America Ignores the Pleas of Countries for Freedom.....

[saif]

Freedom House announced its results in a major survey of global freedom, "Freedom in the World," shows that


"According to the survey, 89 countries are Free. Their 2.8 billion inhabitants (44 percent of the world's population) enjoy a broad range of rights. Fifty-four countries representing 1.2 billion people (19 percent) are considered Partly Free. Political rights and civil liberties are more limited in these countries, in which corruption, dominant ruling parties, or, in some cases, ethnic or religious strife are often the norm. The survey finds that 49 countries are Not Free.The 2.4 billion inhabitants (37 percent) of these countries, three-fifths of whom live in China, are denied most basic political rights and civil liberties.
Of the world's 192 states, 119 are electoral democracies (89 Free and 30 Partly Free), an increase of 2 since 2003. While these states are not all rated Free, all provide considerable political space and media access for opposition movements and allow for elections that meet minimum international standards of ballot secrecy and vote tabulation.
Over the last 15 years, the number of electoral democracies has risen from 69 out of 167 (41 percent) to 119 out of 192 (62 percent). On average during that time frame, an additional 3 states have adopted minimal standards for free and fair elections each year.
Of the 49 countries rated Not Free, 19 received the worst possible numerical rating (7) for political rights. The broadest restrictions on political activity take place in Belarus, Burma, Cuba, China, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iraq, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. Four territories, Chechnya (Russia), Kashmir (Pakistan), Tibet (China), and Western Sahara (Morocco) also received the lowest political rights rating.
The broadest violations of civil liberties—including freedom of speech, rule of law, and personal autonomy—take place in 9 countries: Burma, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkmenistan. Chechnya and Tibet are also included in this category.
A total of 8 countries—Burma, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkmenistan—receive the lowest possible scores for both political rights and civil liberties, making them the most repressive regimes in the world. Chechnya and Tibet also fall into this category.
Russia's status fell from Partly Free to Not Free because of the flawed nature of the country's parliamentary elections in December 2003 and presidential elections in 2004, the further consolidation of state control of the media, and the imposition of official curbs on opposition political parties and groups. Russia's retreat from freedom marks a low point not registered since 1989, when the country was part of the Soviet Union."

http://www.aei.org/research/nai/news...ews_detail.asp

[castille]

Funny how most of those "not-free" countries are anti-American.

From what I've seen in the past, "free" is just another term for "pro-American".

We know this is from an American bias, but have you considered some cultures may not consider freedom to be an important issue?

[Spartacus]

Quote by: castille We know this is from an American bias, but have you considered some cultures may not consider freedom to be an important issue?

This is a ridiculous assertion. Name a culture, that is not perverted beyond hope (like the Khamir Rouge in Cambodia), where freedom is not an important issue. I think you will be hard pressed to find one.

Freedom is a universal desire irrespective of culture. I believe it is set within human nature to be free. A culture that does not cherish it and promote it is a culture that obtains its members by force and is doomed to run its course and become extinct. Have you considered that the reason so many of those places that are not free are anti-American is because we represent a hope to be free to their people and that threatens their very existence?

[castille]

Well I can name about 10 countries whose citizens have more pressing concerns than freedom:

Nigeria
Ethiopia
Rwanda
Zimbabwe
China
Singapore
Burma
Iran
Sierra Leone
North Korea


The poorer countries on the list (ie. Sierra Leone) are more concerned with staying alive and getting enough food. Let's face it, when you're starving to death, the right to vote isn't exactly high on your list of priorities.

The less-poorer countries (ie. Singapore, China) tend to view stability as more important than freedom.


Out of curiosity, what culture are you from?

[Gorgo]

How do they define "free?" The freedom to vote for one of two parties that do not have your interest at heart? The freedom to live under a bridge? The freedom to work four jobs and still not make ends meet?

[castille]

Gorgo, if you're really working 4 jobs and not making ends meet, you shouldn't be wasting time on Volconvo

[Gorgo]

I probably shouldn't be wasting my time on Volconvo with only one or two.

[castille]

Is that a goodbye?

Just curious, what jobs do you work at?

[Gorgo]

I work for a business forms printing company. I also own a couple of apartments, which means I have a lot of work to do there that I'm not doing as well as the job I'm not doing on my first job.

