Freedom House was founded by the Roosevelts, is based in New York, and receives the majority of its funding (80%) from the US federal government. Might be a touch biased.
Well, taking the most basic approach, one could argue that economic freedom is pretty useless if you’re dead or incarcerated.
sailor, what did you mean about US forfeiture laws?
Does this take into account wages, productivity, savings to businesses, revenue generated by more productive workers, etc.?
Except that the people of New England and Alabama spend the same currency, salute the same flag, vote for the same Presidential candidates, insert objects into orifices approved by the same Supreme Court, wear the same uniform if they join the military, watch most of the same television shows, and hear music kindly selected on their behalf by ClearChannel.
Your point about Freedom house is certainly valid, but the argument in question, that economic freedom is the basis for most freedom, isn’t exactly proven wrong by the fact that dead people arent “free”.
If you assume that all Medicaid, Medicare, welfare, and Social Security payments go to somebody other than the top 1% of wage earners, then yes. Those programs eat just over half of the total federal budget. See here.
I have to agree. Having spent some time in all of the examples MLS offers–Alabama and New England; Germany and France–the cultural differences between the two European nations are, to my mind, far more evident than those between the two American states. People in Montgomery may move a little slower than people in Boston; they might say “Coke” instead of “soda.” But those difference are quaint compared to the fundamental differences in perspective–dare I say, Weltanschauung–between the French and the Germans.
Sure it is. Nobody could possibly argue that a guy who is murdered by his government is more free than a guy whose assets are seized by his government.
How is one example of a loss of freedom a counter example to another?
Who said anything about a counter example? I simply asked which man is more free.
If you think freedom is an absolute, and you either have it or you don’t, you’re in the wrong thread, aren’t you?
I love you.
The week is about to start, and it’s going to be busy; so I’ll have to bow out.
Thank you to everyone who has answered – on both sides. The discussion has been enlightening.
I cannot be sure of being able to take care of my own future health-care needs out-of-pocket – I need either private health insurance or public health insurance. How does dealing with a government bureaucracy for that purpose make me any less “free” than dealing with a corporate bureaucracy? Thank you, I’ll take whichever offers the most comprehensive and trouble-free benefits at the least personal cost to a person at my income level, and based on global experience, government insurance wins that contest hands down.
I am sure you are just as incredulous and demand statute number and verse when similar news comes out of France or North Korea. Right? Or is it only when the news article refers to America?
Unless the article is lying, and I presume it is not and it would be your responsibility to prove otherwise, the guy was jailed for airing Hezbollah TV. I do not care much about how the statute is worded but about the fact that he was jailed for disseminating opinions. Maybe that was interpreted as aiding the enemy, I don’t know, but I am pretty sure that if the same thing happened in China you would be condemning it.
In America the government can take your property without any process of law. They say it was used in a crime or is the proceeds of a crime and take it. Then it is up to the individual to sue the government to recover his property. This is an abuse unthinkable in other countries. Google yiels plenty of info.
http://www.fear.org/
Asset forfeiture - Wikipedia
I will add one more opinion and then leave the matter, as it is really not all that germane to the main point. The U.S. has within its borders as much or more cultural diversity than any country in Europe because it has immigrants and the descendents of immigrants from not only Europe but the rest of the world as well. Any major city has its Chinatown, its Little Italy, its Jewish enclave, its white-bread neighborhoods, you name it. I believe some European countries are currently having a little bit of difficulty adjusting to recent influxes of people from other cultures.
Theoretically we all speak the same language, but I see an awful lot of Spanish on public signage, and a lot of products with instructions and ingredients in two or even three languages.
In my experience, the difference between France and Germany, or even between the England and Italy, is no greater than the difference between an Indian reservation and Rodeo Drive, or between New Orleans and Martha’s Vinyard.
I had not heard of this case, but a couple of points:
Al Manar has been banned in not only the U.S., but France, Germany, and Spain, and is unavailable for other reasons in the Netherlands, South America, Canada, and Australia. Al-Manar - Wikipedia
I think if this man had gone to trial he would have had a good 1st Amendment argument. Unfortunately, he decided to plead guilty. Guilty conscience, perhaps?
Because the government is EVIL ! !
Or more seriously, to the Right, anything involving the government is as a matter of faith assumed to be inferior, inefficient and a threat to freedom, compared to anything involving the private sector. Regardless of how it works in reality.
That is a position that is simply ideologically unacceptable to the Right, since it admits that the government is better and cheaper than the private sector at something.
It may be an abuse, but it’s hardly unthinkable in other countries.
Pretty much it is. Lots of western countries have criminal asset forfeiture laws, but none of them that I know of are as draconian (with the emphasis on you proving your innocence, at great cost to yourself) as they are in the US.
In case it has not been said:
We don’t have the freedom for rich and poor alike to live in cardboard boxes and under bridges or go without decent medical care.
