How "free" is the USA?

[HansNZ]

In the United States, people are trained to believe that they possess the most freedom of any people in the world. I fact, they seem to be trained to believe that 'America' and 'freedom' are synonymous, and even that freedom is an American invention.

But how true is this? I found this info on the web:

1. Probable cause and seizure:

a) In Canada and other places, the police must have probable cause to detain someone, whereas in the US anyone can be detained for any reason and it is only the formal designation of 'arrest' that requires probable cause.
b) In no other western nation can one be arrested and held for up to 36 hours following a minor traffic offense, with no justification or explanation needed whatsoever. We can thank a recent ruling of the Rhenquist court for this one.

2. Speech and expression:

a) In no other western country are schoolchildren required by the state to begin their day reciting the words "Under God"
b) There's only one western democracy where it is punishable by jail time to merely hyperlink to a web site that explains how to crack copyrighted material...and it's the one south of Canada.


3. Personal sexuality:

a) In western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, homosexual sex between consenting adults is not a crime, as it is in 15 or more states of the U.S.1
b) In none of these nations is heterosexual anal or oral sex illegal as it is in several U.S. states.
c) I'm not aware of any other nation in which it is illegal to 'use a dildo for its intended purpose,' as it is in at least one U.S. state.
d) An adult paying another adult for sex is not illegal in many countries of Europe, and is decriminalized in others. Not so in America.
e) In many countries of Western Europe, and in Australia and New Zealand, committed homosexual couples can be married or receive the same benefits under the law as committed heterosexual couples, as they cannot in the U.S.

4. Personal drug use:

a) In many countries of continental Europe, possession of a small quantity of marijuana is not a felony punishable with prison time, as it is in most jurisdictions of the U.S. Some nations have even gone so far as to decriminalize it entirely.
b) In no other western country is possession of a gram of any drug punishable by a life sentence, as with crack cocaine is in the U.S.
c) The drinking age is not 21 anywhere else.

5. Random stuff:
a) In Texas, it may soon be illegal to bicycle in groups of three or more on public highways. (http://www.bicycle-law.com/txaction.htm) 2

Isn't it a pity for Americans that their country doesn't live up to the ideals in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill Of Rights.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 These are not just formalities, they can be enforced. In Bowers v. Hardwick, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of anti-homosexuality statutes.
2 I have been informed that this bill has been defeated in the Texas legislature for this session. Lance Armstrong is safe for now.

 

[WODIN]

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose....

 

[HansNZ]

Here's more: The UN Human Freedom Index

A measure used by the United Nations to determine how much freedom the citizens of a country have. The top ten, as ranked in 1991 before the measure was scrapped:

Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands
Finland
New Zealand
Austria
Norway
France
West Germany
Belgium

The HFI measured so called "rights performance". It looked at an unweighted scale of 40 internationally recognised rights, with a point for each one available in each country.

The lowest scoring country, Iraq, had a score of zero, the highest had 38 or 39. The United States had the relatively low score by Western standards of 33.

The 40 rights were:

The right to:
travel in own country
travel abroad
peacefully associate and assemble
teach ideas and recieve information
monitor human rights violations
ethnic language

The freedom from:
forced or child labour
compulsory work permits
extra-judicial killings or "disappearances"
torture or coercion
capital punishment
corporal punishment
unlawful detention
compulsory party or organization membership
compulsory religion or state ideology in schools
arts control
political censorship of press
censorship of mail or telephone-tapping

The freedom for:
peaceful political opposition
multiparty elections by secret and universal ballot
political and legal equality for women
social and economic equality for ethnic minorities
independent newspapers
independent book publishing
independent radio and television networks
independent courts
independent trade unions

The right to:
a nationality
being considered innocent until proved guilty
free legal aid when necessary and counsel of own choice
open trial
prompt trial
freedom from police searches of home without a warrant
freedom from arbitrary seizure of personal property

The personal right to:
interracial, interreligious or civil marriage
equality of sexes during marriage and for divorce proceedings
homosexuality between consenting adults
practice any religion
determine the number of one's children


I looked at the list as might an american totally brainwashed by right-wing ideology. I was forced to discard:

1. The right to social and economic equality for ethnic minorities.
2. The freedom from capital punishment.

This gave the US a 33/38. For the US to score as well as other countries the following would also have to be removed:

1. The right to a prompt trial.
2. The right to freedom from arbitrary seizure of personal property.*
3. The freedom from compulsory religion or state ideology in schools.
4. The right to travel abroad. (Americans are banned by their government from visiting certain places, i.e. Cuba)
5. The personal right to equality of sexes during marriage and for divorce proceedings.

This index doesn't even take into consideration the impingement of many of these rights in the USA, such as the illegality of homosexual acts in the laws of 15 US states.


*NB: Many people have had property confiscated due to drug charges that were never brought to court.

 

[rsnoble]

Not very

We spend to much time taking away freedoms to make everyone safe. Little by little they strip away our rights. One stupid incident ruins the fun for millions. Some 10 year old kid sticks a roman candle* up his ass and dies so there condemned because surely the rest of us will do the same thing sooner or later. There needs to be a balance, and I think were getting way over the line.
*I made the roman candle incident up. I am however pretty sure that the 4th of july novelty item known as "snakes" have been outlawed because some little toddler ate one and died. Sure I feel sorry for him, but lets go ahead and outlaw everything else that is 1/2" in diameter that a child can eat and die. Why stop there? I still can legally buy a 5" artillery shell capable of blowing ones head off, and im sure youd rather turn your 5 year old loose with a snake than a small bomb. Damn, we'd better get rid of those also! It never ends. At this rate we will be left with nothing. And by the way isn't it ironic how much we do to protect our children but on the 4th of July we hand them a small bag of explosives and tell them to go and have fun? Dont get me wrong, I love the 4th and explosives. Just making an example of how shit can get out of hand.