[castille]

So if you own a bunch of investment properties, why are you fretting about money?

You're also the first socialist property investor/landlord I've seen.

[The Dunedan]

Yeah, Gorgo, what's the deal? Shouldn't you turn ownership of those apartments over to those tenants and abolish their rents, per Marx? What's a Communist doing as a LANDLORD, of all things? Sounds like a petty-bourgois poser, to me.

[Gorgo]

I wasn't fretting, but if I do fret about money it's because I'm a landlord and a parent/grandparent. None of my renters can seem to find decent jobs. My children are having trouble getting decent jobs.

I'm not a confirmed socialist. Not yet, anyway. I would have settled for a Republican like Nader, but all we seem to get are extreme right wingers like Kerry and Clinton and Off-the charts right wing criminals like Bush. Now I'm looking at other options.

Edited to add: Dunedan, I'm certainly not a Communist. That's why I didn't vote for a Stalinist like Bush.

[G. Adams]

It depends what you mean by free.

Thomas Hobbes considered freedom itself to be the very root of societies problems. Man in a state of nature is free, he possess everything and has a right to everything. However, as all men possess such rights in nature, freedom is an empty and worthless concept. Additionally, because all men are free to do as they please, they fear other freedom to infringe their own freedom. So man looks to deny anothers freedom in order to protect himself. Such a situation whereby man is free, the state of nature would be nasty, brutish and short. The only way to stop this from occuring, and thereby creating pease and stability, is for each man to fear using his freedom to the detriment of others more than losing his freedom to begin with. This requires an allpowerful, absolute government, the Leviathan. Man must obey the leviathans laws without question, for if he doesn't, why should anyone else, and theyby descending again into the terrible state of nature. This agreement to abide by the law is Hobbes version of the Social Contract.

John Locke's idea of freedom is radically different. Locke believed that man had liberty, not license as Hobbes argued, in nature. Each man is naturally free and equal. Additionally, within nature there is a moral law, derived from God, that is natural law. This law teaches us that we must respect each other lives, liberties, property etc. This law can only be discovered through reason, as no-one can simply know natural law. This where 'inconveniances arise'. There will likely be many occaisions where one mans reason leads him to believe one thing that another objects to. It takes an external arbiter, a government, to decide which is reasonable. Therefore man enters into a social contract with one another, that they respect the laws of this arbiter, while that arbiter still respects natural law. This means that the arbiter must respect the natural rights this moral law provides, life, liberty, etc. If the arbiter fails to respect natural law, the individual can defend himself from this arbiters executive arms, or leave the state. So for Locke, while man might not have, or desire full freedom, he desires liberty, to be free to pursue his choices so long as it harms none.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau had another view of freedom. He argued that Hobbes was wrong to see natural man as an aggressive beast, as was free and happy. Natural man has no reason but to be happy, he is independant and self-pleasing (not egoistic, rather he means independant in his survival). However, the spread of mankind created conditions where he could no longer be independant, as there were too many humans to support for the land. So humanity attempted to erect civilisation together. Prior to this, man was happy, compassionate and independant. However, when building civilisation, he attempted to retain his independance, at the expense of compassion. So he took property, which was previously held in common (in as much as no-one had previously claimed it as their own). Man had been corrupted by his new conditions, and his new conditions corrupted him. If one person claims property, all must claim property, and those without must struggle to obtain property. Man's drive to please his needs had become a drive to deny others.

I'll stop with JJ as he goes off course with his solution, at least in my view. He even admits that his own solution would take a virtual god to enact successfully, with the stature and ability of Lycurgus (see Spartan history for details). He predicted that without such a figure an attempt to create his vision would be a bloodbath, between the revolutionaries, reactionaries and innocents percieved as being on the wrong side. And he was right.

So here we have three convincing ideas of freedom, not for you perhaps, but enough for history to record them as important, and all have had great importance for European and American history (hobbes influenced the UK, Locke the US, and Rousseau the French revolution).

One would not have to be mad to see freedom as a bad thing, just to have experienced the world in a vastly different way to you. Statistics show that many in the former Soviet Union prefer the old days. They are told they are free now (arguable), yet their conditions are no better if not worse than before (except for the ability to at least leave, except to where, as everyone seems to hate refugees these days). So can you not see the logic behind why someone would think freedom is an empty concept?

