What Country Grants The Most Freedom to Citizens

[the iron horse]

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it.

~Woodrow Wilson

 

[beli]

This is an interesting question. I don't know the answer. Probably one of the Scandinavian countries I would guess.

 

[financeguy]

The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it.

~Woodrow Wilson

Hear hear.

 

[melon]

I certainly know which country it isn't, and I'm sitting in it.

Melon

 

[BVS]

I don't know, I haven't lived there yet.

 

[financeguy]

This is an interesting question. I don't know the answer. Probably one of the Scandinavian countries I would guess.

Quite Possibly. However, it does depend on how freedom is defined to an extent. It could be argued that the Scandinavian countries have relatively high tax rates and accordingly relatively low ECONOMIC freedom. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking them they have excellent social freedoms for sure.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

There is some list published on this somewhere.... I think it is generally the Scandinavian countries, followed by Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc...
The usuals.

 

[beli]

Quite Possibly. However, it does depend on how freedom is defined to an extent. It could be argued that the Scandinavian countries have relatively high tax rates and accordingly relatively low ECONOMIC freedom. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking them they have excellent social freedoms for sure.

Thats true. I personally value social freedoms so that would bias my comments. The Scandanavians still have a very high standard of living though (financially).

But yeah, I take your point.

 

[A_Wanderer]

This is an interesting question. I don't know the answer. Probably one of the Scandinavian countries I would guess.

No way, the heavy taxation is a burden.

I would probably say that you can get the most freedom in a country like Somalia where you can do pretty much anything that you like.

Freedom is not something that is to be granted to the citizens by their government. The citizens grant certain powers to the government, not the other way around.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Just give me Fiji, where it's socially exceptable for a man to wear a sarong to work everyday. That's all the freedom I'm really after at this point.

 

[Tania]

 

[foray]

Doesn't Holland afford animals equal rights to humans, or have I got it wrong?

foray

 

[Sherry Darling]

I would probably say that you can get the most freedom in a country like Somalia where you can do pretty much anything that you like.

It's probably important to distinguish between "freedom" and "violent anarchy".
Freedom from fear counts too....

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well if your a warlord then you are free to do what you like, and your massive numbers of militiamen ensure that you have nothing to fear.

 

[Sherry Darling]

And if you're not a warlord?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Then you are one of the millions of little people who have no rights whatsoever and get hacked to pieces/starved/raped/murdered by the warlords, simple.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Well if your a warlord then you are free to do what you like, and your massive numbers of militiamen ensure that you have nothing to fear.

Well if that's the criteria, I'll take media mogul in NYC thanks. All the benefits of the above, but a kick arse penthouse apartment over Central Park.

 

[echo0001]

And do you think that is peachy-keen and fine-and-dandy? Or do you believe "I'm a bad mother, so I'd be a big bad warlord, and to hell with everyone else"? Which would make you a bully, and bullies are the last people you want to discuss freedom with; the kind who only understand the freedom-to part, and who will never understand the freedom-from part.

I've only lived in one country, so I can't really say ....

Perhaps there are some people here who have lived in several countries who can compare?

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is called sarcasm, perhaps you have heard about it, the latest thing on the continent and it might not have caught on to the colonies yet

Of course I don't consider violent anarchy to be the ideal system, I think that warlords are the lowest form of human organisation that is essentially tribal in nature.

The ideal system is one where an individual can engage in whatever they aspire too provided that they do not infringe upon the rights of another person. Government by it's very nature suspends some rights for the 'greater good', the least bad form of government is the limited government; with taxation (the price we pay for civility), a legal system to protect the rights of citzens, a security service to protect the citizens and a few other key elements to keep society from collapsing.

The worst forms of government are ones where the state has control and the citizens are subservient to the state, this ranges from soft socialism which could be considered weak authoritarianism to hard communism and fascism which are either a strongly socialist economic system or in the case of the latter a combination of welfare statism and nationalism.

 

[echo0001]

'xcuse please. It's sometimes hard to tell when you see only type, and can't hear a voice, which may be the cause behind many of the mutual flame sessions on message boards....

'sides it's been a bad %#$@*&! day, and I probably jumped on it for lack of a better target...sorry.

think i'll go have a drink....

 

[Irvine511]

possibly the Netherlands

 

[melon]

The ideal system is one where an individual can engage in whatever they aspire too provided that they do not infringe upon the rights of another person

Funny. That's secular humanism right there, and precisely why America was founded on that premise. Religion has a nasty habit of infringing on everybody's rights.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

Funny. That's secular humanism right there, and precisely why America was founded on that premise. Religion has a nasty habit of infringing on everybody's rights.

Melon

Agreed on both counts, however not all religion is equal in the damage that it causes at any given time.

 

[melon]

Agreed on both counts, however not all religion is equal in the damage that it causes at any given time.

But we can agree that it causes damage; that much is certain. And that's why government must be kept pure from religious corruption.

All one needs to do is remember the history of Quebec and the damage any religion wields when given any worldly power.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, I agree with that generally.

But I also must consider the rights of the individual to practice religion.

I have no opposition to people who's ethics are governed by religion to hold public office, provided that in fufiling their duties they do not unfairly harm the rights of others with their beliefs. There are definitely areas where the Bush administration lets religion interfere, such as stem cell research lines and funding.

 

[beli]

Yes, I agree with that generally.

But I also must consider the rights of the individual to practice religion.

I have no opposition to people who's ethics are governed by religion to hold public office, provided that in fufiling their duties they do not unfairly harm the rights of others with their beliefs. There are definitely areas where the Bush administration lets religion interfere, such as stem cell research lines and funding.

And Howard and euthanasia.

 

[melon]

But I also must consider the rights of the individual to practice religion.

And that was never under question. Americans are fully free to be members of the KKK, if they so very please, and it is fully 100% legal. But, rightfully so, most Americans laugh right in their face for believing in irrational, bigoted falsehoods.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

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.

 

[melon]

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.

Well, you are from Australia, so I'll have to forgive our "speech paradox." But in case you haven't figured it out:

1) In Europe / Canada, sex speech is seemingly protected, while hate speech is outright banned.

2) In America, hate speech is protected, while sex speech is often deemed "obscene" and severely censored/banned.

Amongst American liberal and conservative academics alike, the general consensus is that hate speech should be protected. Liberal academics argue that it is better to have the hate out in the open, so one can know their enemy, which is easier when they aren't underground.

As for what I think, I don't know; but I'm of the opinion that religion here has become little more than generators of hate speech.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that there is a line, actually calling for murder and inciting it must not be protected speech.

Now talking about racial superiority or how Hitler was right seems fine, it can be identified. But it is quite another thing to declare that Jews should be lined up and shot by your followers. I am thinking along the lines of the latter as criminal behaviour and not free speech.