 

[[email protected]]

There is no real freedom in the US. Freedom is that narrow line that the government says you can exist in. Cross that line and see the real test of freedom from your 9x9 cell.

 

[Blubber]

Hans, find a ranking that includes economic freedom and come back. Thanks.

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

Let's see! The Dcup does what ever he wants and no problems so far! But then again I take measures not to get caught! So for the Dcup it is free enough! For Stupid People, Bitchers, and Pussies it's not! So for them I can only say, " Shut the fuck up, or start Anarchy!"

 

[Blubber]

The USA is consistently in the top 7 in the Heritage index of economic freedom.

 

[HansNZ]

Here's the heritage foundations listing for 2003:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Luxembourg
3. New Zealand
5. Ireland
6. Denmark
6. Estonia
6. United States
9. Australia

If you think that this makes the US "free" then you have to admit that Hong Kong (China) and Singapore are freer. In that case I think you've lost your argument.

In any case economic freedom is about freedom for investors rather than for the majority of the population who source their income predominantly by being part of the workforce.

I'd rather be free from arbitrary arrest than be free from being paid a decent minium wage.

 

[Blubber]

Here's the heritage foundations listing for 2003:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Luxembourg
4. New Zealand
5. Ireland
7. Denmark
8. Estonia
9. United States
10. Australia

If you think that this makes the US "free" then you have to admit that Hong Kong (China) and Singapore are freer. In that case I think you've lost your argument.

1. I believe you conveniently missed the part where the US was tied for 6th, NOT 9th.

2. Hong Kong may be ruled by China but it's in its own economic zone.

3. Are you REALLY stating that freedom does not include economic freedom?

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

"1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Luxembourg
4. New Zealand
5. Ireland
7. Denmark
8. Estonia
9. United States
10. Australia"

That list is Fucked up Dcups list!

1. New Zealand
2. Luxembourg
3. Denmark
4. United States
5. Australia
6. Ireland
7. Singapore
8. Estonia
9. Hong Kong

 

[HansNZ]

1. I believe you conveniently missed the part where the US was tied for 6th, NOT 9th.

2. Hong Kong may be ruled by China but it's in its own economic zone.

3. Are you REALLY stating that freedom does not include economic freedom?

6th is still 4-5 places behind "freer" Hong Kong and Singapore. I will re-edit my list to read correctly.

Hong Kong is in its own economic zone, but it hardly enjoys western levels of political freedom.

Of course freedom includes economic freedom. The problem is that the economic freedom being listed here is economic freedom for capitalists to exploit their workforce, be free of environmental and social regulation, and to pay the least tax.

If you are a socialist then the heritage foundation's list is more a ranking of which country is the most enslaved by capitalists. So it comes down to ideology.

 

[Blubber]

6th is still 4-5 places behind "freer" Hong Kong and Singapore.

Hong Kong is in its own economic zone, but it hardly enjoys western levels of political freedom.

Of course freedom includes economic freedom. The problem is that the economic freedom being listed here is economic freedom for capitalists.

If you are a socialist then the heritage foundation's list is more a ranking of which workforce is the most enslaved. So it comes down to ideology.

What the fuck? In a country with a laissez faire economy, I can generally spend my money where I want to. Taxes are low. Government economic coercion is low. Tarriffs are low. That would be economically FREE. I don't care if you are a communist or a fascist or whatever, but a commie nation is NOT economically free.

 

[HansNZ]

What the fuck? In a country with a laissez faire economy, I can generally spend my money where I want to. Taxes are low. Government economic coercion is low. Tarriffs are low. That would be economically FREE. I don't care if you are a communist or a fascist or whatever, but a commie nation is NOT economically free.

That is liberal ideology. Have you not read any of Karl Marx's writings?

As far as Marxism is concerned you are only free if you work for yourself and/or the means of production are owned by workers, not by capitalists whose profits are generated by the work of others. In such a capitalist system people are not "free", they are exploited.

And no, I am not a communist. I am just pointing out that the heritage foundation's definition of economic "freedom" is just an opinion.

 

[Blubber]

That is liberal ideology. Have you not read any of Karl Marx's writings?

As far as Marxism is concerned you are only free if you work for yourself and/or the means of production are owned by workers, not by capitalists whose profits are generated by the work of others. In such a capitalist system people are not "free", they are exploited.

And no, I am not a communist. I am just pointing out that the heritage foundation's definition of economic "freedom" is just an opinion.

Communism is inherently less free because people do not have the choice to conduct certain transactions they would have under a laissez faire system. The basis of economic freedom is the transaction, I choose to give you 5$ and you choose to give me a burrito el grande. If there's a government that prevents certain transactions or artificially inflates or deflates the cost of others, then that's by definition less free.

Take steel tarriffs in the USA. I want to buy 10 tons of steel. I would ordinarily buy a cheap import, but because imports are tarriffed, I now buy some domestic steel. Thus I am economically less free because I have paid more for the steel than I would have otherwise (and my consumption goes down, on average)

 

[HansNZ]

Communism is inherently less free because people do not have the choice to conduct certain transactions they would have under a laissez faire system. The basis of economic freedom is the transaction, I choose to give you 5$ and you choose to give me a burrito el grande. If there's a government that prevents certain transactions or artificially inflates or deflates the cost of others, then that's by definition less free.

Take steel tarriffs in the USA. I want to buy 10 tons of steel. I would ordinarily buy a cheap import, but because imports are tarriffed, I now buy some domestic steel. Thus I am economically less free because I have paid more for the steel than I would have otherwise (and my consumption goes down, on average)

Once again this is just liberal ideology. As far as a communist ideology is concerned this type of economic arrangement is inherently exploitative because is commodifies labour and makes it subservient to capital. Full stop.

