Only with the benefit of liquor.
That’s a rather specious argument, at best. Freedom of action almost invariably outweighs freedom to not have to see action.
Aren’t things like open container laws just…laws, that were put on the books by elected representatives, for whom Americans were free to vote in to office?
It’s one thing to live under the rule of a tyrannical government that enacts laws willy-nilly. But in America we do have the power to have laws changed. If they don’t get changed, one would suspect that the majority of the people - however misguided - agree that the law should remain.
Sure they do, but what does that have to do with anything? There’s no practical difference between having your freedom curtailed by an elected government or a self-appointed dictator.
But can you burn the Danish flag in Denmark ? Well yes, but strangely enough you can’t burn the American flag in Denmark.
I’m free to wave any flag in Canada. Protocol simply suggests that I shouldn’t wave the flag higher than the Maple Leaf. Furthermore, no one has ever been charged or convicted for burning any flag in Canada. It simply isn’t against the law.
In the States however it was illegal up till 1989. I understand that a proposed amendment in 2005 narrowly missed passage from the congress to the states to make it illegal once more. Seems like a vulnerable freedom in the States to me.
Interestingly, “defending oneself” does not show up on a list of 16 basic human desires proposed by Steven Reiss of Ohio State University. Link here (warning PDF), and note especially the list on page 187 of the journal (page 9 of the PDF).
While it could be argued that a couple of Reiss’s desires could be taken to include defending oneself–namely, the desire to be autonomous (independence) and the desire to avoid anxiety and fear (tranquility)–the behaviors that Reiss describes for each do not describe acts of self-defense. There is a desire to get even (vengeance), which is described as “fighting when threatened,” but the desire to avoid anxiety and fear (tranquility) is described as “running away from danger,” which would seem to cancel the former out except when there is no other recourse (i.e. the animal is cornered). The desire to survive is in the list, but embodied in the desire to eat and the desire for sex. Regardless, there doesn’t seem to be one desire that stands out as “the most basic human desire,” as you claim.
This is what I was able to find in searching “basic human desires.” However, if you have a reputable cite that demonstrates that self-defense is the most basic human desire, I’d appreciate you sharing it.
Not here it isn’t. There’s zero demand for guns-to-shoot-people-with here. It’s seen as the police’s job, if anyone’s.
Well, it didn’t take long for this thread to devolve into the typical beer vs. guns debate. Kudos to Giles for at least delaying the usual with the economic freedom post (#2).
But you can if you have a double o number.
…and kudos to you for all the insightful, substantive posts you made to the thread. Well played, old boy, well played.
When I lived in China, I heard a lot of reasoning that a strong police state actually made people more free. I often had to point out that freedom means protecting unpopular actions, not the ones that everyone agrees with.
And if someone is being obstreperous in public, that’s ample reason for police action, whether someone is drunk or not. I fail to understand why quietly having a beer in a park is unacceptable, but having a beer on a sidewalk patio owned by a restaurant is okay. Oh, and here in Washington, DC, I believe the law still prohibits someone sitting on the front steps of a house that they own and enjoying an adult beverage. Yeah, that’s freedom for you.
Even Canada has issues. We moved from Montreal to the U.S. in part because of the implementation of laws restricting the use of English. That’s an aspect of freedom.
So, as I said in an earlier message, you can’t make a definitive ordering of countries by how free they are. There are subtleties and nuances in every country.
Keep on rockin’ in the free world.
HK has enormous economic freedom, which can end at the snap of a finger. On the surface, it appears to have poltical freedom, but that is mostly a illusion. You have a Chinese passprt, you have Chinese restrcitions, and everyone knows the Communist government is watching the sitrep carefully, ready to squelch if need be.
Freedom is measured in many ways- economic (USA is Ok, not tops), political (USA is #1), personal rights (abortion, privacy, drugs, guns), etc. No nation scores highest in all measures. Thus, if you value one form of freedom over another, you can say a certain nation is #1. Thereby, dudes who say USA is #1 are right.
There’s a whole section of the Guardian newspaper here complaining about encroaching restrictions on freedom liberty central | Commentisfree | The Guardian
It all depends on one’s point of view. I could say that I’m more free to communicate using my language in my own country than I’d ever have been if these laws hadn’t been passed.
I don’t have much of a problem with the freedom to drink beer and the freedom to use guns, but I wouldn’t exercise both at the same time.
Well, given that I own zero guns and don’t drink, I wouldn’t have much to contribute, would I? 
To anything, really. 
You’ve got me there. But let’s be clear. That law is only in Quebec and as a nation we do have to allow the freedom for francphone Quebecois to ensure their language remains preeminent within their borders. Those guys are a very special case, somewhat like the special cases for aboriginals in both Canada and the US within their reservations.
This may be key to the discussion. We can talk about freedom being measured by gun ownership, or the ability to drink beer in the street or to pump your own gas in New Jersey, but it all comes down to elected representatives doing what the majority of the people who elected them want them to do. Generally speaking, of course; some people will never like what legislatures and parliaments and congresses do. But all of the restrictions discussed in this thread were passed by properly-elected governments in free and fair elections; and it doesn’t matter whether the body in question is American, Canadian, British, Dutch, or Australian. Unlike countries where one name belonging to the only party allowed to exist is on the ballot, citizens of the above (and others) have the freedom to choose from a number of names and parties on the ballot. And they typically get what they want from the government thus elected; and if they don’t like what they get, they can vote in a different government next time. It’s a far cry from (for example) a one-party state ruled by a dictator-for-life.
Some define freedom as a lack of responsibility. So a person in prison has no responsibility, everything is provided. No decisions or self imposed restrictions. ( more or less ) So, total freedom.
But the more responsibility I take for my self, paying for food & shelter or building & growing it, not bothering others, not endangering others by my actions (self regulation if you will ) , this allows me more and more freedom in the sense of what I can do without repercussions or interference from others.
So, IMO, freedom is in direct proportion to acceptance of personal responsibility.
Walking with a beer, carrying a gun, driving a car etc.
If these are restricted because of the miss use or actions of others it takes away my freedom to to self determine.
And that self determination is the main definition of freedom for me.
The free world has fallen into two traps.
- Any life is worth any cost to save it.
- Allowing the elected government to pass laws that they do not have to follow. *( adding my pet peeve, diplomatic immunity )
It is not about guns, drugs, health care. etc., IMO. Those are personal preferences that have been blown out of proportion.
Impossible to make a comparison unless there is an agreed list of what is to be included.
That is an impossible thing to accomplish when human beings are involved.
YMMV