept. The reason we're arguing over the meaning is that there are too many people on the left who are attempting to hijack the word and the concept to avoid being seen as wanting to restrict freedom.

'Freedom from hunger' as a concept for real freedom is an almost Orwellian twisting of words.

Tell you what: Let's call Guantanamo Bay a 'Freedom Colony'. After all, the people there are free to live without having to work, they have freedom from hunger, freedom from having to find shelter, freedom to lounge around their 'freedom rooms' without having to think about how to sustain themselves. Why, it's a veritable libertarian paradise!

[sailor]

'Freedom' is not a difficult concept. The reason we're arguing over the meaning is that there are too many people on the left who are attempting to hijack the word and the concept to avoid being seen as wanting to restrict freedom.

'Freedom from hunger' as a concept for real freedom is an almost Orwellian twisting of words. Freedom is the real capacity to choose. Some here define it only as freedom from the government. Again, if you defne it like that then Somalia, Afghanistan and similar places are the freest on earth.

The government and the long arm of the law are necessary in making real freedom effective and for that they lay rules which restrict certain freedoms but enhance others. By decreeing that everyone must drive on the right they curtail my freedom to drive on the left but it enhances everyone's real freedom to drive, including mine. Saying the opposite is just silly.

Restricting oneself to theoretical political freedoms from government is just as silly. There are other actors out there besides the government.

[Martin Hyde]

I just posted a cite upthread which proves otherwise. I have cited this several times on this board and it is always totally ignored.

The fact is than in America you are not going to get anywhere good if you have anything positive to say about America's enemies. Nazis today are not American enemies. But try publishing anything which says anything positive of America's enemies and you'll be accused of aiding terrorists.

The reason people probably aren't responding to your news article is because you say one thing and then the news article says another. No one was arrested for exercising free speech, someone was arrested for having illegal ties to an organization that is on an official list of terrorist organizations here in the United States.

Because of the strange statement you make and the contradictory news article you posted I think you have an urge to open up a general debate about that specific issue. I think if so you should do it and as a community we'd be able to explore it further, but I think most posters aren't interested in a complete aside in this thread.

It is worth noting we have certainly arrested people for giving both material and political support to the enemy in times of war. For example the leader of the German-American Bund was arrested prior to the U.S. involvement in World War II; although it was for embezzlement. We've also locked people up in camps who we felt might be sympathizers with the enemy (the same guy who was convicted of embezzlement was eventually put in an internment camp and deported to Germany after the war.)

That's not really very similar to what happened with the guy in your article.

[sailor]

He was sentenced to "nearly six years in prison for airing the militant group's television station". That's what the article says.

[griffin1977]

No one was arrested for exercising free speech, someone was arrested for having illegal ties to an organization that is on an official list of terrorist organizations here in the United States.


But the "ties" were that he broadcast their television station. He didn't send them money or explosives, or give them any physical support. He just broadcast images and sounds.

[Martin Hyde]

Just as a quick addendum, other people broadcast streams of Al-Manar here in the United States and do not get arrested. Where it seems that Mr. Iqbal crossed the line is when he started airing it as part of his for-profit business and was essentially engaging in profit and trade with a terrorist entity. Keep in mind not only was Mq. Iqbal selling the stream to his customers he was also being paid over $20,000 a month by Al-Manar to stream their content over his satellite service.

While I don't know what the relevant statutes are, I would not be surprised at all if this fell under the same sort of umbrella that doing business with Iraq under Hussein would have, or any other country or illegal organization that Americans are not allowed to do business with.

As your linked article shows there are First Amendment exceptions to some of these laws and the judge in the case ruled they didn't apply here. Most every country on earth has varying relations with the rest of the world. German companies aren't allowed to do business with certain organizations and states, same goes for French companies, Italian companies and et cetera. Obviously the list of "prohibited" varies from state to state based on a wide variety of things.

Edit to add: You should read the rest of the article you linked, sailor.

[Martin Hyde]

So a quick review:

Streaming Al-Manar for pure information dissemination purposes: probably won't get you arrested.

Streaming Al-Manar in an arrangement with Hezbollah in which you are being paid $28,000/monthly, as part of an organized recruitment drive for Hezbollah: probably will get you arrested.

There are issues of intent and financial transaction that seem to play a big element in what will get you arrested. If you read the linked article you would note that Iqbal's supporters even point out that other people stream Al-Manar and do not get arrested.

As yet another example, if I found an Al-Qaeda recruitment video and hosted it on a website I doubt I'd get arrested. If Al-Qaeda paid me to do it and I did it to help them recruit, I can bet I'd end up arrested.

[GIGObuster]

That's somehow "less free" than being crushed into poverty ? Or being dependent upon some employer ? What makes employers pushing you around more free than a government doing so ?

In my understanding, I'd think they would say that if you were pushed around by your employer, you're free to quit and find a better job, and if you're poor, you're free to use your skills and talents to improve your life, but you're not free to refuse to pay taxes.

It works beautifully in theory, but not in practice.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE54O4K120090526
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Countless workers in the United States are trapped in jobs they would like to leave because they cannot get health insurance elsewhere, calcifying innovation and mobility in the world's largest economy.

Daunted by health-care costs, a would-be technology entrepreneur in Texas decides not to start her own business. A communications expert in Washington decides not to strike out on his own. And a freelance magazine editor in Brooklyn decides to take a less satisfying corporate job.

"I would rather be freelancing, no question," said Jessica Tolliver, a former editor who now works in public relations. "I got my work done in less time, because once I finished what I had to do, the time was my own."

Economists call this phenomenon "job lock," and studies suggest that it keeps between 20 percent and 50 percent of workers from leaving their current jobs.

Because health insurance is tied to employment in the United States, workers who leave their jobs can see health bills skyrocket if they strike out on their own or take a position with a company that offers fewer benefits. Workers who would like to retire early stay on, unable to qualify for the government's Medicare program until they turn 65.

And those who have existing health problems may not be able to get coverage at all.

Job lock is difficult to measure because many employees don't like to advertise their unhappiness. But economists and small-business advocates say it takes an enormous toll on productivity.

SLOWING INNOVATION

"We can definitely say that it's slowing down the rate of innovation," said Tim Kane, an economist with the Kauffman Foundation which promoted entrepreneurship.

Yes, it has to be said again, the current health care in America makes sense only to a medieval feudal lord.

Even if the point is made that it was a historical accident that business are the ones offering heath care, the reality is that big businesses now know that heath care is a great way of putting a leash on their workers and putting artificial limits to the growth of small companies that have a hell of a time affording good talent.

It is that freedom to start or move to other companies that is despised by many big companies, especially heath care companies.

[griffin1977]

Just as a quick addendum, other people broadcast streams of Al-Manar here in the United States and do not get arrested. Where it seems that Mr. Iqbal crossed the line is when he started airing it as part of his for-profit business and was essentially engaging in profit and trade with a terrorist entity. Keep in mind not only was Mq. Iqbal selling the stream to his customers he was also being paid over $20,000 a month by Al-Manar to stream their content over his satellite service.


That may have been the reason they choose to prosecute him rather than someone else. But it was NOT what the law he was sentenced for, simply broadcasting the opinions of Hezbollah is enough to go to jail.

[Marienee]

That may have been the reason they choose to prosecute him rather than someone else. But it was NOT what the law he was sentenced for, simply broadcasting the opinions of Hezbollah is enough to go to jail.

Well, the problem in this case is that we have no idea whether that would have been the evidence nor whether he would have gone to jail. This is because despite having the NYCLU represent him at least as to his first amendment defense, he pled. As did at least one associate. (http://www.javno.com/en-world/nj-man-sentenced-to-17-months-for-aiding-hezbollah_267240).

So he knew what his sentence would be. He did not stand up in court and swear that he simply broadcast the opinions of Hezbollah; he stood up in court and swore that he provided material supprt to Hezbollah in exchange for money.

It may be that the two of them did not want to roll the dice despite being unjustly charged; it could also be that there is more evidence than what is contained in these stories. We will never know, because they pled.

But it is misleading to say that they were innocents imprisioned for mere political speech. Possibly they were. But that is not what they said when they made the plea deal.

[griffin1977]

So he knew what his sentence would be. He did not stand up in court and swear that he simply broadcast the opinions of Hezbollah; he stood up in court and swore that he provided material supprt to Hezbollah in exchange for money.


And the "support" he provided was the broadcasting of images and sound, not guns or bombs. Whether or not just getting money from Hezbollah was a crime in and of itself (interesting point, though not related to OP, is RECEIVING money from terrorists as illegal as GIVING money to terrorists), the crime he was sentence for was broadcasting the OPINIONS of a group of people we find objectionable.

[Marienee]

No. The crime he pled guilty to was providing material support to hezbollah in its recruiting and money raising efforts in exchange for money.

Receiving money from terrorists for helping them recruit baby terrorists and and raise money to pay for their terrorist activities is as illegal as giving money to terrorists, yes.