I could perhaps bring this closer to home. I believe the American revolutionaries, or many of them at least, would percieve the US as unfree. Your free speech rights are curtailed, your privacy invaded, gun rights limited, the threat of the state taking up a religion ever present etc. Yet how many Americans today think they are not free? Those who do are thought of as extremists of the looney left or militia-men right.

The real point is, freedom is a normative concept, not an emperical one. So while you may think that someone living under a dictatorship is unfree, they might not. They may give their condition a different name, but the rightiousness they feel about it is as fierce as yours.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: The Dunedan Yeah, Gorgo, what's the deal? Shouldn't you turn ownership of those apartments over to those tenants and abolish their rents, per Marx? What's a Communist doing as a LANDLORD, of all things? Sounds like a petty-bourgois poser, to me.

A socialist can still run businesses under capitalism. Robert Owen ran succesful Co-Ops that actually turned good profits, he just used the profits to the benefit of the workers, by raising their wages, providing decent housing, building schools for their kids etc

As for communists, they can still run businesses under capitalism too. It is the system as a whole they oppose, they dislike co-ops for being utopian and not dealing with the real problems. While capitalism is still present, it is neccesary for everyone, inc. communists, to have an income, a condition they object to. For a communist, closing a single business or not being part of one in order to achieve communism would be like trying to kill a horse by pulling a hair out of it's tail.

[Gorgo]

My understanding about Saddam's Iraq was that most people lived lives of relative prosperity. As long as they didn't speak against the state, they had it pretty good. They had almost free medical care, no abject poverty and good life expectancy. They were not free. Now they have none of those things. They can say whatever they want, as long as it's not against the U.S. or the "Iraqi" government. But they can vote for American puppets, so they're "free."

[castille]

Quote by: G. Adams A socialist can still run businesses under capitalism. Robert Owen ran succesful Co-Ops that actually turned good profits, he just used the profits to the benefit of the workers, by raising their wages, providing decent housing, building schools for their kids etc

The only difference is, under socialism you have NO ownership over your business.

In other words, if you spend 20 years of blood and sweat building up a business, anyone has the right to kick you out and take over your business.

I don't know if you've ever run a business before, but unlike the movies, it's pretty hard work, not to mention risky. Why would I support an ideology that gives anyone the right to take over something I've built from the beginning?


Gorgo - You heard what G Adams said. You have to either lease out your apartments free of charge, or else give all the rent money to a charity.

[G. Adams]

That's not quite what I said....the most I would advocate is perhaps showing a little leniancy for tenants with exceptional circumstances, but's thats as far as I'd go.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Gorgo My understanding about Saddam's Iraq was that most people lived lives of relative prosperity. As long as they didn't speak against the state, they had it pretty good. They had almost free medical care, no abject poverty and good life expectancy. They were not free. Now they have none of those things. They can say whatever they want, as long as it's not against the U.S. or the "Iraqi" government. But they can vote for American puppets, so they're "free."

People needed to completely demonize (admittedly not a tough job) Hussein and to paint the Iraqi people as absolutely DESPERATE for our help and rescue to make our invasion seem necessary. They may not have ben all that desperate and it would appear a lot or Iraqis recieved the benefit of Saddam's love of western culture and if all you had to do was say "yay, Saddam" once in a while I don't see that as a total lack of the freedoms I would consider necessary.
Sucking up to the head of the country shouldn't be too far a stretch for US to understand anyway. There have been a few people here on Volconvo who have equated dislike for Bush with being anti-American. The implication that we MUST support Bush simply because he is in the White House, and to not support him is somehow traitorous isn't too far removed from enforced "love" for a dictator like Uncle Sadd.

[Gorgo]

Why? Since your capitalist utopia is here, there are no poor people, no wars and no need for charity.

How many hundreds of thousands do you employ at your usual million-dollar-a-year salary anyway?

Quote by: castille Gorgo - You heard what G Adams said. You have to either lease out your apartments free of charge, or else give all the rent money to a charity.

[Comrade]

Gorgo's right, hell, the Iraqis were better off than WE are, with their free HillaryCare and all.

And yeah, you're splitting hairs and exploiting loopholes, Gorgo, renting property goes against the socialist spirit.