Ok, fine. And when I say that the Straight Dope banner has “yellow” text, it is probably one of the most yellow texts there is, but it has a long way to go before it is exactly and purely yellow.
Nothing ever matches an ideal. In the States we live in a Capitalist Democracy, though our economic system is not pure unadulterated capitalism, nor is our government pure unadulterated representative democracy.
We call the ground level, even though it actually curves with the surface of the Earth (being the surface of the Earth).
One can argue whether or not certain restrictions or lack thereof hinder one’s freedom (what a wonderful freedom to have, that), but no place ever will meet the Form of freedom, but at some point in order to function one has to allow a little flexibility as far as word meanings are concerned. I don’t think we could all agree on what freedom means, let alone whether that definition applied absolutely and without question to any population.
By your reasoning it seems that no one anywhere would ever be free. Or, maybe people are only free when they don’t live in a place that you feel like bashing by taking unique incidents of odd executions of justice and holding them up as representative of the country as a whole.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. (I know I can say that because there was a Pit thread that told me so.) Proportionality of punishment (or lack thereof) is not the same as freedom (or lack thereof). The question on the table is whether you have the right to do certain things, not whether you will be punished too severely (or not severely enough) if you break the law. The fact that IYO these acts should not be crimes, or should not be punished this severely, has fuck-all to do with the broad freedoms we possess or don’t possess. If little miss Drunk-Driver had been given a slap on the wrist for only being slightly over the limit, she would be no more or less free to drive while registering that level of intoxication.
The argument that the rest of us aren’t free because IYO these few people were punished too severely strikes me as about as relevant as the OP’s argument that we’re not free because his sister couldn’t buy lube.
“Political reasons?” Bull. You tell me who benefits from the limit being set at .08, other than folks like me who–get this–don’t drive impaired. Don’t tell me you’re one of those drivers that says, “Yeah, I can drive after drinking, I’m OK.” A workmate of mine here totalled two cars with that attitude back in the 80’s.
And if one drink took her over the limit, that’s just too damn bad. If you don’t know how a drink has affected you, you shouldn’t be sitting behind the wheel. Every freakin’ drunk driver on the planet only admits to “one or two beers” anyway, even if their BAC turns out to be .25, so I’m kind of disinclined to believe her story anyway.
As for your story about the worker who got fired for failing a drug test: yeah, it’s a shame, but you can’t say the guy didn’t bring it on himself. If he knew that the company he worked for was doing random drug tests, he knew the risk he was taking. You might claim all day that what happened was “unfair,” but he knew what the terms of his employment were, he violated them, and the company was within its rights not to hire him any more.
I agree, nowhere will ever truly be free. But it doesn’t mean we can’t strive for it. One of the initial issues brought up in the OP, the thing about the sex toys being illegal in GA, and the appeals court station the the Constitution doesn’t protect the right to sexual privacy…This is an OUTRAGE to me. If your sex life’s privacy is not protected, than nothing is. Yeah your financial history and your medical history might be protected by law, but not the most private of all things, your sex life. UTTERLY RIDICULOUS!
The drug laws in the country is another example of the blantant abuse of the citizens of this country. So many non-violent offenders are serving OUTRAGEOUSLY long terms for pot-related offenses. (I’m not going to comment on narcotics offenses, those are more serious.) Is use or possession of pot worthy of ruining someone’s life?
And of course I have to mention it again: (broken record) The fact that gays can’t marry is the biggest example of the US not being the land of the free.
Ok, at least on the surface I agree with you that each of those things is ridiculous and ought to be changed. But, the thing is, they can be changed. They were laws put in place by an elected government, and even though that government can be slow to change, those laws can be repealed by that same elected government. That is what freedom is. Not that everything that you personally feel should be allowed is allowed (certainly, for example, drug laws are not something that everyone is going to agree on as far as what lines need to be drawn and where), but that you as a citizen have the power to affect change.
Would a government that mandated, for example, rights of inheritance to gay spouses purely on the whim of a dictator be more free than we are here without those rights? I say no, because they could just as easily be taken away.
Jodi, we have differing opinions about the definition of freedom. Freedom means different things to me than it does to you, and that is OK.
First of all, our freedoms are governed by our laws. There’s everything from the Constitution to your local town ordinances. They all govern our day-to-day lives.