To get back to the thread, Al-Manar is not banned in the Netherlands. However, they do not have a license to broadcast here so you still have to go on the internet to see it. This is as good an illustration of the cultural differences as any: just like in America, without that messy confrontation thing.

[aruvqan]

Less of a selection of certain consumer goods in supermarkets and other stores?

This is more pronounced in some countries than others, and is not (to me) a big deal............

ETA---This is probably not really much of an example such as Johnny L.A. was looking for. (sorry)

Nope, at least not in Germany ... just as a wild ass example, in the US we have maybe 20 companies making 50 flavors of soup, in Germany they have about 15 companies making a few hundred flavors of soup .... [hyperbole of course]

I loved shopping at the Real in Boblingen ... in the meat department you could buy enough chopped beef/lamb/pork/poultry to make a single burger or enough for a party, a single dainty lamb chop, a single chicken leg to the whole lamb or chicken ... and not as a special order. More kinds of sausage than you can imagine, fresh, preserved, frozen. Soups out the wazoo in every flavor imaginable in cans or in add water and cook pouches. Fresh or canned or preserved fruits and veggies - I saw hearts of palm, white asparagus, purple asparagus, celery, cabbage as canned or pickled veggies ... all sorts of dairy ...

To be honest, I would rather grocery shop there than pretty much anywhere in the US.

And that isn't even getting into the butchers in Gaetringen who made his sausage fresh every morning .... or the victualenmarket in Munich ...

[sailor]

No. The crime he pled guilty to was providing material support to hezbollah in its recruiting and money raising efforts in exchange for money.

Receiving money from terrorists for helping them recruit baby terrorists and and raise money to pay for their terrorist activities is as illegal as giving money to terrorists, yes. Of course, that fine, but then don't give me the bullshit argument that speech is sacrosanct in America. In America airing Hezbolla TV is considered "supporting terrorism" so why is not the same as Germany prohibitting Nazi speech?

Of course in America you can use this argument with any group the government does not like: They are aiding America's enemies. So it is not their speech, it is that they are aiding our enemies. It doesn't matter if they are communists or what.

[griffin1977]

No. The crime he pled guilty to was providing material support to hezbollah in its recruiting and money raising efforts in exchange for money.
Not according to the link you posted:

After initially pleading innocent, Saleh Elahwal changed his plea to guilty and said that between about September 2005 and August 2006 he helped provide satellite transmission services through New York-based HDTV Ltd to the Beirut-based channel in return for thousands of dollars in payment.

[sailor]

Also, American forfeiture laws are an anomaly which does not stand scrutiny.

[jjimm]

Hold the phone, there. Yes, there are significant cultural differences between the various European countries. The differences between, say, New England and Alabama are just as large, except for the fact that people in both areas speak (mostly) the same language.I know this is all subjective, but I really really do not think one could possibly claim that, for example, the people of Little Trumpington-on-the-Marsh are as similar to the people of Tirana, as the people in Norwalk are to those in Montgomery.

Statements like this make me scratch my head. Yes, the US is diverse, but in Europe it's not just a language, it's thousands of years of culture and history.

[NoSuchThingAsAFreeLunch]

So the higher taxes are offset by benefits the citizens receive. How do these benefits make the citizens less free?

Your argument is certainly flawed. According to the tax foundation, the top 1% of tax payers payed 39.9% of all federal income taxes, while earning 22.1% of the gross income.* The current American Federal government spends the majority of its money on the lowest earners, due to a very pro-poor system. Clearly this example contradicts your assertion that taxes are offset by benefits.

Secondly, any power the government has is "legal" and absolute if you are unwilling to go against the law. A lower tax system, with free market, has no "absolutes" in its power.

Certainly all systems have corruption, "unfairness", and abuses. Yet America with some of the lower taxes, and highest level of economic freedom, is consistently highly ranked by freedomhouse.org in its annual report. I would argue that economic is the largest, if not the only type of freedom that truly exist. How do I have the right to how something is used, without the ownership of said thing?

*http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

[sailor]

I would argue that economic is the largest, if not the only type of freedom that truly exist. That is just ridiculous.

[Martin Hyde]

That may have been the reason they choose to prosecute him rather than someone else. But it was NOT what the law he was sentenced for, simply broadcasting the opinions of Hezbollah is enough to go to jail.

Like I said I don't know the statute involved because none of the articles listed referenced them in a way that I could easily check. If you know for a fact that simply repeating Hezbollah opinions is a criminal act please link me the statute, I've been interested in reading it since I was first made aware of this news item in this thread.

[NoSuchThingAsAFreeLunch]

That is just ridiculous.

Instead of flaming could you tell me why you would argue/say that?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Certainly all systems have corruption, "unfairness", and abuses. Yet America with some of the lower taxes, and highest level of economic freedom, is consistently highly ranked by freedomhouse.org in its annual report. I would argue that economic is the largest, if not the only type of freedom that truly exist. How do I have the right to how something is used, without the ownership of said thing?
Freedom House was founded by the Roosevelts, is based in New York, and receives the majority of its funding (80%) from the US federal government. Might be a touch biased.
Instead of flaming could you tell me why you would argue/say that?
Well, taking the most basic approach, one could argue that economic freedom is pretty useless if you're dead or incarcerated.

sailor, what did you mean about US forfeiture laws?

[Johnny L.A.]

Your argument is certainly flawed. According to the tax foundation, the top 1% of tax payers payed 39.9% of all federal income taxes, while earning 22.1% of the gross income.* The current American Federal government spends the majority of its money on the lowest earners, due to a very pro-poor system. Clearly this example contradicts your assertion that taxes are offset by benefits.

Does this take into account wages, productivity, savings to businesses, revenue generated by more productive workers, etc.?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Hold the phone, there. Yes, there are significant cultural differences between the various European countries. The differences between, say, New England and Alabama are just as large, except for the fact that people in both areas speak (mostly) the same language.
Except that the people of New England and Alabama spend the same currency, salute the same flag, vote for the same Presidential candidates, insert objects into orifices approved by the same Supreme Court, wear the same uniform if they join the military, watch most of the same television shows, and hear music kindly selected on their behalf by ClearChannel.

[NoSuchThingAsAFreeLunch]

Freedom House was founded by the Roosevelts, is based in New York, and receives the majority of its funding (80%) from the US federal government. Might be a touch biased.

Well, taking the most basic approach, one could argue that economic freedom is pretty useless if you're dead or incarcerated.

sailor, what did you mean about US forfeiture laws?

Your point about Freedom house is certainly valid, but the argument in question, that economic freedom is the basis for most freedom, isn't exactly proven wrong by the fact that dead people arent "free".

[Really Not All That Bright]

Does this take into account wages, productivity, savings to businesses, revenue generated by more productive workers, etc.?
If you assume that all Medicaid, Medicare, welfare, and Social Security payments go to somebody other than the top 1% of wage earners, then yes. Those programs eat just over half of the total federal budget. See here. (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ef/US_budget_2007.svg/530px-US_budget_2007.svg.png&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_budget_2007.svg&h=600&w=530&sz=43&tbnid=Y8qTArZwkw3UtM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=119&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dus%2Bbudget&usg=__6gqwPBfsLmT6P4IDyaw9RC9HS3Y=&ei=aDZRSsGDKpmetwf_oPykBA&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=5&ct=image)

[Götterfunken]

I know this is all subjective, but I really really do not think one could possibly claim that, for example, the people of Little Trumpington-on-the-Marsh are as similar to the people of Tirana, as the people in Norwalk are to those in Montgomery.

Statements like this make me scratch my head. Yes, the US is diverse, but in Europe it's not just a language, it's thousands of years of culture and history.I have to agree. Having spent some time in all of the examples MLS offers--Alabama and New England; Germany and France--the cultural differences between the two European nations are, to my mind, far more evident than those between the two American states. People in Montgomery may move a little slower than people in Boston; they might say "Coke" instead of "soda." But those difference are quaint compared to the fundamental differences in perspective--dare I say, Weltanschauung--between the French and the Germans.

[Really Not All That Bright]

...the argument in question, that economic freedom is the basis for most freedom, isn't exactly proven wrong by the fact that dead people arent "free".
Sure it is. Nobody could possibly argue that a guy who is murdered by his government is more free than a guy whose assets are seized by his government.

[NoSuchThingAsAFreeLunch]

Sure it is. Nobody could possibly argue that a guy who is murdered by his government is more free than a guy whose assets are seized by his government.

How is one example of a loss of freedom a counter example to another?

[Really Not All That Bright]

How is one example of a loss of freedom a counter example to another?
Who said anything about a counter example? I simply asked which man is more free.

If you think freedom is an absolute, and you either have it or you don't, you're in the wrong thread, aren't you?

[foolsguinea]

If your argument is that the US is more free because of its laws enshrining freedom and Europe is less free, then you can't suddenly turn around and claim "America is number 1 in its laws! Except Europe beats it in category A by law, but dont worry just break the American law. America is therefore number 1!"

If you're going to claim that law is meaningless in talking about American freedom, but law means everything when measuring European freedom - it doesn't add up, and quite frankly reeks of dishonesty and blind jingoism.I love you.

