What Country Grants The Most Freedom to Citizens

[hiphop]

No, the KKK as an organisation infringes on the rights of other people and hurts them, that should not be 100% legal.

Freedom of speech likewise should not extend to inciting violence.

Agreed.

 

[hiphop]

Maybe Holland. The Scandinavian countries are nice, but we also know the phenomenon of many Scandinavians coming to Germany for a drinking holiday, because in Scandinavia it is restricted for everyone uner ...21? or 22.. dunno exactly? Also, in Scandinavia the shops close very early. if you´re in a little town there in winter, it gets dark at five, the shops close, the bars a little later, and there is absolutely nothing to do. This has not so much to do with personal political freedom or freedom of speech , but anyway, it might make you feel trapped.

I think Holland is a good guess. Another possibility is Switzerland, with a little less personal freedom than Holland, but huge political freedom.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And gun ownership is another consideration, and a significant one at that. Australia would not even rank because of our ridiculously tight rules and regulations over owning firearms.

Drug use is another one, Europe does fare better on that count than the US.

Taxation is an example where most European countries have a lot less freedom.

Choices regarding healthcare, a privatised healthcare system is arguably more free than a government one system, and will often deliver a better quality of care (to those that can pay).

The legal system of a country is a significant one, most European nations have at times and reserve the right too do things that are very harsh. The USA Patriot Act is not in itself any worse than what existed prior and what was enacted after September 11 in Europe, there are some areas where the Patriot Act is harsher but overall it was curbed in areas by civil-libertarians and libertarians in the political process, the same fear and distrust of centralised authority is not as common in Europe and that can be a very dangerous thing. Europe may be socially more free but politically and economically more restricted than the US.

I do not think that either there is a single country on Earth where the ideal system can be found. The closest we can come is probably some of those Islands where rich businessmen live to avoid high taxes.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Resists.....urge....to.....bite.....on......the.....gun.....topic......

 

[Angela Harlem]

Fuck that. How are our rules on guns ridiculously tight? The only people who have any kind of need for a gun, are farmers and the armed forces. End of story.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Guns are a right, they come with significant responsibilities.

From a strictly constitutional point of view I think that the United States embodies the highest ideals of freedom.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Oh, get off the grass! A right? What right do YOU have A_W? What elevates you or any schmoe, to the right to bear arms which kill and maim? The very banning of them makes us more free. I was born with this right to the life I live, and I quite frankly do not want some hillbilly freak who thinks he has some constitutional bloody right to take that from me. My life, and those of every citizen in this country is a hell of a lot more important than your right to own a firearm.
That's rights.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Banning firearms does not make you more free, it may make you safer but it does not make you more free.

This is an example where freedom and liberty are traded for security, one that an awful lot of people seem to support.

 

[beli]

But the real question is which nationalities citizens have the greatest freedom to swear at each other and not take offence? Australia or Spain?

 

[A_Wanderer]

For an example of a civil society where guns are widely owned look at Switzerland, population of like 6 million with at least 2 million publicly owned firearms and a very low crime rate. An economically well off population without significant poverty and gang violence adds to this.

Your contention that allowing citizens to own guns will foster a violent society is, in my opinion, misplaced. Entrenched poverty and welfare dependence and marginalisation of sections of your population will however breed criminality and violence.

 

[Angela Harlem]

This smacks of right wing hypocrisy, you know. Godamnit, I've mentioned the right... And I've blasphemed
Funny how security though, is somehow more important when it comes to something utterly ridiculous like internet monitoring or library usage. Dont you find that funny? I do. See, I see the 'right' get up in arms (oh christ, now we have bad puns) over people trying to take their guns off them because they have the right (so they feel) to own them, and it's freedom and liberty and more other bogus bullshitting about, but they'll happily let the government pry into their personal lives with say the afore mentioned internet or library examples.

Your loss of liberty means I am free to walk down the road knowing that the odds of getting shot because I wont hand over my wallet have been lessened. So, thanks. I'll take that.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Your playing it personal, it doesn't help your arguments. Your characterisation of the right is very simplified, I mean who introduced some of the tightest gun controls? it was the freaking Howard Government, are you going to tell me that they are not right wing.

In a purely hypothetical thought scenario a society that allows gun ownership is more free than a society that forbids it.

A society that monitors peoples internet and library use is less free than one that doesn't.

For crying out loud I am not sitting here demanding that we give every man, woman and child a gun in the name of freeing up society. I am using the right of law abiding citizens own a licenced firearm as one factor in a measure of individual liberty within different countries.

 

[Angela Harlem]

...

Your contention that allowing citizens to own guns will foster a violent society is, in my opinion, misplaced. Entrenched poverty and welfare dependence and marginalisation of sections of your population will however breed criminality and violence.

Whose contention? If you are referring to my hillbilly comment, then I suggest you at least clarify before making assumptions, if you do not follow my point...ironically, as hillbilly is most commonly attributed to the very group you then described in this quoted reply.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I was thinking more along the lines of city poverty, which seems to be where you get the most violent crime in any society regardless of gun ownership.

 

[Angela Harlem]

That's true, regarding city crime. There's actually been a lot of studies done on many issues in country vs city, with poverty, crime, drug use, suicide and so on. But that's a whole other thread.
My above posts, in an aside, weren't intended to be a personal attack. I could do a lot better than calling you a right winger lol. Speaking of which, I happened to vote Howard last election. Not because I like or dislike the man, but because of a local issue...Long story, anyway lol. And yeah, his government is right, no doubt.