So, first we must look at the fairness of these laws. Do the enactment of these laws make us less free or restrict freedoms? Also remember that the penalties for violation of said laws are also part of the law. So second, we have to look at the fairness, or proportionality, of the penalties.
In these random cases I cited, which were just plucked from today’s paper, I believe that both points come into play. I question the law, and I question the penalties, and I believe that the restrictions and penalties imposed by some laws take away some of our freedom. Everyone has their own feelings about each and every law, and you are free to disagree with me.
Who benefits? The politicians, the legislators who use it to promote themselves at campaign time. Working in the political field myself, I see this all the time.
And, again, define “impaired.” Is the government’s definition of “impaired” a true measure of impairment??? In your opinion, yes. In mine, no.
And, was one drink worthy of such a harsh penalty? In your opinion, yes. In mine, no.
Actually, I beleive the bill of rights applied to white women and other free citizens as well. Women in the US have always theoretically had the rights of free speech, assembly, to bear arms, to not allow soldiers quarter, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, speedy and public trial, not having to testify against themselves, bear arms, ect. ect. They couldn’t vote but who could vote was left to the states.
NYCTEA, you are certainly free to decide that the lack of unfettered ability to smoke pot means you live in the Land of Oppression, but I in turn am free to think that’s utter crap. If you grant your elected representatives the authority to regulate drugs for the common good (and, heck, for all I know you wouldn’t), then you must grant them the discretion to decide what will be regulated, and to what extent. Don’t like it? Change the law. But you have no absolute right to use drugs, of any kind. Not even alcohol, if the government decided there was a public policy reason to delegalize it as well. (As it has in the past.) Your argument appears to be that if you are not able to behave exactly as you like, when you like, even if your behavior contravenes accepted public policy, enshrined as law, then you are not perfectly “free.” And that’s certainly true, so far as it goes. For the same reason, a kleptomaniac can complain that he or she is not free to steal things – and they’re right. They’re not. That has nothing to do with whether an objective evaluation of the country as a whole would or would not establish that it can be considered a free country.
Ah, yes. Like all those other countries in the world that allow gays to marry. Including – well, the Netherlands. And Belgium, but only if you don’t want to adopt kids, because you can’t. Expand it to civil unions and you can add France, Portugal, Denmark, and Germany. One country that allows marriage with full rights, two that allow marriage at all, six that allow some form of civil union, six and a half if you throw in Canada. Out of 192 countries. Basically, all you are saying here is that no country is perfectly free but then, nobody said one was.
I don’t think the definition of freedom is really open to opinion. Rather, it appears that in your absolutist world, anything less than perfect freedom in every respect, is the same as no freedom. You have entirely failed to explain why it needs to be an all-or-nothing proposition, however. As you have entirely failed to explain why a country that is mostly free cannot claim to be, on balance, a free country as that term is generally understood by people other than you.
Should I be taking notes? Will there be a civics test later?
The vast majority of laws restrict freedoms and make individuals “less free.” That’s the nature of law: It is a social compact that we as a society will agree to forebear to do certain acts, and further agree that if someone breaks that agreement by doing the act, he or she will be punished by the rest of us. You must get a permit to build your deck. You cannot shoot your mother-in-law. You have to feed your kids. You can’t screw your wife out of some portion of your estate when you die, no matter how much you hate her. You can’t steal stuff. You can’t drive 80 past a school So it’s useless to start your inquiry with “does this law make me less free?” since in virtually every case the answer will be “yes.” That is not what people are generally talking about when they talk about “free countries.” They are talking about countries that recognize and protect a variety of rights and privileges on behalf of their citizens. Some countries do – mostly Western countries, and some Asian countries – a lot of countries do not. The point is that “fair” is not the same as “perfectly free” and “free” is not the same as “can do anything you want, any time.”
Your position seems to be that freedom is a matter of opinion, and that since you can’t have everything you want/ do everything you want, the country as a whole is not free. As should be obvious, I think that’s crap. By any yardstick, the U.S. is a country whose population enjoys a remarkable level of freedom. In comparison to the freedoms enjoyed by other countries, and the freedoms enjoyed by the world’s countries in the course of history, there’s as strong argument to be made that the U.S. is one of the most free countries that exists today, or has ever existed. It is laughable to argue that a lack of total freedom (to be decided by you personally, apparently) means that the country cannot be said to be free. Laughable.