[Johnny L.A.]

The week is about to start, and it's going to be busy; so I'll have to bow out.

Thank you to everyone who has answered -- on both sides. The discussion has been enlightening.

[BrainGlutton]

If the government is taking care of them, that makes them less free, because it makes them dependent on the government to take care of their needs.

:confused: I cannot be sure of being able to take care of my own future health-care needs out-of-pocket -- I need either private health insurance or public health insurance. How does dealing with a government bureaucracy for that purpose make me any less "free" than dealing with a corporate bureaucracy? Thank you, I'll take whichever offers the most comprehensive and trouble-free benefits at the least personal cost to a person at my income level, and based on global experience, government insurance wins that contest hands down.

[sailor]

Like I said I don't know the statute involved because none of the articles listed referenced them in a way that I could easily check. If you know for a fact that simply repeating Hezbollah opinions is a criminal act please link me the statute, I've been interested in reading it since I was first made aware of this news item in this thread.
I am sure you are just as incredulous and demand statute number and verse when similar news comes out of France or North Korea. Right? Or is it only when the news article refers to America?

Unless the article is lying, and I presume it is not and it would be your responsibility to prove otherwise, the guy was jailed for airing Hezbollah TV. I do not care much about how the statute is worded but about the fact that he was jailed for disseminating opinions. Maybe that was interpreted as aiding the enemy, I don't know, but I am pretty sure that if the same thing happened in China you would be condemning it.

[sailor]

sailor, what did you mean about US forfeiture laws? In America the government can take your property without any process of law. They say it was used in a crime or is the proceeds of a crime and take it. Then it is up to the individual to sue the government to recover his property. This is an abuse unthinkable in other countries. Google yiels plenty of info.
http://www.fear.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

[MLS]

I have to agree. Having spent some time in all of the examples MLS offers--Alabama and New England; Germany and France--the cultural differences between the two European nations are, to my mind, far more evident than those between the two American states. People in Montgomery may move a little slower than people in Boston; they might say "Coke" instead of "soda." But those difference are quaint compared to the fundamental differences in perspective--dare I say, Weltanschauung--between the French and the Germans.
I will add one more opinion and then leave the matter, as it is really not all that germane to the main point. The U.S. has within its borders as much or more cultural diversity than any country in Europe because it has immigrants and the descendents of immigrants from not only Europe but the rest of the world as well. Any major city has its Chinatown, its Little Italy, its Jewish enclave, its white-bread neighborhoods, you name it. I believe some European countries are currently having a little bit of difficulty adjusting to recent influxes of people from other cultures.

Theoretically we all speak the same language, but I see an awful lot of Spanish on public signage, and a lot of products with instructions and ingredients in two or even three languages.

In my experience, the difference between France and Germany, or even between the England and Italy, is no greater than the difference between an Indian reservation and Rodeo Drive, or between New Orleans and Martha's Vinyard.

[MOIDALIZE]

Freedom of expression in America: up to a point.
You are free to express your opinions as long as they do not conflict with those of the US government, in which case you are off to jail.

I had not heard of this case, but a couple of points:

1. Al Manar has been banned in not only the U.S., but France, Germany, and Spain, and is unavailable for other reasons in the Netherlands, South America, Canada, and Australia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Manar

2. I think if this man had gone to trial he would have had a good 1st Amendment argument. Unfortunately, he decided to plead guilty. Guilty conscience, perhaps?

[Der Trihs]

How does dealing with a government bureaucracy for that purpose make me any less "free" than dealing with a corporate bureaucracy? Because the government is EVIL ! !

Or more seriously, to the Right, anything involving the government is as a matter of faith assumed to be inferior, inefficient and a threat to freedom, compared to anything involving the private sector. Regardless of how it works in reality.

Thank you, I'll take whichever offers the most comprehensive and trouble-free benefits at the least personal cost to a person at my income level, and based on global experience, government insurance wins that contest hands down. That is a position that is simply ideologically unacceptable to the Right, since it admits that the government is better and cheaper than the private sector at something.

[suranyi]

In America the government can take your property without any process of law. They say it was used in a crime or is the proceeds of a crime and take it. Then it is up to the individual to sue the government to recover his property. This is an abuse unthinkable in other countries. Google yiels plenty of info.
http://www.fear.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

It may be an abuse, but it's hardly unthinkable in other countries.

[griffin1977]

It may be an abuse, but it's hardly unthinkable in other countries.

Pretty much it is. Lots of western countries have criminal asset forfeiture laws, but none of them that I know of are as draconian (with the emphasis on you proving your innocence, at great cost to yourself) as they are in the US.

[tagos]

In case it has not been said:

We don't have the freedom for rich and poor alike to live in cardboard boxes and under bridges or go without decent medical care.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

It's impossible to take seriously any claim that America is more free than Europe when widespread prohibition of alcohol sales, through hundreds of dry counties and towns, still exists in the 21st century. See also the online gambling debacle of Bush's presidency, which continues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_District_of_New_York_Action_Against_Online_Poker_Players) to this day.

[Broomstick]

If the government is taking care of them, that makes them less free, because it makes them dependent on the government to take care of their needs.
You mean... as opposed to being dependent on an employer for things like healthcare and retirement benefits like in the US? An employer that, in many US states, can fire you for no reason at all and leave you without those things, as opposed to a government that covers all citizens regardless of what they do (or don't do) for a living?

The reality is we are all dependent on others to some degree.

[Walker in Eternity]

What about nudity? America is much more puritanical about this than the majority of European countries.

See link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_nudity_places_in_North_America).

[amanset]

In my experience, the difference between France and Germany, or even between the England and Italy, is no greater than the difference between an Indian reservation and Rodeo Drive, or between New Orleans and Martha's Vinyard.

You appear to be comparing the difference between two European countries with the difference between two small parts of states or, even more bizarrely, the difference between a city and a small island.

[sailor]

Pretty much it is. Lots of western countries have criminal asset forfeiture laws, but none of them that I know of are as draconian (with the emphasis on you proving your innocence, at great cost to yourself) as they are in the US.
I am going to assume forfeiture laws are of British inheritance so I will not question their existence in Britain and its ex-colonies but I have never heard of any other country having such ridiculous laws. I have never, ever heard of such thing in Spain where I am sure it would not stand for a minute.

The whole concept stinks to high heaven. The fiction that the police sue an object and take it is just too stupid to contemplate and yet in America it happens every day.

[sailor]

It may be an abuse, but it's hardly unthinkable in other countries. Can you show me what European countries have forfeiture laws and to what extent they are used?

[Walker in Eternity]

The UK does have a form of forfeiture law with different rules in England and Wales (as a single legislative entity) than Scotland.

n the UK asset forfeiture proceedings are initiated under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. These fall into various types. Firstly there are confiscation proceedings, which may follow a criminal conviction. Secondly, there are cash forfeiture proceedings, which take place (in England and Wales) in the Magistrates Court with a right of appeal to the Crown Court, having been brought by either the police or Customs. Thirdly, there are civil recovery proceedings that at the moment are brought by the Assets Recovery Agency "ARA". Under the Serious Crime Act 2007 ARA's functions will be transferred to the Serious Organized Crime Agency and the National Policing Improvement Agency [1]. Neither cash proceedings nor proceedings for a civil recovery order require a prior criminal conviction.

In Scotland, confiscation proceedings are initiated by the procurator fiscal or Lord Advocate through the Sheriff Court or High Court of Justiciary. Cash forfeiture and civil recovery are brought by the Civil Recovery Unit of the Scottish Government in the Sheriff court, with appeals to the Court of Session.

[griffin1977]

The UK does have a form of forfeiture law

The critical difference is that in the UK the state has to show in court (in a 'confiscation hearing' (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/confiscation_and_ancillary_orders/#a01)) that the property was the proceeds from crime. You have the right to defend yourself (and have a state-appointed lawyer defend you).

Additionally I suspect wikipedia may be wrong, the official CPS website definitely seems to say the confiscation hearing only happens AFTER conviction of crime (which I have no problem with constitutionally, if you can have your freedom taken away, you can have your stuff taken away):

A confiscation order is made after conviction to deprive the defendant of the benefit that he has obtained from crime. The prosecutor is able to take steps to preserve assets so that they are available to pay the order. If the order is not paid voluntarily then either the magistrates' court enforces the order as if it were a fine or the prosecutor may apply to the High Court to appoint a receiver.

[Bryan Ekers]

Freedom is the real capacity to choose

Yeah, well... nothing don't mean nothing if it ain't free.

Yes, the US is diverse, but in Europe it's not just a language, it's thousands of years of culture and history.
I dunno about that - the border regions between the various nations show a gradual transition and with periodic waves of conquest and such, it's not like the European nations grew up in isolation. I'd guess that a Type-A personality German would get along much better with his Type-A French counterpart that he would with a fellow German he perceived as lazy and drunk. Y'know... a Bavarian.

[yojimbo]

Well then we really have a thread like this.

Is Ireland more free that NY State?

Is the UK more free than Boston?