In any case, you don't have to be a communist to take great exception to the Heritage Foundation's definitions of what economic freedom is.

However you want to argue it, the widely held illusion in the USA that it is the "freest" just isn't based on hard fact - whatever ideological position you take, be it libertarian or Marxist.

 

[BigRedCat]

We in the US live in an allusionary democracy. We will soon be losing even more freedoom's in order to survive terrorism. Life's a bitch.

We still have the best thing going. Scarry eh? hehe.

 

[bwood]

you are free if you want to live in govt housing...

if you want to sell drugs...

if you want to have children and not
be economically responsible for them...

basically, if you are not a taxpayer you are free...

 

[HansNZ]

We still have the best thing going. Scarry eh? hehe.

You may personally believe this. But based on objective criteria it is not so.

 

[Baby Gorilla]

Are other nations better?

In the United States, people are trained to believe that they possess the most freedom of any people in the world....

As one who'se studdied this, I can assure you we are still the "most free" nation on Earth. Unfortunately, our freedoms have been under attack by the power-hungry elite that want to have a nation of cattle to control.

Probable cause and seizure -- This freedom has flucuated over the years. In the 60s-70s it was enhanced greatly due to civil rights issues. Today, it is being curtailed to unconstitutionally low levels. Maybe other nations are better than us, but I know a lot of nations don't even offer this protection.

Speech and expression -- The pledge of allegience is not a forced participation event. "Under God" in our pledge is not an endorsement of religion.

Again, America has more free speech than most nations. Your beloved Canada (for example) fined a paper and an advertisor $1,500 CDN for an ad that cited Bible verses condemning homosexuality. That's not freedom of speech. That's PC thinking....that which offends can't be published or spoken. It's trying to work its way into American culture, but we're fighting it.

The bigger threat to free speech is a corporate media than government controls. A lone man on the street corner doesn't have the influence of CNN.

Personal sexuality -- Good point, but frankly, sexual freedom is limited to one's private bedroom. Many laws you speak of were written when many acts were just viewed upon as evil. Many outdated laws are never removed from the books.

Also, not to gay-bash, but homosexuality is not natural, and nobody should be forced to accept it as such if they don't want to. In American society, nobody is righteous enough to say what you do in your own home is controlable, but likewise, you can't force others to condone that lifestyle.

Sexuality is not Constitutionally protected.

Personal drug use -- ALL of our drug laws were written to conform to what the powerful wanted. There is no Constitutional protection for these things.

Random stuff -- The only "liberties" Americans can say they have a "right" to comes from what is expressly stated in the Constitution. The Dec. of Ind. is not controlling. Likewise, we can infer all liberties from the FEDERAL government that are granted by the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights (powers not expressly granted to the Federal government nor denied to the states are reserved to the states and the people).

You are correct that the 10th Amendment has been under seige for decades. However, that will only stop when average Joe/Jane American wakes up and sees what's happened. This doesn't prevent the states from making laws that deny things that the Federal government isn't supposed to make laws on.

As I said before, show me a country that's all-around better than the USA. You can't. They have far more restrictive practices than the USA has on many issues.

 

[HansNZ]

Re: Are other nations better?

As one who'se studdied this, I can assure you we are still the "most free" nation on Earth. Unfortunately, our freedoms have been under attack by the power-hungry elite that want to have a nation of cattle to control.

Probable cause and seizure -- This freedom has flucuated over the years. In the 60s-70s it was enhanced greatly due to civil rights issues. Today, it is being curtailed to unconstitutionally low levels. Maybe other nations are better than us, but I know a lot of nations don't even offer this protection.

Speech and expression -- The pledge of allegience is not a forced participation event. "Under God" in our pledge is not an endorsement of religion.

I think saying that the comment "under God" is not an endorsement of religion is a hard claim to make.

Again, America has more free speech than most nations. Your beloved Canada (for example) fined a paper and an advertisor $1,500 CDN for an ad that cited Bible verses condemning homosexuality. That's not freedom of speech. That's PC thinking....that which offends can't be published or spoken. It's trying to work its way into American culture, but we're fighting it.[/B]

That is hate speech, the regulation of which is an area of debate in most countries. I don't think people should have free hand to discriminate against homosexuals simply on the basis of free speech. This borders on defamation which is illegal also in the USA. If you were in the USA justifying hate towards americans based on the Koran I think you'd find yourself with more to deal with than just a fine.

The bigger threat to free speech is a corporate media than government controls. A lone man on the street corner doesn't have the influence of CNN.[/B]

I agree with that comment totally.

Personal sexuality -- Good point, but frankly, sexual freedom is limited to one's private bedroom. Many laws you speak of were written when many acts were just viewed upon as evil. Many outdated laws are never removed from the books.

Also, not to gay-bash, but homosexuality is not natural, and nobody should be forced to accept it as such if they don't want to. In American society, nobody is righteous enough to say what you do in your own home is controlable, but likewise, you can't force others to condone that lifestyle.

Sexuality is not Constitutionally protected.[/B]

Your comments on homosexuality being unnatural are unprovable and based merely on personal assertion.

Personal drug use -- ALL of our drug laws were written to conform to what the powerful wanted. There is no Constitutional protection for these things.

Random stuff -- The only "liberties" Americans can say they have a "right" to comes from what is expressly stated in the Constitution. The Dec. of Ind. is not controlling. Likewise, we can infer all liberties from the FEDERAL government that are granted by the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights (powers not expressly granted to the Federal government nor denied to the states are reserved to the states and the people).