It’s a “broken window” type offense. If people are allowed to eat on the Metro, they’re likely to leave trash around the station, on the train, or on a bus. We need to have laws of this type, but a heavy fine would be a more appropriate punishment. The L.A. metro prescribes a stiff fine for eating and various other infractions, but I don’t think anyone gets hauled off in handcuffs.
It used to be that we just needed to change the law. Now we need to not only do that, but also tell the corporatist libertarians to get the fuck out of our private lives. In other words, failing a drug test is a far, far greater risk for pot smokers, these days, than getting arrested.
To the OP: You are aware that the United States has more than two centuries worth of arguing federal vs. states’ rights? Believe it or not, if the legally elected legislature of a state decides to make peanuts illegal, then that’s what happens. And you can even vote the bums out and get new bums in on a ‘pro peanut’ platform.
The ability to have our elected officials make laws is not ‘proof’ of anything other than us having a republic.
(the fact that you had to go dig up economics to somehow ‘prove’ politics is simply too stupid for words. As others have pointed out, you don’t have the ‘freedom’ to have a guaranteed six figure income)
To the idea that if we have laws with unfair penalties we can’t be free: We have the ability to change our laws. Yep, we choose laws, and they’re enforced by human police officers who aren’t always objective. But we have mechanisms inherent in the system to correct such injustices.
Surely you can’t argue that anytime anybody makes a law that anybody finds unfair or unfairly enforced, freedom disappears?
And by the way, there’s no law that companies have to fire their workers who smoke pot. It’s an internal decision primarily based on insurance reasons. What, are you denying the freedom of employers to choose who they want to hire as long as they don’t discriminate? If, as an employer, I don’t want to hire people who eat celery or wear blue ties, I don’t have to.
On granting asylum: I was unaware that being retarded was reason for granting asylum in this country. Maybe we should set up a ‘political asylum’ line, and a ‘too stupid to spell your name’ line?
(etc…)
If, however, y’all had talked about the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T act, I might’ve agreed that some folks are trying to restrict our freedoms. I will also note that the vocal outcry from many Americans is proof that we’ve not given up our freedom just yet (as is the supreme court’s act of shooting down Shrubco’s pretense of unlimited war powers)
America may not be perfect, and yes, I personally feel our constitution and bill of rights are under attack by certain elements within our society and government, but the intent, the spirit, of those documents certainly makes us the Land of the Free, even if we’re currently not living up to the promise like we should.
Everyone has their breaking point - the moment when their delusion of living in a free nation ends, the scales fall from their eyes and they realize their plight.
For some it is inability to obtain Lubricant On Demand.
My moment of truth came when I realized that I could not reproduce the pictures, descriptions or accounts of baseball games without the express written consent of Major League Baseball.
No, it doesn’t. It explains certain possible justifications that are being debated in a court of law.
They’re investigating his claims
But he came over with falsified information
There is even doubt that he is who he says he is
He’s also not exactly truthful.
(if he has family, isn’t he their responsibility? Doesn’t that mean he’s got a place to go? Or is America the natural place of ‘asylum’ for someone fleeing a fucked up family? )
So what exactly are you faulting the government for? Doubting the credibility of someone with a forged passport? Checking to make sure his story is authentic? Doing the research to determine if he’d be subject to retribution for returning to his homeland?
Isn’t that how the American legal system works? We check out evidence and try to apply the law based on that? (and I’m not even saying he shouldn’t be given asylum, simply that until he’s proven it to the courts, he doesn’t get it.)
How does the application of jurisprudence for a non American citizen impact upon American freedoms? Is my freedom being limited because we don’t have open immigration rules?
That’s hardly the point. Your freedom wouldn’t be limited if everyone but you were required to wear a ball and chain. So what? It so happens that if even one man is not free, then no man is free because whatever principle allows for the oppression of any allows for the oppression of, well, any.
I wasn’t saying that because I, personally, am not affected that America is free.
I’m saying that since not one single American citizen is affected, that America is free.
I think that stands up to logical scrutiny.
America could close its borders and American citizens would still be free.
And yes, as a general rule of social justice “while one man is in chains I am not free.”
But in practice, American freedoms are not restricted by immigration laws.
(If, for instance, they made everybody in France wear a ball and chain, Americans would still be free.)
Oh, I see. This is just one of those gratuitous insults thread. Excuse me while I go find some intelligent conversation, you have fun with the rest of the pit monkeys.