Is France more free than Texas?

And on and on.

Oh and in Ireland if you have assets that were bought with the proceeds of crime. The Criminal Assets Bureau (http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=28) of our police force will be on your asre very quickly.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Yes but they have to convict you of something first, right? That was sailor's point- here you don't have to be convicted of anything to have your stuff taken.

[XT]

Yes but they have to convict you of something first, right? That was sailor's point- here you don't have to be convicted of anything to have your stuff taken.

What post number did he cite this? I just looked back through the thread and the only cite I saw from him was about the prison sentence for the guy broadcasting AJ stuff. AFAIK, the government can't seize your goods (nor dispose of them) without a conviction. I suppose they COULD hold them as evidence in the event they are prosecuting you, but I don't believe they can do anything with them until and unless you are convicted of a crime. If Sailor posted a cite showing contrary data then just list the post number, if you would.

-XT

[yojimbo]

In Ireland they can seize your goods(well money in accounts) without a conviction AFAIK. There is a new act going through tomorrow that may cover it. A judge has to sign off on it. It wouldn't be disposed of etc. but bank accounts can be frozen etc.

I'll do a bit of digging a see what I can come up with.

Ireland would be on the right of European opinon with regard to law and order. All laws would have to be in accord with E.U. law though or it would end up in the European Court.

[MOIDALIZE]

Xstisme, Google 'civil asset forfeiture.' The government can bring a civil action against an item of property and seize it without any sort of criminal conviction. For example, if I loan my car to a buddy, and he drives around robbing banks in it, the government can seize my car as an instrumentality of the crime even though I didn't commit any crime myself.

[griffin1977]

What post number did he cite this? I just looked back through the thread and the only cite I saw from him was about the prison sentence for the guy broadcasting AJ stuff.

This one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11310091&postcount=114):
In America the government can take your property without any process of law. They say it was used in a crime or is the proceeds of a crime and take it. Then it is up to the individual to sue the government to recover his property. This is an abuse unthinkable in other countries. Google yiels plenty of info.
http://www.fear.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture


AFAIK, the government can't seize your goods (nor dispose of them) without a conviction. I suppose they COULD hold them as evidence in the event they are prosecuting you, but I don't believe they can do anything with them until and unless you are convicted of a crime. If Sailor posted a cite showing contrary data then just list the post number, if you would.
-XT
They certainly can, not only that it is up to you to take them to court to prove they are not criminal proceeds (at your own expense, after all your assets have been seized, and with the threat of receiving criminal proceeds hanging over any lawyer you employ). This is one aspect of life in the US that completely makes a mockery of claims to be "freer" than other western nations.

[MOIDALIZE]

I don't know enough about civil asset forfeiture to speak definitively for or against it, but I'm not prepared to automatically label it a heinous limitation on my rights. It's not as if such forfeiture has no Constitutional limitations. I can see situations where it makes sense, especially in the case where the property itself is a menace or a nuisance to the community and facilitates bad acts.

Silly example: I own a megaphone. I loan it out to any yahoo who wants it. These yahoos use it to walk around my neighborhood at night making a bunch of noise. All are arrested and cited for disturbing the peace. Should I get my megaphone back? Isn't the property itself a nuisance and facilitating the criminal acts of those yahoos?

This is starting to veer into hijack territory, so I'll stop.

[griffin1977]

Certainly all systems have corruption, "unfairness", and abuses. Yet America with some of the lower taxes, and highest level of economic freedom, is consistently highly ranked by freedomhouse.org in its annual report. I would argue that economic is the largest, if not the only type of freedom that truly exist. How do I have the right to how something is used, without the ownership of said thing?


This is a complete erroneous statement. The idea that economic freedom is somehow comparable to real freedoms is absurd. That is my main problem with the libertarian position as a whole.

Taxes suck, and on the whole money is better of spent by individuals than by governments. But that cannot be compared with an unaleinable right, such as the right to free speech, or freedom of religion. I'd rather give up all my economic freedoms than a single ACTUAL freedom. For my grand-parents generation this was NOT an abstract choice. British citizens pretty much gave up ALL their economic freedoms during WW2 (the UK was effectively a command economy, with food rationing, and government run industry), in order to ensure their (and the rest of Europe's) ACTUAL freedoms. Were they wrong to do so ?

That said the opposite argument doesn't hold any water either. "Freedom from poverty" is not an unalienable right. IMO societies SHOULD try and an alleviate the suffering of their poorest members, but that is not some kind of human right.

[Der Trihs]

This is a complete erroneous statement. The idea that economic freedom is somehow comparable to real freedoms is absurd. That is my main problem with the libertarian position as a whole.

Taxes suck, and on the whole money is better of spent by individuals than by governments. But that cannot be compared with an unaleinable right, such as the right to free speech, or freedom of religion. I'd rather give up all my economic freedoms than a single ACTUAL freedom. For my grand-parents generation this was NOT an abstract choice. British citizens pretty much gave up ALL their economic freedoms during WW2 (the UK was effectively a command economy, with food rationing, and government run industry), in order to ensure their (and the rest of Europe's) ACTUAL freedoms. Were they wrong to do so ?

That said the opposite argument doesn't hold any water either. "Freedom from poverty" is not an unalienable right. IMO societies SHOULD try and an alleviate the suffering of their poorest members, but that is not some kind of human right.
The problem is this position is internally contradictory. Without a minimum level of "freedom from poverty", you HAVE no "real freedoms". There's little real difference between "Do what I say or I shoot you" and "Do what I say or you starve". In the same vein, I don't I think that you'd really "give up all my economic freedoms than a single ACTUAL freedom", not if you were actually put into the position of having to choose. When you are hungry enough, food is more important than free speech - which is the whole point of defining freedom from poverty, health care and such as not a human right. It allows a nation to pretend to be support freedom, while in reality the elite having it's boot on the neck of the general populace.

[XT]

Xstisme, Google 'civil asset forfeiture.' The government can bring a civil action against an item of property and seize it without any sort of criminal conviction. For example, if I loan my car to a buddy, and he drives around robbing banks in it, the government can seize my car as an instrumentality of the crime even though I didn't commit any crime myself.

Yeah...I forgot about the civil aspect. I was thinking of the criminal one. However, they government has too establish probable cause in some criminal activity in order to make a civil case to seize your assets IIRC.

And WRT the discussion I think that several European nations have similar type laws on the books as well, so it's probably a wash from a freedom perspective...it would most likely depend on which European country you are talking about, and what their equivalent law would be.

-XT

[Voyager]

That, and also higher tax rates, which some would count as limiting freedom to spend what you earn.

So, we were less free during the Eisenhower years when the US had high marginal tax rates? I never knew I grew up in a despotism.

There are too many dimensions to give a reasonable answer. My daughter has a friend from Russia who we picked up at the airport. This is his first time in the US, and one of his first questions were where were the surveillance cameras? We're a bit freer in that regard, but the mother in Oakland who is afraid to let her kids play in the street for fear of being shot in a gang war might want a bit more surveillance.

But there is one place where Europe is a lot less free. (Japan also.) It appears that company execs don't have the freedom to make 500 x more than the average worker. Won't anyone think of the CEOs!

[XT]

So, we were less free during the Eisenhower years when the US had high marginal tax rates? I never knew I grew up in a despotism.

You weren't paying attention then...or, more likely, you weren't a minority. It was on TV though...you know, water cannons, dogs, National Guard soldiers, etc etc.

But there is one place where Europe is a lot less free. (Japan also.) It appears that company execs don't have the freedom to make 500 x more than the average worker. Won't anyone think of the CEOs!

:p And you are free to not be able to find a job at all in Europe as well...or, to having found one, to be stuck in it for life because your choices are limited to get another job.

See? I, too, can strawman and distort reality to make some quasi-point! It's fun and doesn't really add anything to the discussion at the same time! Woohoo!

-XT

[Voyager]

You weren't paying attention then...or, more likely, you weren't a minority. It was on TV though...you know, water cannons, dogs, National Guard soldiers, etc etc.

I don't think any of that stuff had to do with the tax rate. You can bring up McCarthy also, but I think most people thought themselves to be economically free then despite high taxes on the rich. Not George Harrison under a similar tax rate in England, though. Lower marginal taxes are a good thing for lots of reasons, but freedom isn't really one of them.


:p And you are free to not be able to find a job at all in Europe as well...or, to having found one, to be stuck in it for life because your choices are limited to get another job.

See? I, too, can strawman and distort reality to make some quasi-point! It's fun and doesn't really add anything to the discussion at the same time! Woohoo!

-XT

More of a joke than a strawman, actually. And directed at those who think the difficulty maybe a few dozen at most people have in opening new banks outweighs that of people who can't get decent healthcare for their children, or who feel unable to change jobs because of healthcare issues.
After all, both rich and poor have the same freedom to sleep under a bridge.

[RedFury]

In the US you have the right to say "America is the freest bested country in the world." Likewise, you also have the right to disagree. But if you do, others have the right (and oh boy do they use it!) to call you un-American and/or unpatriotic.

