They hate our freedom!

[Nono]

The "1984 is here now" thread over in General Discussion prompts me to ask a question that often comes to mind about "the land of the free" and the assumptions made by so many people living there: In what way are Americans any freer than the hundreds of millions of people living in other Western democracies?

[tman_ndsu08]

In what way are Americans any freer than the hundreds of millions of people living in other Western democracies?

We pay less taxes. That is the only possible measure of freedom that anyone can use.

[Nono]

Originally posted by tman_ndsu08 That is the only possible measure of freedom that anyone can use.

Would Abe Lincoln have run with that one? I doubt it.

We pay less taxes.

Do you now? I think it depends on where you live.

A boyhood friend of mine got moved to the States by his employer. Says his take-home pay is indeed more than before. But by the time he finishes paying for all the private services (garbage collection and so on) that he used to get publicly, though, he's no further ahead. And he told me they recently found that the garbage guy was burying the stuff in a place where it was polluting the ground water. Probably pays his employees minimum wage too.

[tman_ndsu08]

So don't order garbage service. Take it to the landfill yourself.

Just because you've taken a service from the government for granted in one place doesn't mean you're required to purchuse it in places where it's not a govt. service.

[Nono]

Originally posted by tman_ndsu08 Just because you've taken a service from the government for granted in one place doesn't mean you're required to purchuse it in places where it's not a govt. service.

Never said you are. But most people do purchase it, one way or another. And govt. employees are usually better paid, which puts more money in their pockets for consumption that keeps the economy turning over. And public servants don't have a financial incentive to flout the law (if there is one...).

[Technosoul]

I think some people overlook what might be the personal phychology of Bin Laden and why he felt movitated to preach about attacking America.

His mother was the 7th bride to his father, and in Islamic systems the first born son is the most important, that would put him way down on list of importance, meanwhile his brothers ahead of him got most of the attention from the father while he felt un-noticed and nearly fatherless relative to personal contacts. None the less he did get his fair share of money when his father passed away.

He secretly resented his father and his other brothers for being left out of the loop. His father was very wealthy and was involved in a number of busness deals with Ameirca. Much of his own family even lived in America and were active in our capitalistic world, they were in the construction busness and built buildings and other things. They even built some of the buildings used by the company the Vice President worked for, and had attened meetings involving perhaps the Bush family or other important people who later were voted into office during the last election.

And so in my own review of Bin Laden motivations I think he was expressing his resentment towards his own wealthy father and family, the image of Ameirca represented in his mind the image of his own father who became wealthy mostly because of deals made with us. He saw America as the dark monster haunting his soul because he could not bring his self to hate his own father directly in his consciousness so he selected alter-image to point blame at. In phychology they know about such idenity shifting but I forgot the name they use for it. It is like when someone who attacks women in general might be expressing a deep seated resentment of his own mother that he has blocked out.

The World Trade Center would have combined his disslike for capitolism (the wealth of his father) and as a symbol for the power his father had in the worldly community, or that of his brothers.

Although Bin Laden has lots of money in a bank he lived a life of poverty, in caves and poor places, even rejecting his own country for being under the thumb of wealth within the ruling class. Representing his own rejection of the wealthy family he was part of.

He then used religious sounding speeches as a Sage to gather support for his personal cause, to gain justice for his rejection and abuse as a child, and because he had transfered his dislike of his father to a dislike of the American image he, and his following, thought they were attacking the devil (America), not seeing the real demons that haunted them from the past.

He should have used his money on a good shrink.

That is my own opinon. Technosoul.

[Liberty Landing]

Originally posted by Nono, The "1984 is here now" thread over in General Discussion prompts me to ask a question that often comes to mind about "the land of the free" and the assumptions made by so many people living there: In what way are Americans any freer than the hundreds of millions of people living in other Western democracies?

I can only speculate, but....

(1) We are not watched constantly by 4,000,000 close-circuit surveillance cameras (as in Britain).

(2) We have legal access to firearms (unlike many western nations).

(3) Until recently, we had fewer restrictions on political speech (thanks a lot, McCain-Feingold). I think we still might, but I'm not sure.

(4) We do not prohibit certain parties from participating in the political process just because we disapprove of their message (Germany).

There's more but those are just a handful of major points.

[tusaki]

I'm from the Netherlands, a country which I consider to be one of the most 'free' in the world.

1) isn’t so bad. (and is in England only) And I believe the FBI/CIA to have more thorough methods of keeping a check on the population. In Britain, if you walk in the center of a large city, you -know- you are being watched. That's the idea. a deterrent, and it seems to work.

2) isn't my idea of freedom. I'm quite happy living without fear in a gun-restricted country.

3) you can say anything here, including 'I am gay' without causing a ruckus. (it isn’t an excuse either.)

4) no, because in practice, because of your 'system' you will only have 2 parties. And Germany restricts certain parties for understandable historical reasons.

[Liberty Landing]

And I believe the FBI/CIA to have more thorough methods of keeping a check on the population.