You are correct that the 10th Amendment has been under seige for decades. However, that will only stop when average Joe/Jane American wakes up and sees what's happened. This doesn't prevent the states from making laws that deny things that the Federal government isn't supposed to make laws on.

As I said before, show me a country that's all-around better than the USA. You can't. They have far more restrictive practices than the USA has on many issues. [/B]

As for your last comment, I believe that I have made three posts all offering evidence for the case that the USA is not "all-around better" than other countries. If someone claims the opposite then the onus is on them to show evidence to the contrary rather than merely stating that it is so.

 

[Baby Gorilla]

Re: Re: Are other nations better?

I think saying that the comment "under God" is not an endorsement of religion is a hard claim to make.

The Constitution bars the "establishment of religion." The Pledge of Allegience does not respect any specific religion. The Founding Fathers were mostly Diests (believing in a monotheistic God). No particular state religion is respected by this, and to my knowledge, no child can be legally compelled to recite the pledge. If we said, "under Jesus" or "under Allah" or "under Jehoviah," that would be a totally different matter because the name used deliniates a specific religion.

This also extends to organizations like the Boy Scouts of America. They require you to believe in God to join. That doesn't bar atheists because if a boy claims that he is god, it meets the criteria.

That is hate speech, the regulation of which is an area of debate in most countries. I don't think people should have free hand to discriminate against homosexuals simply on the basis of free speech. This borders on defamation which is illegal also in the USA.

In America, "hate speech" is defined as when one actively advocates violence against another. That's why the KKK still exists. When they do a rally, they must be careful that nothing they say advocates acts of violence because they would be shut down that instance. Liberty of thought requires tolerance of offensive ideas. Are Whites a "master race?" I think that's repulsive thinking, but I respect the right of those who believe it to say it....so long as they don't try to impose their "master race" upon me.

Defamation is also an individual factor, not group.

Your comments on homosexuality being unnatural are unprovable and based merely on personal assertion.

Isn't that what's great about freedom of speech? You believe what you believe and can say so. I believe contrary and can say so. In a place like Canada, you or someone who feels like you could have me arrested and charged just for stating what I believe and why. When one viewpoint is silenced because it is considered offensive to another, you no longer have freedom of speech.

Oh, yes. I know my position about the USA makes someone who contends otherwise prove their claim, but I know of no other nation in the world with anything that comes close to our US Constitution. No other nation that I know of has the soverign power resided in the people, not the state. If there is such a nation, I'd like to see it because all I've seen are states that grant liberties to the people rather than people granting power to the state.

 

[HansNZ]

The whole term "God" implies something supernatural. It may be possible to argue otherwise, but it can probably also be argued that the terms Jesus or Allah mean something different if you want them to.

Because the US has sovereignty residing in the people and not the state doesn't necessarily automatically mean that the US is free. Rights in theory aren't always rights in fact.
In New Zealand we have a founding document called the Treaty of Waitangi. This invests sovereignty in the Maori people who originally inhabited the land. This is not actually a good example for a number of reasons, including the pre-requisites of a democracy which mean it must be impinged upon so that everyone, no matter what their race, has a vote. But in theory, as with the US constitution, it is an example of authority not belonging to the state.

The constitutions of communist states invested authority with the proletariat. But the freedom index I posted is concerned with rights "in practice" rather than with theoretical rights. The people of the USSR theoretically had many rights. On the basis of that index then the US is not freer, regardless of academic debates to the contrary.

 

[HansNZ]

Re: Re: Re: Are other nations better?

Defamation is also an individual factor, not group.

I may be out of date, but I seem to remember that in some US states there are statutes outlawing "group libel" which makes it a criminal offense to libel (defame) a whole group of some single race or greed.

Maybe homosexuals are not included under these statutes in the USA. But applied to any other group this is the same principle that you have criticised Canada for re: anti-homosexual speech fines.

 

[Spruceman]

Add to the list the federal ban on radio receivers that can pick up certain frequencies. Check ads in Popular Communications or Monitoring Times for all-band receivers. Cant be shipped to the US if they can receive 824-849 or 869-894 MHz -- EXCEPT to the gov't itself. Cuba is the only other country in the Western Hemisphere that restricts the sale or use of receiving equipment. Add mobile use of a devices that can receive certain frequencies used by radar. In many states, most notably Kentucky, it's illegal to own a receiver that can pick up police frequencies, even if the unit was bought to pick up the NOAA Weather Radio frequencies just above the VHF-Hi police band.

 

[Longhorn85]

In the United States, people are trained to believe that they possess the most freedom of any people in the world.

You are condescending as usual, right from the start, "trained to believe". What do you think we are? Dogs? Check our immigration levels and you figure it out.

Get bent, chump.

 

[ariolanine]

Hanz, you are suck a playa hater. We are the best and the most free. Europe is socialist wasteland with little to no freedoms. And I like how you only compare us to your homeland. What about the rest of the world. There are more than 150 countries on earth. You are a typical old world europe man. You are thinking in the past. Europe is as insignificant as South America now. The only real playas right now on the world stage are the US and china. Even Iraq is more important than Europe. Get over your ego and grow up.

 

[HansNZ]

Hanz, you are suck a playa hater. We are the best and the most free. Europe is socialist wasteland with little to no freedoms. And I like how you only compare us to your homeland. What about the rest of the world. There are more than 150 countries on earth. You are a typical old world europe man. You are thinking in the past. Europe is as insignificant as South America now. The only real playas right now on the world stage are the US and china. Even Iraq is more important than Europe. Get over your ego and grow up.

I told you about three times in a previous thread that I DON'T LIVE IN EUROPE!!!

So far the only person who has added information to this thread is Baby Gorilla. It is interesting that those who disagree with the evidence I have posted choose to just insult me than to offer up their own empirical evidence so that they can offer a debate rather than a slanging match.

