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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On the other hand, part of that is because of job scarcity. For example, Sweden’s real unemployment rate is 15%. 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.