That’s pretty much my point. That pretty much sums up succinctly one very concrete unambiguous way Europe is “less free” than the US.
That is definitely a matter of debate. I’m above the national median in salary and tax, in one of the most heavily taxed countries in Europe, and I don’t think the tax level affects my personal freedom in any way. On the contrary, I think that a functioning social security system provides more personal freedom for a larger part of the population.
Since this is a topic for completely different discussion, I’ll stop the hijack here.
Okay, I’ll take your word for it. So what point were you making, out of interest?
Saying that I think it’s probably a good idea if we generally discount the right to bear arms clusterfuck from this discussion.
Smoking is an interesting one from my perspective - one smokers right to smoke compromises lots of non-smokers right NOT to smoke, yet this doesn’t seem to be considered by smokers and their advocates. What about the rights of people to not passively smoke in their place of work where they have no choice if they’re there or not and want to stay employed?
Sure it is. We’re totally respectful of your desire not to smoke. Of course, our population includes assholes, just like yours does, but we’re normal, reasonable people. But we feel under attack and that it’s all one-sided. Sure, ban smoking in airports - but why not give us enclosed smoking rooms like at Dulles airport? That’s a good compromise. Works at Dulles; why not at JFK or Heathrow?
I don’t mind not smoking in a restaurant or at work. I’m cool with that. The problem is it’s getting to the point where it so hard to find somewhere to smoke, that one is tempted to just say “fuck it, I’ll just smoke here then”.
It’s like the discussions that the UK government is currently having about stopping the benefits of rioters. Sure, there’s a poetic justice there and it feels good; but one is then* forcing* the rioters to become permanent looters just to stay alive. It’s not the same extreme, of course (food is necessary, nicotine is not) but the principle applies.
It’s all about the way one approaches something. We smokers feel absolutely under attack, and that non-smokers won’t be happy until it is completely and utterly banned everywhere. I don’t mind smoking somewhere where you don’t have to smell it, but ensuring even* that’s* not possible is just gonna make smokers start ignoring the law. There needs to be a middle ground which doesn’t involve such relentless attack and rhetoric, and which both parties are OK with.
In fact, I’m not convinced that this law is constitutionnal in France. Courts had always ruled unconstitutionnal regulations creating a general ban on veils in, for instance, a school. But ordinary French courts have always refused to check the constitutionnality of laws voted by the parliament (so as soon as it became a law instead of a local policy or whatever the courts would have accepted the law as valid).
Ruling on this would be the job of the Constitutionnal Council but since all parties were agreeing on this, nobody asked for a constitutionnal review before the law was signed. And yet, nobody asked in court for a constitutionnal review, either.
That said, given the composition of the Council, I would be surprised if he decided to strike down this law (very uncorrectly, IMO)
Hmmm… I was convinced it hadn’t been, but you might be right.
Oh, come one people, don’t be so fussy about terminology.
Of course I meant ‘United States’ by ‘America’, otherwise I would’ve said ‘the Americas’. By ‘personal freedom’ I meant it as opposed to ‘political freedom’. That is, the right to make one’s own personal choices about one’s life and express them without repression or fear, independently of to what extent one can participate in the government. For example, one could say that in Hong Kong there is more personal than political freedom. But feel free to discuss ‘freedom’ in general, as this is how most people seem to have understood the term. And I know it’s hard to define freedom, but well, that’s in part what the discussion is about: whether you think a clear definition is needed or whether you think a discussion can be had based on the vague, general understanding of the term, I invite you to explain why you think so. It’s a very open discussion!
And Western Europe, well, I’d place there all the countries that were not communist, simple as that. Basically, Scandinavia and everything west to Germany and Austria. (And don’t be nit picky if I’m missing some details here, you know what I mean).
Hope that helps!
Are you under the impression that there aren’t places like that in the US? :dubious:
Every time I see this thread popup I hear this loud TWWWWAAAANNNNGGG! sound and picture some old guy flying into the Chasm of Doom…
Not sure why.
-XT
Whenever somebody does bring up the notion that America is more than just the U.S., I like to point out that only the U.S. actually uses the word America in its official name. Or is that wrong? Does Paraguay, for example, call itself the U.S. of Paraguay In America?"
That said, I agree; you just can’t say that one or the other is more free. Europe is too diverse politically. Like UDS I could be comfortable in either region. For me, personally, I might prefer Western Europe, because the politics there are somewhat more in accord with my own. It’s interesting that Rune, who lives in Scandinavia, brings up the higher taxation levels as a detraction from freedom. In a way I can agree with the logic there; any time someone takes your money they deprive you of the free choice regarding how you dispose of it. On the other hand it must be said that Scandinavians probably see somewhat more direct benefit to themselves as a result of their tax payments, since they’re not paying for an extensive international agenda.
Judging by following the German news, I have to say that each country has its own set of problems.
Latin Americans DO refer to themselves as American (and can take offense when people from the US use the term as ONLY referring to citizens of their country).
Everyone cheering the legal prostitution in Europe as freedom should be aware that the (mostly) women involved in this are from the poorer places in Europe. Not only that, but many were duped into the profession through ads for jobs or recruiter/boyfriends, and are held under almost slavery conditions.
By the same token, those who might cheer the more liberal drug laws in places like The Netherlands should know that enforcement is far stricter in certain other Western/Northern European countries, e.g. Sweden.
Cite? And I mean a reliable one, not from some crusading anti-prostitution organization?
Being a Scandianavian myself, I just want to point out - again - that Rune’s viewpoints aren’t necessarily representative for the large majority of Scandinavians. IMO, Rune is pretty far out on the right side of our political spectrum.
ETA: And, for the perspective, I consider myself to be on the center/left side here. Which prob’ly is pretty far out on the left side by US standards…
Are you under the impression it wasn’t a lot worse before they started locking bad people up and keeping them behind bars.
Cite ?
Yeah, I’d like a cite as well. No doubt most of these girls are from the poorer countries, but that’s just economics. If prostituting yourself can give you 100x what you make as a waitress (at home) there will be more people willing to do the job than if it’s only 2x what you make as a waitress. There are definately also ‘others’ envolved, but the way the authorities choose to pursue this issue makes it impossible to distinguish between ‘slave’ holders and in-betweens who set up paper work, housing, places to work etc. I’m pretty sure both happen, but in what proportions…is difficult - if not impossible - to say.
They swept clean a red light district here (Netherlands) recently and took all the (200+) girls to a place with translators to find out about pimps and human trafficing. Thusfar nothing seems to have come out of it…
Back to the OP, I concur with the ‘What defines freedom for you?’ responses many others have given.
Sorry, I seemed to have missed the direct correlation between decreasing violent crime rates and the number of people locked up. It’s where exactly in your cite?
I guess you can show examples of western countries that have a low incarceration rate compared to the US, and a correspondingly higher crime rate? Yes?