IOW, you're free as a bird...as long as you toe the line.

[XT]

I don't think any of that stuff had to do with the tax rate. You can bring up McCarthy also, but I think most people thought themselves to be economically free then despite high taxes on the rich. Not George Harrison under a similar tax rate in England, though. Lower marginal taxes are a good thing for lots of reasons, but freedom isn't really one of them.

I believe that those living at the time who were being crushed under those high tax rates (a carry over from WWII) definitely thought their freedom was being impinged...they simply felt that some sacrifices were necessary in order to forward truth, justice and the American way, etc etc.

As for my comments, the point was that it was more than simply tax rate that made us less free back then. Admittedly, I wasn't even born in the 50's, so I'm viewing this more from an intellectual rather than a personal perspective.

More of a joke than a strawman, actually. And directed at those who think the difficulty maybe a few dozen at most people have in opening new banks outweighs that of people who can't get decent healthcare for their children, or who feel unable to change jobs because of healthcare issues.


Life is full of trade-offs. But the reason our CEO's make more has to do with the tax structure and certain legislation passed in the US that had the unintended consequence of modifying CEO compensation. It's an apples to oranges comparison to look at US CEO's total compensation and compare it to those of their Japanese or European counterparts. Also, as I said, there are trade-offs that make aspects of our system more attractive than their own (and vice versa).

As for healthcare, this is again one of those trade-offs....the European's like their more comprehensive system, while in the US it hasn't been a priority up until recently. Oh, no doubt a lot of people would have LIKED 'free' health care...they just didn't want to pay for said 'free' health care. And I'm doubtful that they want to do so now, either. What they want is the concept of 'free' health care, without the realities of the taxes our European brethren and sistren have to pay to get it.

-XT

[Really Not All That Bright]

Life is full of trade-offs. But the reason our CEO's make more has to do with the tax structure and certain legislation passed in the US that had the unintended consequence of modifying CEO compensation. It's an apples to oranges comparison to look at US CEO's total compensation and compare it to those of their Japanese or European counterparts. Also, as I said, there are trade-offs that make aspects of our system more attractive than their own (and vice versa).
No, the reason our CEOs make more is that we don't worry much about conflicts of interest. Most Fortune 500 CEOs sit on the boards of other Fortune 500 companies. While wearing their board-member hats, it behooves them to approve ridiculous compensation packages, because that drives up their own value when they're wearing their CEO hats.

[rivulus]

As for healthcare, this is again one of those trade-offs....the European's like their more comprehensive system, while in the US it hasn't been a priority up until recently. Oh, no doubt a lot of people would have LIKED 'free' health care...they just didn't want to pay for said 'free' health care. And I'm doubtful that they want to do so now, either. What they want is the concept of 'free' health care, without the realities of the taxes our European brethren and sistren have to pay to get it.I agree that the American people have trouble facing realities. But I think you have it exactly backwards. Instead, it is the fearmongering of the people and corporations who oppose a more comprehensive system that tends overexaggerate the actual costs of such a health care system. Right now, Americans are so frightened of the monster under the bed -- namely, the costs of so-called "free" health care -- that they can't even bring themselves to compare it with the costs of our current health care system to make a rational judgment. In spite of data showing how much more we actually spend on health care here in the U.S. than in many countries with more comprehensive systems, people run around scared that the gummint is going to take more of their money than the health care business racket currently does. Which is baloney.

As Obama pointed out (and I'm no big fan of his), if the government is so inefficient at running things, then why are the insurance companies so scared that their plans can't compete? Surely, they are more efficient and save more money? Right? Perhaps not.

[Walker in Eternity]

The critical difference is that in the UK the state has to show in court (in a 'confiscation hearing' (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/confiscation_and_ancillary_orders/#a01)) that the property was the proceeds from crime. You have the right to defend yourself (and have a state-appointed lawyer defend you).

Additionally I suspect wikipedia may be wrong, the official CPS website definitely seems to say the confiscation hearing only happens AFTER conviction of crime (which I have no problem with constitutionally, if you can have your freedom taken away, you can have your stuff taken away):

I did wonder about that myself, but didn't have time to double check the cite.

[XT]

As Obama pointed out (and I'm no big fan of his), if the government is so inefficient at running things, then why are the insurance companies so scared that their plans can't compete?

That's easy. Assuming Obama said this, the answer is that the government is the 800lb gorilla...even if it's totally unresponsive and inefficient, it has so much money and pull that there is no way insurance companies could compete, especially if you factor in legislation that could make it impossible for such companies to compete.

That's not necessarily how it would play out, but if I were an insurance company that would be one reason I'd be concerned, or 'scared' as you put it.

I don't want to hijack this thread to another UHC type debate though. I think that there are trade-offs to UHC (or even to Obama's more modest plans) that, up until recently the majority of the American people simply chose not to pay for (as I said, I have no doubts that a LOT of people would love to have something for nothing...it's when you have to pay for it that people start to balk). I don't think that health care, per se, makes on more or less free, however, which is the subject of this thread.

-XT

[SenorBeef]

The problem is this position is internally contradictory. Without a minimum level of "freedom from poverty", you HAVE no "real freedoms". There's little real difference between "Do what I say or I shoot you" and "Do what I say or you starve".

In your warped world, is there no such thing as a mutually beneficial, voluntary relationship? Is someone always raping someone else in any sort of exchange?

You're setting up this absurd excluded middle where your options are "food provided to you by others by force" and "you act as a slave to the one who feeds you"... do you not recognize there's a middle ground, like, oh, say, THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN CURRENTLY? Where people are able to acquire food through mutually beneficial agreements.

[Isamu]

sailor, what did you mean about US forfeiture laws?

Sailor is referring, I think, to the ability of US police officers to seize large amounts of cash when they are discovered. The assumption is that large amounts of cash can only be related to some kind of criminal activity.

One famous example is Utada Hikaru's mother, Fuji Keiko, who was found at an airport with a big sack of cash a while back. The sack of cash was seized and she was let go. I don't know whether she constested the seizure, but I suspect she did. I would like to know how that situation was resolved.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The Simple and Clean chick?

[Isamu]

The Simple and Clean chick?

:p Her mother is certainly simple. I'm not sure how clean she is though.

[Der Trihs]

In your warped world, is there no such thing as a mutually beneficial, voluntary relationship? Is someone always raping someone else in any sort of exchange?

You're setting up this absurd excluded middle where your options are "food provided to you by others by force" and "you act as a slave to the one who feeds you"... do you not recognize there's a middle ground, like, oh, say, THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN CURRENTLY? Where people are able to acquire food through mutually beneficial agreements.The world where the evil government restricts the freedom of people to exploit others, and offers enough support to keep people from starving. As opposed to the good old days you seem to prefer, where an employer could, for example demand that you provide sex if you wanted to keep on working. Or who would work you until you were dead or crippled without any recourse on your part.

Without the government intervention you decry as restricting freedom, a "mutually beneficial, voluntary relationship" is the exception; masters and slaves are the rule.

Sailor is referring, I think, to the ability of US police officers to seize large amounts of cash when they are discovered. The assumption is that large amounts of cash can only be related to some kind of criminal activity.
Cash, cars; anything, really.

I think that there are trade-offs to UHC (or even to Obama's more modest plans) that, up until recently the majority of the American people simply chose not to pay for (as I said, I have no doubts that a LOT of people would love to have something for nothing...it's when you have to pay for it that people start to balk).
No, it's simply that Americans on the whole are self destructively opposed to anything labeled "socialism." They aren't "unwilling to pay"; they are paying more for less the way things are now. They don't care, either because they have a fundamentalists faith in the innate inferiority of the government ( regardless of the facts ), or are willing to die rather than submit to the Evils of Socialism.

[SenorBeef]

The world where the evil government restricts the freedom of people to exploit others, and offers enough support to keep people from starving. As opposed to the good old days you seem to prefer, where an employer could, for example demand that you provide sex if you wanted to keep on working. Or who would work you until you were dead or crippled without any recourse on your part.


I don't think you're very well grounded in reality. What evidence do you have that I prefer a world where an employer could practically rape employees?


Without the government intervention you decry as restricting freedom, a "mutually beneficial, voluntary relationship" is the exception; masters and slaves are the rule.

You have food on a regular basis, right? Was it provided to you by the government? Did you have to suck someone's dick at Nabisco? Did they eat your children?

Or did it come from a routine economic transaction in which the buyer and seller agree on a fair price that suits both of them, without any coercion from either the provider or the government?

[IdahoMauleMan]

I don't think you're very well grounded in reality. What evidence do you have that I prefer a world where an employer could practically rape employees?

<snip>



You're wasting your time.

You're debating with someone who once argued the CPSC was necessary to prevent lawnmower companies from plotting to loosen the blades on their mowers in an effort to kill their customers.

Villains. There are villains everywhere, lurking behind every corner, out to victimize us all. We're doomed without the government to protect us.

[Der Trihs]

I don't think you're very well grounded in reality. What evidence do you have that I prefer a world where an employer could practically rape employees?Because that's what you are arguing for.

