It’s impossible to take seriously any claim that America is more free than Europe when widespread prohibition of alcohol sales, through hundreds of dry counties and towns, still exists in the 21st century. See also the online gambling debacle of Bush’s presidency, which continues to this day.
You mean… as opposed to being dependent on an employer for things like healthcare and retirement benefits like in the US? An employer that, in many US states, can fire you for no reason at all and leave you without those things, as opposed to a government that covers all citizens regardless of what they do (or don’t do) for a living?
The reality is we are all dependent on others to some degree.
What about nudity? America is much more puritanical about this than the majority of European countries.
See link.
You appear to be comparing the difference between two European countries with the difference between two small parts of states or, even more bizarrely, the difference between a city and a small island.
I am going to assume forfeiture laws are of British inheritance so I will not question their existence in Britain and its ex-colonies but I have never heard of any other country having such ridiculous laws. I have never, ever heard of such thing in Spain where I am sure it would not stand for a minute.
The whole concept stinks to high heaven. The fiction that the police sue an object and take it is just too stupid to contemplate and yet in America it happens every day.
Can you show me what European countries have forfeiture laws and to what extent they are used?
The UK does have a form of forfeiture law with different rules in England and Wales (as a single legislative entity) than Scotland.
The critical difference is that in the UK the state has to show in court (in a ‘confiscation hearing’) that the property was the proceeds from crime. You have the right to defend yourself (and have a state-appointed lawyer defend you).
Additionally I suspect wikipedia may be wrong, the official CPS website definitely seems to say the confiscation hearing only happens AFTER conviction of crime (which I have no problem with constitutionally, if you can have your freedom taken away, you can have your stuff taken away):
Yeah, well… nothing don’t mean nothing if it ain’t free.
I dunno about that - the border regions between the various nations show a gradual transition and with periodic waves of conquest and such, it’s not like the European nations grew up in isolation. I’d guess that a Type-A personality German would get along much better with his Type-A French counterpart that he would with a fellow German he perceived as lazy and drunk. Y’know… a Bavarian.
Well then we really have a thread like this.
Is Ireland more free that NY State?
Is the UK more free than Boston?
Is France more free than Texas?
And on and on.
Oh and in Ireland if you have assets that were bought with the proceeds of crime. The Criminal Assets Bureau of our police force will be on your asre very quickly.
Yes but they have to convict you of something first, right? That was sailor’s point- here you don’t have to be convicted of anything to have your stuff taken.
What post number did he cite this? I just looked back through the thread and the only cite I saw from him was about the prison sentence for the guy broadcasting AJ stuff. AFAIK, the government can’t seize your goods (nor dispose of them) without a conviction. I suppose they COULD hold them as evidence in the event they are prosecuting you, but I don’t believe they can do anything with them until and unless you are convicted of a crime. If Sailor posted a cite showing contrary data then just list the post number, if you would.
-XT
In Ireland they can seize your goods(well money in accounts) without a conviction AFAIK. There is a new act going through tomorrow that may cover it. A judge has to sign off on it. It wouldn’t be disposed of etc. but bank accounts can be frozen etc.
I’ll do a bit of digging a see what I can come up with.
Ireland would be on the right of European opinon with regard to law and order. All laws would have to be in accord with E.U. law though or it would end up in the European Court.
Xstisme, Google ‘civil asset forfeiture.’ The government can bring a civil action against an item of property and seize it without any sort of criminal conviction. For example, if I loan my car to a buddy, and he drives around robbing banks in it, the government can seize my car as an instrumentality of the crime even though I didn’t commit any crime myself.
They certainly can, not only that it is up to you to take them to court to prove they are not criminal proceeds (at your own expense, after all your assets have been seized, and with the threat of receiving criminal proceeds hanging over any lawyer you employ). This is one aspect of life in the US that completely makes a mockery of claims to be “freer” than other western nations.
I don’t know enough about civil asset forfeiture to speak definitively for or against it, but I’m not prepared to automatically label it a heinous limitation on my rights. It’s not as if such forfeiture has no Constitutional limitations. I can see situations where it makes sense, especially in the case where the property itself is a menace or a nuisance to the community and facilitates bad acts.
Silly example: I own a megaphone. I loan it out to any yahoo who wants it. These yahoos use it to walk around my neighborhood at night making a bunch of noise. All are arrested and cited for disturbing the peace. Should I get my megaphone back? Isn’t the property itself a nuisance and facilitating the criminal acts of those yahoos?
This is starting to veer into hijack territory, so I’ll stop.
This is a complete erroneous statement. The idea that economic freedom is somehow comparable to real freedoms is absurd. That is my main problem with the libertarian position as a whole.
Taxes suck, and on the whole money is better of spent by individuals than by governments. But that cannot be compared with an unaleinable right, such as the right to free speech, or freedom of religion. I’d rather give up all my economic freedoms than a single ACTUAL freedom. For my grand-parents generation this was NOT an abstract choice. British citizens pretty much gave up ALL their economic freedoms during WW2 (the UK was effectively a command economy, with food rationing, and government run industry), in order to ensure their (and the rest of Europe’s) ACTUAL freedoms. Were they wrong to do so ?
That said the opposite argument doesn’t hold any water either. “Freedom from poverty” is not an unalienable right. IMO societies SHOULD try and an alleviate the suffering of their poorest members, but that is not some kind of human right.
The problem is this position is internally contradictory. Without a minimum level of “freedom from poverty”, you HAVE no “real freedoms”. There’s little real difference between “Do what I say or I shoot you” and “Do what I say or you starve”. In the same vein, I don’t I think that you’d really “give up all my economic freedoms than a single ACTUAL freedom”, not if you were actually put into the position of having to choose. When you are hungry enough, food is more important than free speech - which is the whole point of defining freedom from poverty, health care and such as not a human right. It allows a nation to pretend to be support freedom, while in reality the elite having it’s boot on the neck of the general populace.
Yeah…I forgot about the civil aspect. I was thinking of the criminal one. However, they government has too establish probable cause in some criminal activity in order to make a civil case to seize your assets IIRC.
And WRT the discussion I think that several European nations have similar type laws on the books as well, so it’s probably a wash from a freedom perspective…it would most likely depend on which European country you are talking about, and what their equivalent law would be.
-XT
So, we were less free during the Eisenhower years when the US had high marginal tax rates? I never knew I grew up in a despotism.
There are too many dimensions to give a reasonable answer. My daughter has a friend from Russia who we picked up at the airport. This is his first time in the US, and one of his first questions were where were the surveillance cameras? We’re a bit freer in that regard, but the mother in Oakland who is afraid to let her kids play in the street for fear of being shot in a gang war might want a bit more surveillance.
But there is one place where Europe is a lot less free. (Japan also.) It appears that company execs don’t have the freedom to make 500 x more than the average worker. Won’t anyone think of the CEOs!