 

[ariolanine]

You've presented no evidence. European studies suggesting Europe is better than the US in any aspect is completely bias. If you don't live in europe, then where?

 

[manny78]

In the United States, people are trained to believe that they possess the most freedom of any people in the world. I fact, they seem to be trained to believe that 'America' and 'freedom' are synonymous, and even that freedom is an American invention.

But how true is this? I found this info on the web:

1. Probable cause and seizure:

a) In Canada and other places, the police must have probable cause to detain someone, whereas in the US anyone can be detained for any reason and it is only the formal designation of 'arrest' that requires probable cause.

- WRONG. WE CAN DO THE SAME HERE IN CANADA


b) In no other western nation can one be arrested and held for up to 36 hours following a minor traffic offense, with no justification or explanation needed whatsoever. We can thank a recent ruling of the Rhenquist court for this one.

- ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DIU OFFENSES ?

2. Speech and expression:

a) In no other western country are schoolchildren required by the state to begin their day reciting the words "Under God"

- LIKE IT OR NOT, GOD IS THE CREATOR

b) There's only one western democracy where it is punishable by jail time to merely hyperlink to a web site that explains how to crack copyrighted material...and it's the one south of Canada.

- I'D LIKE TO SEE ONE CASE WHERE SOMEONE WAS ACTUALLY SENTENCED FOR LIFE UNDER THIS LAW.

3. Personal sexuality:

a) In western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, homosexual sex between consenting adults is not a crime, as it is in 15 or more states of the U.S.1

- I COULD CARE LESS HONESTLY, BUT TRUE, IT'S A BIT OLD SCHOOL IN SOME STATES

b) In none of these nations is heterosexual anal or oral sex illegal as it is in several U.S. states.

- TRUE

c) I'm not aware of any other nation in which it is illegal to 'use a dildo for its intended purpose,' as it is in at least one U.S. state.

- DIDNT KNOW THAT ONE

d) An adult paying another adult for sex is not illegal in many countries of Europe, and is decriminalized in others. Not so in America.

IT'S LEGAL IN CANADA, JUST ILLEGAL TO PICK UP A HOOKER ON THE STREET.

e) In many countries of Western Europe, and in Australia and New Zealand, committed homosexual couples can be married or receive the same benefits under the law as committed heterosexual couples, as they cannot in the U.S.

- LAST TIME I CHECKED, GAYS WEREN'T ABLE TO MAKE CHILD. WHEN MARRIAGE WAS CREATED ONLY HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES COULD. WHY CHANGE THAT ?

4. Personal drug use:

a) In many countries of continental Europe, possession of a small quantity of marijuana is not a felony punishable with prison time, as it is in most jurisdictions of the U.S. Some nations have even gone so far as to decriminalize it entirely.

- TRUE AGAIN

b) In no other western country is possession of a gram of any drug punishable by a life sentence, as with crack cocaine is in the U.S.

- TRUE
c) The drinking age is not 21 anywhere else.

- DEPEND ON WHICH STATE, I THINK IN SOME ITS 19 OR 18. IT USED TO BE 16 IN SPAIN, NOW IT'S 18

5. Random stuff:
a) In Texas, it may soon be illegal to bicycle in groups of three or more on public highways. (http://www.bicycle-law.com/txaction.htm) 2

- GUESS WHY ? iT'S DANGEROUS

Isn't it a pity for Americans that their country doesn't live up to the ideals in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill Of Rights.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 These are not just formalities, they can be enforced. In Bowers v. Hardwick, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of anti-homosexuality statutes.
2 I have been informed that this bill has been defeated in the Texas legislature for this session. Lance Armstrong is safe for now.

 

[Longhorn85]

It is interesting that those who disagree with the evidence I have posted choose to just insult me than to offer up their own empirical evidence so that they can offer a debate rather than a slanging match.

It is interesting that you started this thread off with an insult and refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[HansNZ]

You've presented no evidence. European studies suggesting Europe is better than the US in any aspect is completely bias. If you don't live in europe, then where?

The first post is compiled from a variety of US sources.

The Second post is a UN index based on American style definitions of "liberty". This is why it is no longer used, because it was considered western cultural imperialism by non-western countries.

The third post is sourced from the Wall Street Journal and a right-wing American think-tank called the Heritage Foundation.

If you had properly read this thread you would know where I live.

 

[HansNZ]

ttlpkg, if any of your posts are aimed at me, there's no point. I can't read them. I put you on my ignore list MONTHS ago because I got sick of your idiotic posts. All I get is a line saying: this person is on your ignore list.

Why don't you put me on your ignore list too and we'll both be happy.

 

[ariolanine]

Oh. you live in Canada. That explains everything.

 

[HansNZ]

Oh. you live in Canada. That explains everything.

You're kidding right?

Considering I have said on this thread (on this very page in fact) that I live in New Zealand as well as several times on our last thread then yes, I obviously live in Canada!

 

[2Thick]

Re: Are other nations better?

As one who'se studdied this, I can assure you we are still the "most free" nation on Earth.

Have you been to Canada?

LOL... you are diluted...

 

[Longhorn85]

ttlpkg, if any of your posts are aimed at me, there's no point. I can't read them. I put you on my ignore list MONTHS ago because I got sick of your idiotic posts. All I get is a line saying: this person is on your ignore list.

Why don't you put me on your ignore list too and we'll both be happy.

Ignorance is indeed bliss.

 

[ariolanine]

You're kidding right?

Considering I have said on this thread (on this very page in fact) that I live in New Zealand as well as several times on our last thread then yes, I obviously live in Canada!

Can you have guns there?

 

[HansNZ]

Can you have guns there?