You have food on a regular basis, right? Was it provided to you by the government? Did you have to suck someone's dick at Nabisco? Did they eat your children?No, because the government keeps the corporations and the wealthy under some control, even in America.

Or did it come from a routine economic transaction in which the buyer and seller agree on a fair price that suits both of them, without any coercion from either the provider or the government?There WAS coercion from the government, on both sides. Neither side is allowed to use force, because of government coercion. They are forced to hold to standards of health and safety, by the government. They aren't allowed to burn down their competitors, or tell me I buy from them alone or else, upon pain of punishment from the government. They aren't allowed to take my money and then refuse to give me what I bought; I'm not allowed to buy their products with fake money - due to coercion from the government. And so on.

You can't have free exchange, or any other freedom without coercion from the government. And without the protection of the government, the coercion will be mostly one way; the rich and the various non-government organization crushing the less wealthy and less organized. That's why libertarianism is fundamentally anti-freedom.

You're wasting your time.

You're debating with someone who once argued the CPSC was necessary to prevent lawnmower companies from plotting to loosen the blades on their mowers in an effort to kill their customers.I never said that.

[SenorBeef]

Because that's what you are arguing for.

No, because the government keeps the corporations and the wealthy under some control, even in America.

There WAS coercion from the government, on both sides. Neither side is allowed to use force, because of government coercion. They are forced to hold to standards of health and safety, by the government. They aren't allowed to burn down their competitors, or tell me I buy from them alone or else, upon pain of punishment from the government. They aren't allowed to take my money and then refuse to give me what I bought; I'm not allowed to buy their products with fake money - due to coercion from the government. And so on.

You can't have free exchange, or any other freedom without coercion from the government. And without the protection of the government, the coercion will be mostly one way; the rich and the various non-government organization crushing the less wealthy and less organized. That's why libertarianism is fundamentally anti-freedom.


You have a retarded view of libertarianism. What you mentioned about the government keeping people from defrauding each other, stealing, etc. is exactly the core principles of libertarianism. You are not even close to making sense at this point. You seem to think that libertarianism is complete anarchy. Maybe you should start reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) about it.

Not only that, but it's not even particularly relevant to what you said before. You seem to equate "government protecting you from coercion" with "everyone has a right for the government to provide them with certain goods and services".

Given your complete mischaracterization of my position, and then essentially advocating a position compatable with libertarianism and then saying "libertarian is fundamentally anti-freedom" - a position that doesn't even resemble positions you've taken previously in the thread, and I'm not sure you have any sort of consistent position at all.

[Der Trihs]

You have a retarded view of libertarianism. What you mentioned about the government keeping people from defrauding each other, stealing, etc. is exactly the core principles of libertarianism. You are not even close to making sense at this point. You seem to think that libertarianism is complete anarchy.No; it's anarchy for the upper class and the corporations. It's sociopathy as a political platform. It wants to ban coercion by the government, because that's the most important weapon the common people have to defend themselves.

Not only that, but it's not even particularly relevant to what you said before. You seem to equate "government protecting you from coercion" with "everyone has a right for the government to provide them with certain goods and services".No; I'm equating it with the government ensuring that necessities are provided, by it or someone else. You and those like you are busy pretending that only coercion by the government counts as coercion.

[SenorBeef]

You clearly have no idea what libertarianism is. The prevention of coercion/initiations of force between individuals is the primary purpose of government.

[Der Trihs]

You clearly have no idea what libertarianism is.No, I just don't buy their propaganda. Or their fondness for defining any form of coercion they like as not being coercion. Or trust or respect them in any way.

[SenorBeef]

You can't argue in good faith against philosophies with "but... my gut tells me they're secretly evil!"

You are ridiculous. You describe and advocate things that make up the libertarian philosophy (in this particular instance, I mean - your general views are more moonbat I'm sure) but then dismiss the philosophy because of it. You seem incapable of debating in good faith. You also have pretty much no chance of gaining a new perspective or learning anything new from debate, so I won't engage you any further in this thread.

[griffin1977]

The problem is this position is internally contradictory.
Not at all.


Without a minimum level of "freedom from poverty", you HAVE no "real freedoms".
There are plenty of very poor, democratic societies, plenty of rich autocratic ones (India vs Saudi Arabia for example). Personally I think some economic policies are better than others, but that has nothing to with rights and liberty. Saudi Arabia has an incredible welfare system, but its people have next to no rights (a Saudi's passport says they are the PROPERTY of their royal family), on the other side of the argument Pinochet's Chile was wonderfully libertarian, but that didn't stop the government from torturing and killing you at will.


When you are hungry enough, food is more important than free speech
Thats doesn't make freedom from poverty a "right". People in poverty are fertile ground for extremists, but that doesn't mean poor people are having their rights abused. Anymore than rich people who have to pay high taxes are having their rights abused.

[Der Trihs]

You can't argue in good faith against philosophies with "but... my gut tells me they're secretly evil!"Who said anything about secret ? The majority of the libertarians I've encountered or read come across as ruthless, amoral slimeballs, or as idiots.

[carter6]

I think some of the knee-jerk jingoism the OP was questioning comes from the way that America was founded on individual freedoms and suspicion of government (which makes sense if you look at American history). Kids are taught the First Amendment, and because it seems basic and comes first on the list, they grow up assuming that everyone else in the developed world has these freedoms too (speech, religion, etc). To find out that other similar countries do not always have these freedoms built in can be surprising. I know that when I moved to Australia as an adult, I was pretty shocked to realize that the Australian government censors and actually bans certain books, films, and video games (and they're working on the Internet).

Americans, for right or wrong, don't usually associate health care, "freedom from hunger," etc. with the concept of freedom. Americans are taught that freedom = the Bill of Rights, which is basically about individual freedoms such as speech.

Although, that said, if you're looking for reason in crazy extremist email forwards, then, ah... good luck!

[tagos]

You clearly have no idea what libertarianism is. The prevention of coercion/initiations of force between individuals is the primary purpose of government.

Nonsense. it's the 'I've Got Mine' philosophy. All the rest is just sophistry to hide the fact that the proponents are, to judge by their ramblings, sociopaths and loons.

[SenorBeef]

There definitely are "I've got mine" proponents among libertarianism. But I bet others are probably some of the kindest, most charitible people you've met. To paint any philosophy with such a broad brush is like assuming anyone wanting to advocate socialism ultimately wants to see Soviet-style gulags.

But even if I were to concede that it's the "I've got mine" philosophy, it's irrelevant to the point at hand. The central tenet of libertarianism is that the government's role is the prevention and redress of coercion and initiation of force against its citizens. How can you claim that's not part of the philosophy when it's pretty much the entire basis?

The things he mentioned "...They aren't allowed to burn down their competitors, or tell me I buy from them alone or else, upon pain of punishment from the government. They aren't allowed to take my money and then refuse to give me what I bought; I'm not allowed to buy their products with fake money..." are the sort of thing that libertarians agree the government should be doing. How can those examples be used as a point against libertarianism?

You've both demonstrated substantial ignorance of the subject at hand. You seem to think libertarianism is the same as anarchy or having no government.

You're allowed to dislike a philosophy and still understand it, you know.

[DrCube]

Nonsense. it's the 'I've Got Mine' philosophy. All the rest is just sophistry to hide the fact that the proponents are, to judge by their ramblings, sociopaths and loons.

Thanks! Here I was, trying to read all these words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Libertarian_principles), when you've already summed it up neat and concise-like. I mean, why make up my own mind when you've done the hard thinking for me?

For example:
According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty.

How the hell do you expect me to read and understand all that? Good thing I've got someone like tagos to assure me that all libertarians are sociopaths and loons! That saves me a lot of trouble, because there is no point in even trying to understand the positions of a bunch of rambling loonies.

[IdahoMauleMan]

Nonsense. it's the 'I've Got Mine' philosophy. All the rest is just sophistry to hide the fact that the proponents are, to judge by their ramblings, sociopaths and loons.

Now that's an extremely tight, objective and well-reasoned analysis. Thanks for the post.

[Really Not All That Bright]

How the hell do you expect me to read and understand all that? Good thing I've got someone like tagos to assure me that all libertarians are sociopaths and loons! That saves me a lot of trouble, because there is no point in even trying to understand the positions of a bunch of rambling loonies.
As with almost any political philosophy, capitalization is key.

Libertarians = crazy people who think the government is the root of all evil
libertarians = normal people who think the government is bad at some things

[tagos]

Now that's an extremely tight, objective and well-reasoned analysis. Thanks for the post.

Don't mention it. Truth can be kind of painful though, I understand that.

[XT]

Don't mention it.

Yes...best not to, I'd say.

Truth can be kind of painful though, I understand that.

Only for those who aren't immune to it. But, can you give us a cite that you actually understand this? Because, the obvious evidence points to...well...

