Is America actually more "Free" than most other Democractic Countries?

[Ravenman]

@xtisme

For my part, getting a license to go to Cuba was roughly the equivalent of getting a travel visa…it was really not that big a deal. Of course, that might be because I didn’t actually have too do the donkey work too get it.

I’m betting you went before 2003 (or thereabouts). Our freedom to travel to Cuba (so long as the government says it is okay) has been rolled back since then. Cite, cite.

And the idea that someone is free to do something so long as the bureaucracy approves it is pretty silly. By that measure, Russians had the freedom to leave the Soviet Union at any time (so long as the commissar approved the request).

Regardless of this philosophical discussion of whether freedom means not having national health insurance or not having to work a day in one’s life, every time I see this thread I get steamed again about not being able to drink a beer on the Fourth of July on the National Mall. That’s oppression, no doubt about it.

[XT]

@Ravenman

I’m betting you went before 2003 (or thereabouts). Our freedom to travel to Cuba (so long as the government says it is okay) has been rolled back since then. Cite, cite.

You would win…I went in the 90’s in fact.

@jjimm

Not being hostile, just responding to your rhetorical challenge: “Does this change whether you think we are free now?”

And I was merely pointing out that it isn’t (well, wasn’t) ILLEGAL for US citizens too go to Cuba. However, I also haven’t really kept up on current events wrt going to Cuba (looking at Ravenman’s cites).

@jjimm

You chose to counter with a position based on blatant ignorance, and I merely bluntly rebutted you.

‘blatant ignorance’, ehe? Well, there you go.

@jjimm

Rather than misrepresenting my position with overemotional hyperbole, read what I wrote upthread: “I think in this one respect you are in fact less free than I am.”

Understood.

@jjimm

Furthermore, I’m not seeking to win. I said in my first post that the answer to the OP is unknowable because everyone has a different definition of freedom.

And I thought that was a reasonable stance…and one I agreed with.

-XT

[jjimm]

Pax (Americana)?

[XT]

lol…too be sure.

-XT

[Ocean_Annie]

I suppose it depends on how we define freedom. Do most Americans actually have the freedom to make choices when they are buried in debt, work multiple jobs or fifty hour work weeks, and depend on information that is controlled by a few large media conglomerates? Most Americans seem resigned to a corrupt political system, unfair taxing policies, low quality child services, and the greedy, unscrupulous culture of corporate America.

As corporations merge and conglomerates grow, control of America’s wealth and power is narrowed down to a few. Maybe Americans will continue to buy into the illusion of choice and freedom, but corporate conglomerates actually have the power to bribe law makers and yield massive influence over public policy. It is in essence social control.

[Baron_Greenback]

@xtisme

And I was merely pointing out that it isn’t (well, wasn’t) ILLEGAL for US citizens too go to Cuba. However, I also haven’t really kept up on current events wrt going to Cuba (looking at Ravenman’s cites).

I hope you didn’t spend any of those sweet, sweet dollars in Cuba in the 1990s. Tell me you bought alternative currency in a third-party country, please.

[Der_Trihs]

@Sarahfeena

As long as you can walk out the door and sell your skills elsewhere, you are not a slave.

And if you can’t ? If no one will buy them, for economic reasons or blacklisting or whatever ? Coercion is coercion. Someone forced into humiliation or suffering or death by economic means suffers just as much. Americans just consider that a sanctioned means of oppression and destroying people.

And I didn’t say “slave”; I said “what amounts to slavery”.

[Maastricht]

@Autumn Almanac

So the idea that the government can arrest you for belonging to a religious sect that’s “too cut off from the world” makes you feel more free? :eek: Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are missing a few points here.

First, that example was given to prove the point that there was, indeed, at least one difference between Holland and some parts of the USA. The difference was that over here, freedom of religion is certainly respected, but not to the extent it would be in the USA.
In the USA, IIRC, religious freedom, and the right of parents to raise their kids outside of society according to their own beliefs, no matter how eccentric those beliefs, are both valued higher then they are in the Netherlands. We place higher the right of kids to be protected by society from those eccentric beliefs but only if society feels the kids are harmed by illegal acts. Judge rulings on this are very nuanced. For instance, we have a small Bible belt in the Netherlands, and some parents there refused to let their kids be inoculated against the main childhood diseases. There was some discussion of the government shouldn’t vaccinate those kids anyway, but in the end Parliament decided against it; after all, non-vaccinated kids are not in immediate danger precisely because most other kids are vaccinated. I’m not sure what the ruling would be if a Jehova’s witness would refuse, for religious reasons, a blood donation to her kid if the kid was in immediate danger. But I’m reasonably sure that her religious objections would be honored if she refused it for herself, but not if it was her kid who needed the blood.