Yes, I believe we have quite a high rate of gun ownership by international standards, but probably not as much as in the USA. I own a gun, as does my cousin. But I don't personally know anyone else who does.

We tend not to have the USA's gun culture, so you don't find people in the cities owning guns. It tends to be more farmers and recreational athletes.

Our police don't carry guns.

 

[Baby Gorilla]

Re: Re: Are other nations better?

Have you been to Canada?

LOL... you are diluted...

Any nation were a man can go to jail or be fined for preaching from the Word of God has less freedoms than he has in the United States....period.

 

[2Thick]

Re: Re: Re: Are other nations better?

Any nation were a man can go to jail or be fined for preaching from the Word of God has less freedoms than he has in the United States....period.

What are you talking about?

 

[HansNZ]

Re: Re: Re: Are other nations better?

Any nation were a man can go to jail or be fined for preaching from the Word of God has less freedoms than he has in the United States....period.

But I hear Muslims say that the Koran is the word of God. Muslims who preach against the activities of the USA based on the Koran are not free in the USA. There are about 1200 such people who have been taken into custody in the USA. The Patriot act impinges on a great many freedoms you claim they have within the USAs borders.

 

[ariolanine]

Yes, I believe we have quite a high rate of gun ownership by international standards, but probably not as much as in the USA. I own a gun, as does my cousin. But I don't personally know anyone else who does.

We tend not to have the USA's gun culture, so you don't find people in the cities owning guns. It tends to be more farmers and recreational athletes.

Our police don't carry guns.

You mean hunting rifles and shotguns? or handguns and military style weapons?

 

[HansNZ]

You mean hunting rifles and shotguns? or handguns and military style weapons?

Hunting rifles mainly.

I am not sure what the story is about hand guns. I have heard of people owning them, but I don't know anyone personally who owns a hand gun.

As for military style weapons I seriously doubt that these can be owned without a really good reason.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Here's more: The UN Human Freedom Index



I looked at the list as might an american totally brainwashed by right-wing ideology. I was forced to discard:

1. The right to social and economic equality for ethnic minorities.

This is ridiculous. Please elaborate on how the US does not guarantee this right. I noticed it was something that you refrained from doing.

2. The freedom from capital punishment.

This gave the US a 33/38. For the US to score as well as other countries the following would also have to be removed:

1. The right to a prompt trial.
2. The right to freedom from arbitrary seizure of personal property.*

Number 1 is kind of subjective. How was prompt trial defined? While we might not have immediate trial hearings, the US would be prevented from having higher scores against smaller countries such as Sweden, due to physical constraints, i.e. higher population in court vs. number of court officials.

Number 2 is very correct. The US is expanding it's powers beyond what it was designed to allow. This is a tyranny many "right wing" groups (don't read Republican Party) have spoken against, but to no major effect. The concept of "eminent domain" is being used extensively at the local level to acquire personal property for the idea of "the social good".

3. The freedom from compulsory religion or state ideology in schools.

There is no "compulsory" ideology taught in the US, although one could argue that concepts such as "environmentalism", multiculturalism", "tolerance" etc. are being pushed hard in the public school system, but since one is free to remove their children from state schools and place them in private education, then there is no forced compulsion.

4. The right to travel abroad. (Americans are banned by their government from visiting certain places, i.e. Cuba)

You are correct.

5. The personal right to equality of sexes during marriage and for divorce proceedings.

Again, elaborate on this esoteric concept. This is more UN "critical theory" propaganda that attempts to deny reality to the subject of gender. Somehow women are not mothers and men are not fathers.

This idex doesn't even take into consideration the impingement of many of these rights in the USA, such as the illegality of homosexual acts in the laws of 15 US states.

Correct.

*NB: Many people have had property confiscated due to drug charges that were never brought to court.

Very correct. Again many libertarian groups understand that this is again a violation of the government's expressed powers.

The UN Freedom Index is biased, since the UN Declaration of Human Rights is a joke. Here are some of the "pseudo-rights" claimed by the UN:

Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

None of the above claims are "rights", since rights are inherent and are not obtainable only through confiscation of the productivity of others as Social Security, free healthcare, unemployment, etc. These are government priviledges.

"If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave.'"

"Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave." - Ayn Rand

Article 29, Section 3 explains that the UN grants all "rights" and are conditional to it's own interests. Therefore men are not endowed with rights, but are granted rights by whomever is in power.

I am not one of the drones in this country who claim that the US is a "free" country. These individuals would express this notion while the shakles were being placed on their legs. I do not make the claim that the US is the "best" country in the world, since there is enormous subjectivism in this claim. People who desire cradle to grave benefits from government are not going to be as served in the US as some European/Scandanavian countries may offer.

I agree with the original intent of the Constitution and the philosophical principles that created this country. I believe that our current and past administrations have corrupted the intent of this country and as all governments do, have succumbed to the will of men. There are numerous infringements on individual rights that occur in European countries, but that is not my concern, since Europeans are the sole arbiters of their form of government. My concern is my country.

 

[atlantabiolab]

That is liberal ideology. Have you not read any of Karl Marx's writings?

As far as Marxism is concerned you are only free if you work for yourself and/or the means of production are owned by workers, not by capitalists whose profits are generated by the work of others. In such a capitalist system people are not "free", they are exploited.

And this is why Marxism is a negation of reality. It denies the fact that, unless a man is forced to work for an employer, he is employed through contractual agreements and by his own volition and is therefore "free" to come and go as he wishes. Marx threw in alot of subjective "hidden" exploitation to further obscure reality. What Marx describes as exploitation is in fact man's unwillingness to quit a job due to fear of financial hardships.