-XT

[Northern Piper]

This may or may not still be true, but much of my family lives in Canada, eh (Toronto). Back in the early 70's the school day started with Christian prayers. As Jews, they felt less freedom of religion through state mandated prayer.
Once the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force in 1982, the practice you refer to was challenged in court. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that mandatory school prayer violated the Charter's guarantee of freedom of religion and struck it down: Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education, 1988 CanLII 189 (ON C.A.) (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1988/1988canlii189/1988canlii189.html)

[Der Trihs]

Thanks! Here I was, trying to read all these words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Libertarian_principles), when you've already summed it up neat and concise-like. I mean, why make up my own mind when you've done the hard thinking for me?

For example:


How the hell do you expect me to read and understand all that? Good thing I've got someone like tagos to assure me that all libertarians are sociopaths and loons! That saves me a lot of trouble, because there is no point in even trying to understand the positions of a bunch of rambling loonies.You actually believe what a political group officially says about itself ?

[Mighty_Girl]

I don't see how Europe is less free than the US, or viceversa. First Europe is some kind of nebulous concept, these are separate countries with wildly different cultures. Greece is not like Sweden, and Poland is not like Germany.

Different European countries value different concepts of personal freedom, which is why you have gay marriage in Spain, but not in Portugal, its closest neighbor in both geography and culture. And while you can see T&A in any old magazine or TV show in Germany you cannot publicly advocate Holocaust denial. Europeans, generally speaking, cherish their sexual freedoms, why Americans, generally speaking, cherish their 2nd Amendment rights, just an example of how their concepts are different.

Can we all agree that different nations have different ideas of which "freedoms" are important to them? Each is going to think of the other as less free because each likes better the freedoms each has fought for, defended and secured.

[Der Trihs]

Can we all agree that different nations have different ideas of which "freedoms" are important to them? Certainly.

[tagos]

Yes...best not to, I'd say.



Only for those who aren't immune to it. But, can you give us a cite that you actually understand this? Because, the obvious evidence points to...well...

-XT

This isn't the Pit so I can't comment on the many and various causes you've offered this board to question your understanding about anything that contradicts your knee jerk neo-fascist response to anything political.

[XT]

Feel free.

-XT

[SenorBeef]

Feel free.

-XT

You're not supposed to tolerate that sort of shit, you neo-fascist bastard.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You actually believe what a political group officially says about itself ?
Technically, 'libertarians' are not a political group. They're adherents of a political philosophy. The Libertarian Party is a political group, and as I've noted several times here before they're not so much actual libertarians as Republicans who are okay with weed.

[XT]

You're not supposed to tolerate that sort of shit, you neo-fascist bastard.

:smack: Good point. Let me see...where did I put my jackboots....?

-XT

[Lust4Life]

Due to lack of time I haven't been able to read all the way through the thread so if I'm repeating earlier posts then my apologies.

The main things where I find that Americans are less free then Europeans are that if you wish to be elected to any major office in the U.S. you must either be personally wealthy or have the backing of those who are.
Numbers of votes are less important then the numbers of Dollar bills at the very start as you can't even stand for office if you lack those.

This means that your political policies must first be screened by the wealthy before they even have the chance to be put to the electorate as a whole.

The second is company health insurance,losing your job means losing your health care.
Gives the employers a pretty big whip to crack over their employees.
Sorry Bob we have a bit of a crisis,sorry its short notice but can you work late tonight?We cant pay you I'm afraid but....................


Much as I love America and Americans(And have been a frequent visitor there) I have to say in all honesty that Americans are a lot less free in any real meanuing of the word then the citizens of Europe.

You can kiss your chains and praise them but they're still chains no matter how dark the glasses that you're wearing.

[griffin1977]

Going to have to add this story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_re_us/us_upside_down_flag)(from this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=524104)). As one of many examples of the US being "less free" than the UK. That simply wouldn't happen in the UK (actually theoretically flying a Union Jack upside down is a secret distress call, but I don't thing many coppers would catch that :) )

[Martin Hyde]

I am sure you are just as incredulous and demand statute number and verse when similar news comes out of France or North Korea. Right? Or is it only when the news article refers to America?

Unless the article is lying, and I presume it is not and it would be your responsibility to prove otherwise, the guy was jailed for airing Hezbollah TV. I do not care much about how the statute is worded but about the fact that he was jailed for disseminating opinions. Maybe that was interpreted as aiding the enemy, I don't know, but I am pretty sure that if the same thing happened in China you would be condemning it.

I don't think anyone is linking to specific news articles about China or France, what you're doing is attempting to excuse your complete lack of fact checking by changing the goal posts.

The reason it is important to have the statute number is the United States is a country of laws, and if someone can be arrested solely for disseminating opinion then there is going to be a law on the books to reflect that. The fact that you have not been able to produce one gives me a strong inclination to believe you are just simply inclined to bash the United States.

For the record if France or China arrested someone for broadcasting terrorist recruitment media in a for-profit deal with entities that French/Chinese nationals are legally prohibited from having business dealings with I probably would not be condemning them at all. I like that you jump to conclusions about how I would react to things, though.

If you want to have a serious debate lets keep it on the specific topic you brought up, and not bring up irrelevant asides about other countries. If this man was truly arrested for what you say he was, give me statutory proof, otherwise you're just going off of your personal interpretation of the news article.

[Martin Hyde]

I've done a little bit of research myself since sailor hadn't bothered when he made his initial claims.

According to this release from the U.S. Treasury Department (link (http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js4134.htm)) U.S. nationals and business entities are prohibited from having financial transactions with al Manar, al Nour, and the Lebenese Media Group.

It appears this is under the authority of an executive order that can prohibit financial dealings with entities designated as "terrorist." I see nothing in the text of this that makes me believe any of these media outlets are "banned" or that you would go to jail just for broadcasting their content. While I need more information to say for sure, I suspect that if I maintained a website entirely on my own initiative that broadcast this stuff, and I had no financial ties to any of these entities I'd be perfectly in the clear.

The man who was arrested (and plead guilty) was accused of having significant financial interactions with al Manar, and was accused of being paid more than $20,000 on a monthly basis by al Manar to broadcast their material.

Isn't it the common cry that "money isn't speech" by people on these forums? I don't think the man who was arrested got in trouble for exercising his first amendment rights but for deciding to profit off of a business relationship with an entity that U.S. residents are legally prohibited from carrying on a business relationship with.

[griffin1977]

The man who was arrested (and plead guilty) was accused of having significant financial interactions with al Manar, and was accused of being paid more than $20,000 on a monthly basis by al Manar to broadcast their material.



As I stated in a previous post. He plead guilty to "providing support" to a terrorist organization in exchange for that money. The only "support" he provided was broadcasting their opinions. I find it hard to believe it would perfectly OK legally speaking to "provide support" to terrorists for free.

[Richard Parker]

He plead guilty to "providing support" to a terrorist organization in exchange for that money. The only "support" he provided was broadcasting their opinions.

Well, no. He apparently gave the group thousands of dollars which is pretty much the core idea of material support. Moreover, the statute in question has an explicit exemption for activities that would otherwise constitute material support but which are protected by the First Amendment ("Nothing in this section shall be construed or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” 18 U.S.C. 2339B(i)). So if he were prosecuted for the broadcast alone, he or his lawyer would have to have been an idiot in order to enter a guilty plea.

[griffin1977]

Well, no. He apparently gave the group thousands of dollars which is pretty much the core idea of material support.

He received money, he didn't give them any. The FBI website (http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/nyfo062309.htm) is quite explicit:

From approximately 2005 through 2006, ELAHWAL, through a Brooklyn and Staten Island-based satellite transmission company he helped operate, HDTV Limited, provided satellite transmission services to al-Manar, in exchange for thousands of dollars in payments from al-Manar. ELAHWAL provided these services knowing that al-Manar is Hizballah’s television station.

The "support" he provided was in the form of transmitting the opinions of a terrorist organization. Yes, he may well have been committing a crime just by receiving their cash, but what he plead guilty to was providing "support" in exchange for that cash. And the support wasn't guns, or bombs, it was the broadcasting of images and sound.

[Richard Parker]

He received money, he didn't give them any.

My mistake. My point goes to the larger issue though. The statute expressly exempts First Amendment activity from the definition of support. So either there's something going on here beyond what we know, or he had a terrible lawyer.

[Damuri Ajashi]

That, and also higher tax rates, which some would count as limiting freedom to spend what you earn.

This is SUCH a ired argument, I don't understand why people keep using it. The only people it convinces are people who already believe that taxation is a form of theft rather than a civic obligation.

Also in general, labor markets are more rigid, meaning businesses make a long-term commitment whenever they hire someone. Sounds good, right? Problem is, when you can't fire the bad workers, you're much more careful about hiring, resulting in higher normal unemployment rates. Also this can create a "two-tiered" labor market, as in France.

This is probably true but once again, you are are kinda stretching the definition of freedom. France also has a pretty robust universal health care system and the pensions in Europe are generally fully funded so they don't go bankrupt as often as ours. With all that said, I agree that 2 years of unemployment payments is too much.

[Damuri Ajashi]

If the government is taking care of them, that makes them less free, because it makes them dependent on the government to take care of their needs.