I'm sure they do, but then again, they are equally as wrong. And a majority of Americans would oppose such methods if they were made public, whereas only 2% of Britons oppose cameras in principle.

That's the idea. a deterrent, and it seems to work.

I have said it before and will say it again: the distinguishing feature of Oceania was that it was watched, not that it was safe.

isn't my idea of freedom.

It's part of mine. What gives you the right to restrict it?

you can say anything here, including 'I am gay' without causing a ruckus.

You can say it here, too. There are several openly gay Congressmen and I think several thousand openly gay elected officials.
Grant you, it will cost you an election in certain parts of the country, but that's the voters' will. Freedom = freedom to do stuff without government intervention, not freedom from other people not wanting to associate with you.

no, because in practice, because of your 'system' you will only have 2 parties.

*shrug* Again, the voters' will. There is less need for third parties anyway since the two major ones have historically adopted the policies of strong third parties.

And Germany restricts certain parties for understandable historical reasons.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make them free.

Anyway, like I said, I'm only speculating. Freedom isn't something that can be quantified, IMO, or even defined, so this is all just philosophical rambling.

[m5lange1]

The phrase "The land of the free" actually comes from a different time. At the birth of the USA it was one of, if not the, most free nation in the world. At least in theory. The black population would take serious issue with that I am sure. But the theory was based on freedom moving away from monarchies.

Since then I believe the degree of freedom may depend on what area you are looking for freedom in. Freedom from laws? Freedom from taxes? Freedom of religion?
These vary from country to country. I do still believe that democracies are the freest nations on earth but the USA does not have the market cornered on freedom.

[Technosoul]

"This land is your land, this land is my land, this land is our land, from the mountains, to the sea, this land belongs to you and me".

Woody Guntrie.

"this land is Halliburtans, this land is is the wealthy few, from the deserts to the cities, I thought you knew".

Anonoymous folk singer.

Technosoul.

[Evil Baby]

I'm not sure what would be considered the most free land in the world these days? It would be difficult to decide that because everybody has different views.


For instance Canada allows homosexual marriage but in the U.S. that action is not allowed(I think all the states that allowed it had to stop but not sure) because it is protecting the right of the word marriage in a heterosexual community. What makes one country more "free" in that issue?


In the U.S. guns may be a right and protecting that right is a freedom but that doesn't mean it is a "right" in any other country and that is why many could see that as not being a freedom.



However, with the many laws put into place in the last few years I would say that the U.S. is not a the most free nation in the world but its probably the best example of a free nation in the world because it is most likey the best known forign country world wide and does set a good example for freedom.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Liberty Landing We are not watched constantly by 4,000,000 close-circuit surveillance cameras (as in Britain).

How many then? You can't be claiming there aren't any. I've seen them. I'll bet there are a lot more in the States. But, like you, I'm guessing.

We have legal access to firearms (unlike many western nations).

Which, precisely, deprives Americans of the freedom to go about their business without fear of death by armed lunatic, a freedom widely enjoyed by the citizens of other Western democracies. I cherish that particular freedom.

Until recently, we had fewer restrictions on political speech (thanks a lot, McCain-Feingold). I think we still might, but I'm not sure.

I'm not sure either. In fact I strongly doubt it. But even if you could demonstrate superior de jure freedoms, what is the situation in practice? For example, I know no-one in other democracies who hesitates to express his political opinions in e-mails. But I've heard precisely that fear expressed in the US since 911. And -- this isn't scientifically verifiable of course, but a matter of observation -- in most parts of the States there is enormous de facto pressure to keep your mouth shut in public unless you're planning to express 'correct' views.

We do not prohibit certain parties from participating in the political process just because we disapprove of their message (Germany).

No need to (see tusaki's point) since they're all marginalized by the money-driven coporate propaganda system and, if need be, by 'other means'.
I agree that it's unfortunate the Germans ban this and that. Hopefully with time they'll feel more sure-footed as a mature democracy and lift those bans. In the meantime a far, far broader range of political views is expressed every day in the mainline German media than you ever see in the US. That's a fact.

A great deal about the system in the US is admirable, but this snooty "we're freer" attitude is really too much.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Liberty Landing, (1)We are not watched constantly by 4,000,000 close-circuit surveillance cameras (as in Britain).

It's starting with Red light cameras: The fine for running a redlight is $341.00 "Escondido's new red light cameras are operated under a five-year contract with Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. The Australia-based company .... will receive a flat $89 fee for each ticket written." This is the American version of the British system. Britain doesn't really make money of their surveilance. In the USA, a private company receives a comission on every ticket, no officer involved.