China showed how effective Marxism is at improving the economy of a nation, through worker ownership of the means of production:

The origins of the famine can be traced to Mao Zedong's decision, supported by the leadership of China's communist party, to launch the Great Leap Forward. This mass mobilisation of the country's huge population was to achieve in just a few years economic advances that took other nations many decades to accomplish.2 Mao, beholden to Stalinist ideology that stressed the key role of heavy industry, made steel production the centrepiece of this deluded effort. Instead of working in the fields, tens of millions of peasants were ordered to mine local deposits of iron ore and limestone, to cut trees for charcoal, to build simple clay furnaces, and to smelt metal. This frenzied enterprise did not produce steel but mostly lumps of brittle cast iron unfit for even simple tools. Peasants were forced to abandon all private food production, and newly formed agricultural communes planted less land to grain, which at that time was the source of more than 80% of China's food energy.3

An estimated 30 million starved from this catastrophe. Why? Because you cannot hand the reigns of control to those who don't understand the concepts. The Ford Motor Company would not have existed if not for Ford, same with John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil, and on and on.

And don't attempt to reverse the situation and claim that without the workers the company would not exist. Companies are not naturally occuring, men must envision them and then bring them into fruition through effort. These men are the ones' who can rightfully lay claim to its ownership, they undertook the risks, not the men who are employed, due to its success.

The average worker is not the foundation of the company, the man or men who envision the company and then put their lives into it are the foundation. It is much easier to let the inventive man create the dream and then take your position beneath him then it is to be the creative thinker in the first place. This is why the owner has rights to the spoils. Marx would have the owners pay the workers exhorbitant "subjective" living wages which would prevent investments in the company, hiring more workers, etc.

And no, I am not a communist. I am just pointing out that the heritage foundation's definition of economic "freedom" is just an opinion.

No, opinions can be based in reality and some can be based in fantasy. Marxism is based in the latter.

 

[collegiateLifter]

Here's more: The UN Human Freedom Index

A measure used by the United Nations to determine how much freedom the citizens of a country have. The top ten, as ranked in 1991 before the measure was scrapped:

Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands
Finland
New Zealand
Austria
Norway
France
West Germany
Belgium

Basically, the moral is all lists are FUCKED up. For instance, Sweden has compulsory govt mandated drug tests of its youths, not sure about adults. It also has imo outrageous penalties for drug use. I know in Germany, the polizei can bust down your door at their pleasure, without even the formality of a warrant.

 

[collegiateLifter]

4. Personal drug use:

a) In many countries of continental Europe, possession of a small quantity of marijuana is not a felony punishable with prison time, as it is in most jurisdictions of the U.S. Some nations have even gone so far as to decriminalize it entirely.

just to be factually accurate, marijuana possesion (generally under an Ounce) is not a felony in but a handful of states. It is a misdemeanor in nearly all states.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4516

 

[collegiateLifter]

Re: Are other nations better?

The bigger threat to free speech is a corporate media than government controls. A lone man on the street corner doesn't have the influence of CNN.

Personal sexuality -- Good point, but frankly, sexual freedom is limited to one's private bedroom. Many laws you speak of were written when many acts were just viewed upon as evil. Many outdated laws are never removed from the books.

Also, not to gay-bash, but homosexuality is not natural, and nobody should be forced to accept it as such if they don't want to. In American society, nobody is righteous enough to say what you do in your own home is controlable, but likewise, you can't force others to condone that lifestyle.

Sexuality is not Constitutionally protected.

There are a few disturbing things here in
1) a man was arrested for a pornographic journal in which he wrote his fantasies with a fictional minorl. The journal was tucked away, but in a raid, police found it. He was convicted for child pornography--- even though no one else ever knew he had the journal-- and the conviction was upheld. I am not for real child porn, but he was never found to have real pictures or to write about real people, only about fantasies in his head. Thats a thought crime if i have ever heard of one.

2) about homosexuality being not natural, that is your opinion. Animals in nature have been documented having gay sex, so i am not sure how you define natural. Personally, i'm not sure what i think. However tolerating what other people do in the confines of their own house, is far different than "condoning that lifestyle." There is a case of two gay guys in texas convicted of Sodomy, that is going before the supreme court right about now-- far from outdated laws. Thomas Jefferson said that "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg," and thus it is of no concern of the state. Surely you don't have to
"condone" someone worshipping a sun god, an earth god, etc, for you to tolerate it, as it does not injure you or your fellow beings and thus is none of your bussiness. Such ideology however, has slowly been pushed aside by our government through the past couple of centuries.

 

[Baby Gorilla]

Hmmm....

....The UN Freedom Index is biased, since the UN Declaration of Human Rights is a joke. Here are some of the "pseudo-rights" claimed by the UN:

....Article 29, Section 3 explains that the UN grants all "rights" and are conditional to it's own interests. Therefore men are not endowed with rights, but are granted rights by whomever is in power.

I am not one of the drones in this country who claim that the US is a "free" country. These individuals would express this notion while the shakles were being placed on their legs. I do not make the claim that the US is the "best" country in the world, since there is enormous subjectivism in this claim....

I agree with the original intent of the Constitution and the philosophical principles that created this country. I believe that our current and past administrations have corrupted the intent of this country and as all governments do, have succumbed to the will of men....

[applauding smiley]

The average worker is not the foundation of the company, the man or men who envision the company and then put their lives into it are the foundation. It is much easier to let the inventive man create the dream and then take your position beneath him then it is to be the creative thinker in the first place. This is why the owner has rights to the spoils. Marx would have the owners pay the workers exhorbitant "subjective" living wages which would prevent investments in the company, hiring more workers, etc.

Atlantabiolab, I mostly agree with that, but there is a balance.

