‘Freedom to’ and ‘Freedom from’ are both ‘freedom’. If I am free, should I not be able to chose?
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.
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?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
‘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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I understand the position. But that position is, in my opinion, largely based on religious belief.
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.