So in Holland, the government only springs into action if they have good reason to suspect that illegal acts are happening in a sect, like drug trafficking, drug use, or child abuse or severe child neglect. In those cases, (and they happen perhaps once every twenty years) either the police or social services **will **investigate and they will take action. And they are certainly more inclined to investigate if that sect (social or religious) shuts its members off from the outside world, yes. For instance, homeschooling is a rare thing here, compared to the States, so most sects can’t really cut off their kids from the outside world.
Does that make me feel more free? Dunno. Probably not if I did belong to a sect. But I do find it a reassuring thougth that kids run less risk of being raised with beleifs that are too hostile to mainstream society. There’s plenty of time for them to develop those ideas on their own during puberty, but at least the kids are a little bit older then.

Secondly, no adult in the Netherlands will be arrested or even harrassed for belonging to any sect, if none of the above illegal acts apply. Don’t insult me or your own cultural knowledge by pretending you think otherwise.

[XT]

@Struan

I hope you didn’t spend any of those sweet, sweet dollars in Cuba in the 1990s. Tell me you bought alternative currency in a third-party country, please.

Sorry…no. In fact I DID have some Cuban currency, but I also spent US dollars there. I won’t tell you what I spent them on though, so you won’t have too be too concerned.

-XT

[Baron_Greenback]

@xtisme

Sorry…no. In fact I DID have some Cuban currency, but I also spent US dollars there. I won’t tell you what I spent them on though, so you won’t have too be too concerned.

-XT

Well, you’ve just admitted to breaking a law. Freedom?

[XT]

I never denied being a law breaker. Technically, ever time I drive I break the law. What exactly is your point? Is the US the only country with laws that it’s citizens break?

-XT

[Tristan]

@Der Trihs

And if you can’t ? If no one will buy them, for economic reasons or blacklisting or whatever ? Coercion is coercion. Someone forced into humiliation or suffering or death by economic means suffers just as much. Americans just consider that a sanctioned means of oppression and destroying people.

And I didn’t say “slave”; I said “what amounts to slavery”.

You always can. You always have the choice to go out and try to find another job. It may not be the dream job, it may not even be what you are trained to do, or want to do, but you can always try.

Failure to find a job you want is not a restriction imposed on you. As I told my brothers, you can always find a job, if you’re willing to work. It may be flipping burgers, but you can work.
I’m not sure where you are getting this big “If you quit your job you’ll starve to death and thus are being coerced” mindset, as it’s pretty much garbage.

[Indistinguishable]

@xtisme

I never denied being a law breaker. Technically, ever time I drive I break the law. What exactly is your point? Is the US the only country with laws that it’s citizens break?

You break the law every time you drive? Do you have a suspended license or something, or are you just an incorrigible speeder?

[Der_Trihs]

@Tristan

You always can. You always have the choice to go out and try to find another job. It may not be the dream job, it may not even be what you are trained to do, or want to do, but you can always try.

And fail, if the jobs aren’t there. Or if the corporations are allowed to get away with things like blacklisting employees among themselves, or fixing wages, and so on.

@Tristan

I’m not sure where you are getting this big “If you quit your job you’ll starve to death and thus are being coerced” mindset, as it’s pretty much garbage.

I was responding to the insane idea that government coercion is the only kind of coercion. We have all sorts of laws to protect workers from their employers precisely because that isn’t true. And quite often people can’t get jobs, or are forced to take jobs that make them sick or kill them.

Of course, most Americans don’t care, because they think the poor are evil and deserve to suffer. Americans don’t beleive in bad luck, much less unjust persecution. If you are impoverished, it’s because you are scum.

[XT]

@Indistinguishable

You break the law every time you drive? Do you have a suspended license or something, or are you just an incorrigible speeder?

Incorrigible speeder.

@Der Trihs

And fail, if the jobs aren’t there. Or if the corporations are allowed to get away with things like blacklisting employees among themselves, or fixing wages, and so on.

If it is a major problem in the US, you should have no issue in providing a few cites as examples, yes? What I’m looking for is that this is a major issue…not something that happens occasionally. Thanks in advance.

@Der Trihs

And quite often people can’t get jobs, or are forced to take jobs that make them sick or kill them.

Quite often? How often? Do you have a cite that this is ‘often’ the case?

@Der Trihs

Of course, most Americans don’t care, because they think the poor are evil and deserve to suffer.

Most Americans? I’m sure you have a cite to back this up, right?

@Der Trihs

Americans don’t beleive in bad luck, much less unjust persecution.