No entrepreneur would invest $30K into a production machine and not take care of it. That's foolish. However, the attitute towards labor is often appalling. They want laborers to gain the skills before being employed, many don't realistically "share the wealth" created by those who make the entrepreneur's dream possible with their hard (and often loyal) efforts, and they are quick to sack those that make good money to hire cheaper labor not always to be cost-effective, but to expand their proffit margin.

I'm not into socialism, but capitalism has to realize that while it's the business owner who makes the jobs possible, it's those who do the actual work that make the dream a reality. Loyalty and rewards to hard-working people is not wrong, it's mutually beneficial.

 

[bullett]

Re: Not very

We spend to much time taking away freedoms to make everyone safe. Little by little they strip away our rights. One stupid incident ruins the fun for millions. Some 10 year old kid sticks a roman candle* up his ass and dies so there condemned because surely the rest of us will do the same thing sooner or later. There needs to be a balance, and I think were getting way over the line.
*I made the roman candle incident up. I am however pretty sure that the 4th of july novelty item known as "snakes" have been outlawed because some little toddler ate one and died. Sure I feel sorry for him, but lets go ahead and outlaw everything else that is 1/2" in diameter that a child can eat and die. Why stop there? I still can legally buy a 5" artillery shell capable of blowing ones head off, and im sure youd rather turn your 5 year old loose with a snake than a small bomb. Damn, we'd better get rid of those also! It never ends. At this rate we will be left with nothing. And by the way isn't it ironic how much we do to protect our children but on the 4th of July we hand them a small bag of explosives and tell them to go and have fun? Dont get me wrong, I love the 4th and explosives. Just making an example of how shit can get out of hand.

rsnoble, you are EXACTLY right...

lawyers representing special interest groups are at the root of us all losing personal freedom.

it all boils down to money sooner or later... lawyers seeking damages for their clients who have been wronged, either by McDonalds with hot coffee, or by not putting a label on a ladder saying it may be dangerous to jump from the top rung, or the like...

The abuse of ephedrine will be the next thing, and the people who were using it as directed will no longer to be able to....

 

[HansNZ]

And this is why Marxism is a negation of reality. It denies the fact that, unless a man is forced to work for an employer, he is employed through contractual agreements and by his own volition and is therefore "free" to come and go as he wishes. Marx threw in alot of subjective "hidden" exploitation to further obscure reality. What Marx describes as exploitation is in fact man's unwillingness to quit a job due to fear of financial hardships.

Marx agrees with you. What he was saying (and which you have reaffirmed here) is that those who own the means of production control a society. Scarcity is what controls people, so those who own resources control.

The right-wing concept that contracts are made by "free" individuals misses an important point: for a contract to be "free" the parties to that contract have to be equal. In our society, labour is usually more abundant than employment (note the persistent unemployment of the last 30 years). Such people are not "free" because labour is more abundant than capital. The result is a bidding down of pay and conditions sometimes to a subsistence level.

That is why there is labour market regulation - to maintain a certain minimum and avoid people being played off against eachother. Another example is slavery. Such contracts are not enforced despite the fact that someone may "voluntarily" sell themselves into slavery because of destitution or some other compulsion. You simply draw a line and say "thou shalt not pass below here". The law works the same way, creating certain miniums where everyone is equal and enjoys the same rights, i.e. outlawing murder, rape, theft, etc. This enforces some form of equality even though bigger stronger people don't have the freedom over weaker individuals that they may in a state of lawlessness.

China showed how effective Marxism is at improving the economy of a nation, through worker ownership of the means of production:

An estimated 30 million starved from this catastrophe. Why? Because you cannot hand the reigns of control to those who don't understand the concepts. The Ford Motor Company would not have existed if not for Ford, same with John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil, and on and on.

And don't attempt to reverse the situation and claim that without the workers the company would not exist. Companies are not naturally occuring, men must envision them and then bring them into fruition through effort. These men are the ones' who can rightfully lay claim to its ownership, they undertook the risks, not the men who are employed, due to its success.

The average worker is not the foundation of the company, the man or men who envision the company and then put their lives into it are the foundation. It is much easier to let the inventive man create the dream and then take your position beneath him then it is to be the creative thinker in the first place. This is why the owner has rights to the spoils. Marx would have the owners pay the workers exhorbitant "subjective" living wages which would prevent investments in the company, hiring more workers, etc. [/B]

Well Marxism actually believes in owner/operator type systems so that private and community entrepreneurialism is actually the basis of a communist society. The whole "state capitalism" that emerged in the soviet union had nothing to do with communism.

Large enterprises do involve more resources and labour than individuals can offer, but individual entrepreneurs are not always responsible for these. The likes of Ford or Rockefeller or Bill Gates are the exception, not the rule. Most large enterprises are started by other large companies run by a managerial class and owned by many insignificant shareholders. In a communist society you can have the same system in principle. The difference is that the company is owned by the state so the profits are spent on public services, not private profit.

This episode in Chinese history is well known. But sadly for your argument it doesn't "prove" how useless marxism is. It simply proves how useless Mao was as a peacetime leader and how devoid of a knowledge of economics he was.

I actually think that for early stages of industrialisation, planning works extremely well. It has certainly worked effectively in East Asia. The Soviet union's industrial capacity tripled between 1928 until the Nazi invasion while the western world was languishing in depression. The Soviet Union's growth only stagnated once conservatives got into power and failed to adapt the system to the new demands that development had placed on it. By the time Gorbachev got around to doing anything 30 years too late, the whole system just collapsed around his ears.

No, opinions can be based in reality and some can be based in fantasy. Marxism is based in the latter. [/B]

Once again that is just your opinion. In any case I am not a Marxist and I am somewhat sympatic to some of your views. Truth be known I am actually a capitalist and a landlord myself. The point was not to sing the praises of marxism, but simply to highlight that you shouldn't confuse ideology with fact.