I’m still trying to figure out how New Hampshire (“Live Free or Die”) is more free than the other U.S. States. The state troopers over there are the most vigilant I’ve ever seen, and come across like the Terminator. 
Despots, colonialism, same thing. Pretty sure all of those countries except Switzerland and Canada have had to struggle a bit for self-determination.
Oh, that’s only a facade. I just recently purchased a used pistol previously owned by the New Hampshire State Police. Examination of its internals suggests that it was never fired as normal burnishing between moving parts was absent.
But see, there is an example of freedom that is nearly unique to the US. I can purchase, and carry if I wish, the exact same weapon as an agent of the state. It’s a controversial freedom, to be sure, but it is a freedom I have that nobody in HK, Singapore, or any of those other bastions of freedom mentioned upthread have.
Before anybody makes mention of Somalia having similar freedoms, I have that freedom in the context of a functioning government and socieity. Somalians have the freedom of living in chaos.
Canada had rebellions during its process to become independent, and while not “successful” in themselves they probably did influence things.
Doesn’t the fact that the Swiss had to fight to remain independent play a very important role in the Swiss national identity?
ETA:
It’s also a freedom that many if not most people in those other countries do not especially wish to have, or understand the American fascination with.
I can understand the American POV here though: as opposed to Canada, Australia, and the others, the United States fought a revolution to free itself from a monarchy and government that allowed it no voice and did not seriously respond to its concerns. The same thing happened in France and Russia. But those situations did not occur here in Canada. You’re correct that we saw a few small local rebellions in 1837 and 1885, but nothing on the scale of the American or French Revolutions. Still I’d suggest that you’re correct also, in the sense that these small Canadian rebellions did influence later attitudes, so it could be said that they did play a role.
Perhaps there are different kinds of “freedoms” at work here. Americans enjoy the freedom to arm and defend themselves with those arms, while citizens of other lands enjoy the freedom from fear caused by having so many arms freely available and in private hands. Each is a legitimate freedom, but its the “to” and “from” that defines the difference–and provides the confusion where the one side cannot understand the other’s definition.
It probably did, but I don’t really understand the Swiss national identity so I’m not qualified to comment. I’ve been there several times and have known several Swiss well, but I don’t really understand them.
Every time I hear the “America is freer than anywhere” line, I think to myself: why don’t you drink a beer while walking down a busy street in your average American city. Land of the free? Really?
Well, I think most people would want to be free of other people walking around consuming alcohol in public like that, so yeah.
Why?
Because most people don’t want their downtown streets to look like New Orleans on Mardi Gras, that’s why. Public intoxication and all its ramifications is not really a good model for a free society.
Hey, I like my booze just fine, and would love to be able to just stroll down the street with a beer, but if all public places were like that, then the freedom of the vast majority of people would be compromised. So, in my opinion, a society can actually be freer with restrictions in place than with no restrictions in place. Make sense?
Their lack of understanding isn’t under discussion.
Censorship is one thing I believe makes you less free, whether it be political censorship, censorship of sexual materials, or even censoring video games. Not being able to express or study what you want is not an ideal of a free society.
Economic freedom is another, how beholden are you to the government. Are you free to work where you want, keep a reasonable portion of your income, and spend your money as you see fit without oppressive taxes or restrictions?
I hear about the restricted firearms ownership in other countries such as the UK and Canada, and consider them to be less free than the US in that respect. And really when it comes right down to it, the desire to defend oneself and survive is the most basic human desire.
What you’re used to is a factor too. You can’t walk down the street with a beer in most places in the US, but I’m not sure why you’d want to. In New Jersey you can’t pump your own gas, that is weird to me. You can’t see red blood in video games in Germany, that would annoy me as useless government nannying. In the UK many localities have embraced massive surveillance on city streets, that would creep me out. The UK also has a TV tax and vans driving around to make sure you’re not watching TV without paying the tax. Very different than the US and I would consider that invasive.
I think we need a big table with different matters and the way each country handles them. Of course people’s opinions on whether each country’s handling of the issue is fair will vary.
It is when comparing something across countries. You are freer to wave the Danish flag in Denmark than in any other country, but who the hell else would want to?
Isn’t public intoxication a seperate offense anyway? People can also be arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct - this law only seems to punish people having a quiet beer, minding their own business. The fact that they get arrested for having an open container and not for d&d or intoxication suggests that they were behaving themselves.
I understand your point and concede it.
These things differ from place to place. Here in Holland I can buy pot, go to a prostitute (I know about nevada) have a beer at 16 or something stronger at 18 and when I become ill and have only suffering to look forard to, can let a bunch of doctors end it peacefully.
On the other hand, I pay more taxes and can’t walk around with guns.
I personally prefer to have the freedoms I have and don’t mind to miss the ones I don’t - although it seems weird to me that there is a logic wherein it is reasonable not to be allowed to drink a beer on the street, yet walking around with a gun in your pocket is fine* - but that probably goes for most people. You value what you learn to appreciate, and don’t miss things you never get a chance to get familiar with.
Leaffan, this one is kind of directed (unmaliciously) at you.
You can have a beer and not be intoxicated, you know.
Don’t direct it at me; I’m Canadian. I’m completely happy that I’m more likely to see beer on the street than guns.
My point is that restricting the actions of some, enables the freedom of others. MOST people don’t want to see marauding groups of even sober people ambling about with open liquor. Therefore, society is freer by restricting this behaviour.
Can one maraud while ambling?