[Zeebadee]

Government isn't about maintaining freedom, government is ONLY concerned with limiting freedom. Every law, every regulation, every department and agency of the federal government is designed solely to limit freedom. Since government doesn't ever create anything, everything it gives, donates, or legislates TO one group must be taken FROM another group, in addition to the costs of maintaining it's own existence. The government is aided in their efforts to limit freedom by the morons that willingly cede their rights in return for some vague promise of "security". The Patriot Act is a prime example. By promising to only be used to improve our "security", the government is infringing on our individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The morons that support such infringement because they "have nothing to hide, therefore it's ok" fail to recognize that the day will eventually come when some new regulation is issued that they DO have something to hide from. Unfortunately, by then they won't have the means to resist available anymore. We used to be the country that had the most freedom, but those days are long gone. We've sat back and watched as the government has slowly negated the Bill of Rights.

The Bush groupies love to quote the old line, "Freedom isn't free" to rationalize the current military casualties in Iraq. What "Freedom isn't free" really means though, is that if we truly want a free and open society, occasional events like 9/11 are inevitable. The current terrorist threats to freedom don't have to succeed on their own merit if we voluntarily accomplish the same thing by legislatively abolishing the Constitution this country was founded upon.

[Technosoul]

Freedom is mostly a myth, not a reality unless you move way out into the doonies and live in a cave far away from anyone else.

Our system is founded on the facts that we are a social unit dependant upon each other and likewise responsible for each other.

The only purpose of the government is to make sure certain things can be used by everyone the same way. And to insure that the rights of individuals or smaller groups are not overpowered by larger groups or by the more powerful individuals.

Example: What if only rich people were allowed to use the roadways because they pay taxes and the unemployed people were not allowed to use the roadways because they could not pay taxes?

Without a government you are left only with the jungle law of survival of the fittist, which translated into modern terms, fit would be the person with the most healthy bank account or who had his own army to enforce his way upon others (best armed).
Resulting often in class wars or conflicts.

In a country with billions of people the whole concept of freedom of speech can become meaningless because millions of "voices" go un-noticed and become voided in all the chatter. Politically you can say what you want but if it can have no impact, if you cannot afford to buy TV air time or get famous enough get your ideas into the media then you might as well forget about expressing such ideas.
Even well organized 3rd party people might have trouble getting a word in edge wise on the poltical landscape, because the so-called free airways are not free, they are paid for with cooperate funding through advertising or grants.

Technosoul.

[tman_ndsu08]

Without a government you are left only with the jungle law of survival of the fittist, which translated into modern terms, fit would be the person with the most healthy bank account or who had his own army to enforce his way upon others (best armed). Resulting often in class wars or conflicts.

You forgot to put [/properganda machine].

Why would our lives be any different without a government? Business would just pick up where the government left off because of demand from the people.

Reputation would rule the market while competition would keep prices down and quality up.

[Nono]

Originally posted by tman_ndsu08 Why would our lives be any different without a government? Business would just pick up where the government left off because of demand from the people.

Of course, everyone would be so reasonable.
No. The biggest, meanest bastard on the block would snatch everything for himself and his family. And best not stand in his way, tman_ndsu08, or -- worse -- try to preach your vision to him.

By the way, without government who do you think would do the infrastructural work on which our present wealth depends? Do you think the highways, the electrical system, the sewers, etc. just built themselves? Do you think people would say, "Hey, he’s selling electricity for 5.5 cents a k/h. I think I can do it for 5"? It simply isn’t the same scale as "X is selling strawberries for $2 a basket. I’m gonna do it for 1.95".

If you want to organize things at no more than village level, fine. I'm with you. But if you're thinking in terms of large-scale society, it needs organization. Disinterested organization. As Technsoul says, the alternative is the jungle. No thanks.

[tman_ndsu08]

Yes, lets let the federal government control every aspect of our lives with expert central planning!

The biggest, meanest bastard on the block would snatch everything for himself and his family.

How and why? How is the real challenge as no one is simply going to hand over everything they've got. You've been brainwashed by the properganda machine (the media) and hollywood.

By the way, without government who do you think would do the infrastructural work on which our present wealth depends? Do you think the highways, the electrical system, the sewers, etc. just built themselves?

Business obviously. I expect soon that the government will start selling off the interstate system to corporations. Perhaps the car makers themselves? Pay a monthly fee for unlimited access or a per toll fee, it's up to you. No more useless speed limits and cops hasseling you all the damn time.

Supply, demand, and reputation are all we need to live our lives the way nature intended.

[Evil Baby]

How and why? How is the real challenge as no one is simply going to hand over everything they've got. You've been brainwashed by the properganda machine (the media) and hollywood.

No, I suspect we would all be run by warloards of such or gangs I suppose. I may have come into this debate at the wrong time but I believe if we look at our history, no government protection would lead to a warlord state.

Business obviously. I expect soon that the government will start selling off the interstate system to corporations. Perhaps the car makers themselves? Pay a monthly fee for unlimited access or a per toll fee, it's up to you. No more useless speed limits and cops hasseling you all the damn time.

Yes perhaps hydro companies such as those in Ohio could be expected to cut their own freaken trees every once in a while, and then when there is a problem all the companies will get together and get to the bottom of the issues as effective as the government would?