So our military must be shackling us into security slavery.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Because, if you believe, like the writers of the e-mail do, that government is, at best, a necessary evil, and that people should be free to succeed or fail on their own merits, then expanding the role of the government and expanding the social safety net is dangerous, because it helps to isolate people from the consequences of their actions, and, by increasing the role of government, it makes them believe that it should be the role of the government to provide for their needs.

If government is AT BEST a necessary evil, perhaps we should get rid of it altogether.

[Damuri Ajashi]

In my understanding, I'd think they would say that if you were pushed around by your employer, you're free to quit and find a better job, and if you're poor, you're free to use your skills and talents to improve your life, but you're not free to refuse to pay taxes.

Aren't you also free to move to a country with less government and lower taxes? What in the world keeps these people here. Monaco has a ZERO tax rate, why don't they all move there?

[Damuri Ajashi]

So the notion that America is freer is just bullshit. There may be particular things which are prohibited here or there but the notion that America is "the freest country in the world" is just bullshit propaganda.

Tell me what you boast and I'll tell you what you lack and all that.

I totally Agree, America is NOT the freest country in the wrold, it is only the greatest country in the world (probably in history).

[Damuri Ajashi]

Because they don't have a choice, dude. If they think the product the government is offering them sucks, they can't take their money and go somewhere else. The government already has their money, and there is nowhere else.

You can leave the country if you don't like it.

I have an Iphone, I hate the fact that I have to use AT&T instead of Verizon but I have the freedom to go back to AT&T and get a phone I don't particularly want.

[quote]Licensing hurdles to start a business are also staggering in Europe. It is practically impossible to start a bank in Spain, for example.[/quoute]

How many of those banks have failed?

http://www.expatica.com/es/news/local_news/Spain-planning-possible-bank-failures_-report_50787.html

[Damuri Ajashi]

Education is another area- We have more self directed opportunities for higher ed. We do not have tracking in the same sense, and more opportunities to move from school to school. Community Colleges help studnets who want to change careers or who weren't "college material" in high school and want to change teh track of their lives.

Isn't higher education free in much of Europe? I was also under the impression that there was a pretty vibrant private school system in Europe.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Often government works to protect the interests of the powerful at the expense of the interests of the weak.

Yeah, but that's not why the Grover Norquist crowd are against taxes.

[Damuri Ajashi]

In my experience Americans and Europeans are often talking past each other on this question, with Americans emphasizing the "freedom to" and Europeans emphasizing the "freedom from." The two strike me as being very different (and largely contradictory) concepts and shouldn't be equated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms

Two of these four freedoms are "freedoms from"

[Damuri Ajashi]

I meant trivial in the sense that - with the exception of restrictions on same-sex marriage, which you introduced, not me - you can pretty much find a way to do the other things I mentioned....even if they're technically illegal, and get away with it most of the time.

People can cheat on their taxes and get away with it most of the time too. What's your point?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Anyone can invent "freedoms" and then play word games to justify anything they want as a "freedom". I think the government should pay for my health care because otherwise my freedom from being sick is infringed.

One kinda far left "freedom" you encounter is the pro-choice argument that we should require trained doctors to perform legal abotrions because the refusal of so many doctors restricts my "FREEDOM TO" have an abortion.

You can phrase anything as a freedom to or freedom from is you twist the words enough.

[Voyager]

If government is AT BEST a necessary evil, perhaps we should get rid of it altogether.

Isn't it odd how some people consider not starving to death success? I guess conservatives have a very low success threshold, which makes sense when you consider what they call a successful governor or president.

Me, I figure the average unemployed welfare recipient doesn't consider himself or herself much of a success.

[Damuri Ajashi]

But they're not both "freedom" if that term is to have any practical use. Unless you can come up with a definition for freedom that neatly includes both concepts?

I think when we talk about freedoms we SHOUOLD be talking about basic freedoms.

IMHO, most talk about freedoms from government become mooted as soon as you give everyone the vote. THE ONLY people who can seriosuly bitch and moan about freedom from taxes are the folks living in Washington DC who do not have any representation in congress (BTW congress rules DC like a communal fiefdom, no wonder its so screwed up).

When we talk about freedom, we talk about the freedoms that we must maintain in the face of a popularly elected government. What freedoms must we maintain no matter who is in power and regardless of how dire the circumstances? Freedom of speech comes to mind (the ability to criticize the president (something that a lot of democracies do not have, in some countries, its treasonous to criticize elected officials) but freedom from taxes just seems like a bunch of people whining about paying too much tax.

[Damuri Ajashi]

"Freedom from" is essentially a useless concept to me.

Freedom from taxes?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Maybe it boils down to this:

In the USA, enterprising individuals have a lot of freedom, even to exploit other individuals;
in Europe, the masses have more freedom from being exploited by enterprising individuals.

I would put a star next to this post if I could. When it comes to economic freedoms, you are basically picking your poison and finding the balance that works best in your society.

[Damuri Ajashi]

I understand the position. But that position is, in my opinion, largely based on religious belief.

Not to take this hijack any further (but I guess I'm about to); isn't there serious room for debate about when human life begins? A zygote? Probably not but when the baby starts kicking, maybe so.

[Damuri Ajashi]

We've also locked people up in camps who we felt might be sympathizers with the enemy
That's not really very similar to what happened with the guy in your article.

You mean like japanese internment camps?

[Damuri Ajashi]

No. The crime he pled guilty to was providing material support to hezbollah in its recruiting and money raising efforts in exchange for money.

Receiving money from terrorists for helping them recruit baby terrorists and and raise money to pay for their terrorist activities is as illegal as giving money to terrorists, yes.

But providing those baby terrorist recruiting baby terrorist recruiters that same help for free is OK?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Certainly all systems have corruption, "unfairness", and abuses. Yet America with some of the lower taxes, and highest level of economic freedom, is consistently highly ranked by freedomhouse.org in its annual report.

Then why do people keep complaining about how high taxes are here.

BTW, I find the attitude that each individual should get services from government in some proportion to what they pay in taxes absolutely reprehensible.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Does this take into account wages, productivity, savings to businesses, revenue generated by more productive workers, etc.?

Its a pretty accurate statistic. What it doesn't take into account is payroll taxes, sales taxes; state taxes. But even if you iclude all that the rich pay a higher tax rate than the poor. So if you are against progressive taxation then this should really piss you off but if you believe that the tax burden should be distributed progressively then you just sneer at the whiners.

[Damuri Ajashi]

When you are hungry enough, food is more important than free speech.

I thought that was how everyone kept their kids in line. Or is it just me?

[SenorBeef]

Aren't you also free to move to a country with less government and lower taxes? What in the world keeps these people here. Monaco has a ZERO tax rate, why don't they all move there?

Uh, no, not really. How many countries openly allow anyone to go live there?

Freedom from taxes?

Yes, a useless concept.



Trying to couch everything in these "freedom" terms is just an attempt to use language to control the discussion. It's like how instead of having plans to deal with drug abuse and poverty, we have to have a WAR ON DRUGS and WAR ON POVERTY. It's using language to frame the debate in such a way as to crowd out actual discussion.

In this case, people are simply trying to wrap up what they think is simply good policy in terms of a fundamental human right.


Btw, I'd suggest you stop creating posts so prolifically. Making 10+ in a row makes you look weird. If you have that much to say, you can wrap multiple replies into one post.

[tomndebb]

Btw, I'd suggest you stop creating posts so prolifically. Making 10+ in a row makes you look weird. If you have that much to say, you can wrap multiple replies into one post.Specifically, if one clicks on the icon on the bottom of a post that has large quotation marks on the top, one can then scroll to subsequent posts doing the same thing, finally clicking on the Quote button only for the final quoted post. At that point, the Reply screen will pop up with all the quoted posts listed in order.

[wizard of aus]

.. do you want the long answer or the short answer ?? .. the short answer, "They're not.".. the long answer, "The people of Europe do not have fewer freedoms than Americans." .. in other words it is all swings and roundabouts .. and of course the personal perspectives of the peoples of the respective countries .. your freedom is my constriction .. my freedom you don't appreciate ..

WoAus who is free

[griffin1977]

As Brit living in the states, I'd really say Britain is certainly not "less free" than the US. Obviously if you think the be-all and end-all of freedom is the right to have guns, and low taxes, then yeah the US is more free. But in most every-day ways, its clearly not.

An example of this just came up, so I thought I'd bump this thread:

A 34-YEAR-OLD woman, the mother of a 12-year-old girl, has been locked up in a Virginia jail for three weeks and could remain there for at least another month. Her crime? Blogging about the police.

Elisha Strom, who appears unable to make the $750 bail, was arrested outside Charlottesville on July 16 when police raided her house, confiscating notebooks, computers and camera equipment. Although the Charlottesville police chief, Timothy J. Longo Sr., had previously written to Ms. Strom warning her that her blog posts were interfering with the work of a local drug enforcement task force, she was not charged with obstruction of justice or any similar offense. Rather, she was indicted on a single count of identifying a police officer with intent to harass, a felony under state law.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/09/AR2009080902126.html