I’d back British (and Commonwealth) law and jurisprudence as being superior (but again with the same caveat that it’s what I’m used to). I can’t imagine voting for judges (do they campaign?) or having law firms with big, tacky neon signs out the front.
Where is the USA superior? I’d say in Twain’s “Yankee Knowhow”. Confidence and cynicism. It beats the British “still, mustn’t grumble” mentality. If something is wrong, you COMPLAIN, dammit! I like that attitude.
From certain economic viewpoints you are not as free as me or GorillaMan. Ireland being 3rd on the list and the UK being 5th. The US is 9th.
That is certainly true. Ireland is leading the way in Europe as far as advancing economic freedom. There’s been a decent amount of press here about the lowering of regulatory barriers there. I even know a few people who have left the U.S. for Ireland because job opportunities are better over there.
So then, it is not Chilean is it? It is something else.
It’s Chilean sparkling wine, or something to that effect - when designations like champagne, bordeaux, feta, sherry, grappa, ouzo and Nürnberger Bratwürste are applied to products made outside the proper region it’s considered fraudulent mislabeling.
Europeans are more backward then American because they decline to put people to death on the orders of the state?
Curiosly, the European automotive emissions standards lag behind those of the US, both for passenger cars and for commercial vehicles.
http://www.transportenvironment.org/Downloads-req-getit-lid-440.html
We are far more advanced in the area of processed snack food distribution.
The very weird situation now exists that there are more people coming from the US on work visas* to Ireland than are going the other way :eek: No cite but it was being talked about on the radio the other day.
The US leads most of Europe is broadband internet availability. Per capita 3rd level education is also very high IIRC.
*excluding J1 and other student visas.
Ireland is providing a fine example that freedom is good for the economy. France and Germany could benefit from the example in their own back yard.
HA! Me too. First thing that popped in my head was mixer taps.
Huh. When I was unable to work due to illness, the fact that I could still survive thanks to the welfare state made me a lot ‘freer’. Unless that doesn’t count, for some reason?
Don’t forget all those people driven to bankruptcy because they made the mistake of getting sick, and those working two jobs and still unable to feed their families. I guess they’re more free, too.
By having private insurance cover that, you could recover without burdening your fellow citizens by having the government take money from them to support you.
Your freedom should not come at the expense of others’ freedom. That’s not really a European concept, but at least remnants of that idea are still alive in the U.S.
Hmmm. Freedom for those who can afford insurance, less freedom for those who can’t? (I’d have been in the latter category.)
Freedom is not defined on what types of products and services you can afford. You aren’t any less free if you have insurance or if you don’t. You might be taking more risks if you don’t have insurance, but that doesn’t mean you are less free.
Furthermore, the government does quite a lot in the U.S. to make insurance unaffordable by imposing a variety of mandates and other restrictions on it. A lot of people who cannot afford insurance or who go without would probably have insurance without government meddling.
Huh? I thought you said that your lower tax burden allowed you to spend more, which made you freer?
I take it from your tone that you don’t have insurance that would provide what I received?
Yes, reducing taxes increases one’s freedom, because government is not forcibly extracting money from you and you have more discretion over how to spend your money. However, that is not the same as having “freedom” from expenses. Spending more money in and of itself does not make one more free; not having government forcibly take that money does make one more free.
I’m not sure – from your comments it’s unclear what sort of help was provided by the government.
Don’t a lot of employers offer health insurance as part of the deal. They have to cover that cost somehow don’t they? It has to be paid for some way and unless everyone is paying for their own welfare then the burden is shared one way or the other. Through cost of goods or services or a rise insurance premiums that cover the costs. The Euro model is more obvious about that burden sharing but it exists in the US as well.
BTW if a political party came forward and offered to end the Welfare State the people are free to vote for it. That hasn’t happened in the UK as the people prefer the Welfare State. They have the usual problems with allocation of resources etc. but overall it’s what the people want.
No really the point of the thread though.
Most Americans are covered by employer-sponsored health care.
Employers usually split the cost with employees. That is, employers pay for part of it and employees pay the rest. It depends on the company how much this split ends up.
True, but at least with insurance you consent to share in the rising costs. Of course, the health insurance market is heavily regulated and not really an ideal example of how the free market works.