Really? I didn’t know that about Americans. Quite the opposite, I thought Americans were supposed too be very superstitious (believing in ‘luck’ and all). Do you have a cite for this contention?

@Der Trihs

If you are impoverished, it’s because you are scum.

Interesting. Is this your contention, or are you asserting this is the contention of ‘most Americans’? If the latter, do you have a cite for that?

-XT

[Maastricht]

@xtisme

…I would feel uncomfortable and confined when the government, who I generally find inept, is taking care of me in the fashion you seem to crave.

Thanks for posting this, I enjoyed pondering it. I think you are right that there is a real cultural difference here, and it is weird to see how “Dutch” I am in those respects. I’d probably feel different if I had been raised in the USA. Makes you wonder how much of one’s identity is really one’s own.

For instance, and as an addendum to my above points, the Dutch tend to see the government as inept and yet as the one who “ought to do something about it”. At the same time, we don’t really, deeply believe in the strenght and rights of the individual either. I guess the Dutch attitude can be summed up as: “Both government and individuals can be inept, so we need to make sure they control each other and have a system of checks and balances”. The American attitude, if I see it correctly, is more convinced strengh lies in the individual. Or at least a belief that the individual should be strong and able to fight for himself, and if they don’t, that reeks of a moral failing.

An example is the infamous Dutch case of three year old “Savannah”, some years ago. The story was all over the Dutch national newspaper. Here’s the story. A troubled mom, maltreating her kid, had been under surveillance from social services for years, and her kids had been placed in foster homes a couple times but always placed back again. The the mom and her boyfriend, who thought three-year old Savanna was being whiny and irritating, stuffed a washcloth in her mouth, duct taped her mouth and locked her in a closet. The girl died, the mother tried to get rid of the body, and was arrested.
What I want to draw attention to, in this gruesome case, is the public reaction. I think the American reaction to such a case would have been among the lines of outrage at the mom and cries for her to be punished. There was some of that from the Dutch public, but mainly the feeling was along the lines of “Yeah yeah, of course let’s arrest that mom and her boyfriend. But why, oh why didn’t Social Services do a better job? Dozens of workers were on that case, and they KNEW that woman was a shitty mother, and shitty mothers will be just that! They should have known this was coming!”.

I’m not very sure myself what my point is if I combine this post with my previous one, though. I guess the Dutch value the right of biological parents to raise their kids just as highly as the USA does, even if that puts the child at risk. The difference then remains that the Dutch put a slightly less high value on the parental right to raise a kid according to the parents religion.

I’m not saying one is better then the other. It’s just cultural differences, and those are interesting if one wants to have an objective look at one’s own culture.

[Lemur866]

There’s not much point responding to Der Trihs, as Tom pointed out in another thread, just the serious posters.

[XT]

@Maastricht

Thanks for posting this, I enjoyed pondering it. I think you are right that there is a real cultural difference here, and it is weird to see how “Dutch” I am in those respects. I’d probably feel different if I had been raised in the USA. Makes you wonder how much of one’s identity is really one’s own.

As I appreciate this post of yours and enjoyed pondering it as well. I think the point is that there IS no ‘right way’ or ‘most free’ way. That determination is entirely up too the majority of the citizens in any truly free nation. As long as the majority of citizens are comfortable with their system and how it works for them, then I think that IS the ‘right way’…for them. Too someone from another country (especially if there are fundamental cultural differences as well), it might look terrible…and too them it probably is. As I said, I couldn’t live in Europe…visit, sure, but live there? It would drive me nuts. Most Europeans undoubtedly feel exactly the same about the US (though they may not even want too visit I suppose :)). Their system works for them…by and large ours does the same for us.

I’m really a live and let live kind of guy.

-XT

[XT]

@Lemur866

There’s not much point responding to Der Trihs, as Tom pointed out in another thread, just the serious posters.

Good point. My hope was by asking him for cites he would actually look them up…and find that, while those kinds of things happen from time too time they are by no means the norm. And maybe he would, on looking up those cites, discover that gasp that kind of stuff happens in EVERY nation out there…even those ‘free’ nations in Europe.

Probably ultimately futile, too be sure.

-XT

[jshore]

@Lemur866

What about the Dixie Chicks? A couple of yahoos declared they weren’t going to listen to the Dixie Chicks any more or buy their records or go to their concerts. And two years later they’re selling more records and performing more concerts. They lost some of their fans, but gained new fans and were lionized as courageous defenders of free speech.

As Voyager noted, it was more than just a “couple of yahoos”. Major media conglomerates were involved…Cumulus Media to an extreme degree and Clear Channel to a degree that remains somewhat unclear. See also here.