In completely theoretical or hypothetical terms, the more a society is allowed to do, the technically freer they are. But along with that is more chaos. Before too long, the chaos overtakes and freedom is long lost.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Maybe freedom is the chaos.

Unbridled freedom is total anarchy.

Total control is totalitarianism.

There is a balance between freedom and control, liberty and security; whether we like it or not.

I find the question "What country grants the most freedom to Citizens" itself to be flawed, I do not think that government should be controlling the rights of it's citzens, the citizens should be controlling their rights and what powers the government has to keep that in check.

I have been reading quite a bit of Hayek recently, makes a very persuasive case on the nature of economic control and political freedoms.

 

[verte76]

This is interesting. I'm not sure there's an absolute answer to this question. It depends on what you mean by "freedom". People have mentioned the Scandinavian countries. They're very free socially, but the tax rates could be referred to as repressive. I don't think it's the United States, my country, mainly now because I think this anti-gay marriage trend is repressive, and I don't like it.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

A_Wanderer, can I ask why you think our gun laws are tight? My understanding of them is that they are very restrictive, but sensible. There's a big difference between someone who is a perfectly honest, respectable citizen, free of any criminal or 'not right in the head' background owning A firearm for whatever reason, and the 'right' to stockpile a mini arsenal of high powered military grade weapons while awaiting the coming armageddon or that day that will surely come when we have to take down the government or whatever other loony reasons you hear coming out of the US.

As far as I've heard (and to be honest I don't pay that much attention because I'll never, ever, ever in a million years own one), there are a lot of checks and balances in place, but if you pass them and you have the patience to fill out a lot of forms, you can legally own a reasonable weapon pretty easily here - just not some fucking anti-aircraft missile launcher or whatever you think you need to show off to the boys down at the local loony militia.

 

[ewe2]

They're very free socially, but the tax rates could be referred to as repressive.

The taxation in Scandinavia includes free post secondary education for its citizens at home and abroad as well as a national health care system. Theres always two sides to the coin.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Not really, you must demonstrate genuine need to own a weapon, self-defence is not considered to be one. I consider the government only giving licences to those with a 'genuine need' with strict registration and tracking is not close to a free system where citizens may posess weapons but carry a responsibility not to abuse that right, this has worked effectively in a few countries, the socio-economic factors are the big factor in the level of violence one finds.

In any case, I have no personal interest in owning a gun in Australia or any safe country (even ones where people own guns), I bear in mind that there can be situations where having a gun is a neccessity for safety and survival such as sledding around the arctic circle where there were Polar Bears and the like.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The taxation in Scandinavia includes free post secondary education for its citizens at home and abroad as well as a national health care system. Theres always two sides to the coin.

Why should citizens who don't take up post-secondary education have to pay for those that do? what is wrong with a user-pays system.

Same goes with national health care, why should the young and healthy be forced to carry the burden of the old, sick and infirm?

It may well be the other side of the coin, but it has citizens that are dependent on government and that furthur limits the freedom of the individual.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Ssssshhh.... you'll stop the flow of hot Scandinavian girls to Australian Universities....

 

[melon]

Why should citizens who don't take up post-secondary education have to pay for those that do? what is wrong with a user-pays system.

Because then you're stuck with a mortgage-sized student loan debt after you graduate, with many of the lower classes being unable to afford post-secondary education at all. Equalizing the playing field would be the easiest way to promote higher education amongst the lower classes.

Same goes with national health care, why should the young and healthy be forced to carry the burden of the old, sick and infirm?

What a silly comment. The young get sick too. And, in America, unless you have full-time employment, you don't get health care. Period. And with the supply-siders screaming "economy shift" to freelance/contract labor, now you've got even more people without health care.

"Tax freedom" is mostly a joke perpetrated by rich people who don't want to pay taxes. Someone's got to pay for their "war on terrorism." Of course, if the Middle East had more higher education and employment for the lower classes, the whole thing might never have existed.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

I can't be expected to think through solid arguments for extremes that I don't agree with.

 

[pax]

And with the supply-siders screaming "economy shift" to freelance/contract labor, now you've got even more people without health care.

Not to mention the thousands, maybe millions, who work two or three part-time jobs instead of one full-time job, and consequently also are unable to receive employer-paid healthcare but make "too much money" to be on government medical assistance.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Same goes with national health care, why should the young and healthy be forced to carry the burden of the old, sick and infirm?

Because the young and healthy will one day be the old, sick and infirm?

 

[melon]

I can't be expected to think through solid arguments for extremes that I don't agree with.

Extremes? I have enough student-loan debt to last me 30 years. That's what a "user-pays" system does.

And no national health care? America already does that and I've been trying for months to get full-time employment to no avail. I'm now stuck in a very dissatisfying part-time job. Here's hoping I never get sick, because that's one of the top reasons that Americans declare bankruptcy: they get sick and end up with five-to-six figure medical bills.

You may not agree with those extremes, but they do exist.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

Two Words ~ Soylent Green

 

[melon]

Not to mention the thousands, maybe millions, who work two or three part-time jobs instead of one full-time job, and consequently also are unable to receive employer-paid healthcare but make "too much money" to be on government medical assistance.

Exactly.

Melon

 

[melon]

Two Words ~ Soylent Green

Care to clarify?

Melon