The Land of the Free?

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,930
Reaction score
1,452
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
Here’s a quiz: Which is the freest country on earth? The answer’s easy. It’s the United States. Ask anyone. And why are we the freest? Not because we’re the richest. Long before we became the world’s richest nation we still regarded ourselves as the freest, and millions flocked to our shores to enjoy that freedom. The reasons we are free are:

First, because of the philosophical basis upon which this country was founded. It is assumed that individuals have rights, e.g., free speech, the right to bear arms, the right of a jury trial before our peers should the government try to imprison us, seize our property, or deprive us of our lives, etc.

Second, we have a Constitution that limits the powers of a central government to intrude into our lives.

And third, our rights have been enshrined in the First 10 Amendments to our Constitution.

Many other countries, like England and Canada, also have their own Bill of Rights, but those rights are at the pleasure of the government. It says so right in their laws. So they are not “unalienable” rights. Only our country, in all of history, was founded on the assumption that the individual has rights that exist apart from the government and not at its pleasure. Then, in 1868, the Constitution was amended to say that even the states cannot violate our unalienable rights. Pretty powerful stuff. These things form the basis of our freedom and are the reasons why the United States is the freest country on earth.

So if we can identify the freest country, can we also identify that which is the least free? I’ve tried to find a qualitative way to make that determination, but it’s difficult, because no country has a constitution that guarantees tyranny. Even the constitutions of the old Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China read as if those countries were free. You’d never have guessed that what happened under Stalin and Mao could have happened, just from reading those documents. (Of course, you’d never have guessed we once enslaved a huge portion of our own citizens or screwed the Indians out of a large portion of a continent by reading our Constitution. But that’s another story.)

What I’m getting at is it’s hard to determine qualitatively which is the least free country on earth. So I decided to see if there is a quantitative way to measure it. I found two. First, the country with the most laws would be a candidate for that which is least free. Laws regulate people, so the country which is the least free would surely regulate its people the most. Second, the country with the greatest percentage of its population in jail would also be a candidate for the least free, for obvious reasons. And, if, by chance, some country not only had the most laws but also had the largest percentage of its own population behind bars, we’d at least have a candidate for the least free country on the planet.

So which country has the most laws regulating its citizenry? After looking high and low I discovered that the country with the most laws—not just today, but in all of history is...the United States. We not only have the most laws in all of history, but we also turn out more new laws and regulations to manage our people every single year than most countries turn out in decades.

How can it be that the world’s freest country needs more laws to tell its people what to do than the Soviet Union, Red China, Nazi Germany, or any two-bit banana republic dictatorship? And it’s not like we’ve always had so many laws. Most of them are new. In 1814, when President Madison and the Congress fled Washington, DC, ahead of the invading English troops bent on arson, they took the papers of the federal government with them. It was easy. They loaded all the laws and regulations into a few boxes and left. This was all the federal government had generated to regulate us in the first 38 years of our existence. Today, Congress and anonymous bureaucrats generate more laws and regulations than that in minutes.

Maybe we should consider the other criterion. Which country imprisons the highest percentage of its own citizens? Let’s see, Russia’s up there. And so is the Union of South Africa. And there are some little potentates as we see in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Hmm, but who leads the list. On, no! Folks, you’re not going to like this. It’s...it’s...the United States, again, heading the list of least free countries. The prime reason is the War on Drugs, the war waged against our country’s own citizens “for their own good.”

When I presented my results to others, some said if you obey the laws, you have nothing to worry about and you’ll still be free. I pointed out that that’s the case in every country. Toe the line and you won’t get in trouble. If the women in Afghanistan wore their burkas and didn’t drive or get an education, then by that definition they could still be free. I also pointed out that Jews in Nazi Germany, blacks in the postbellum South, and many American Indians did toe the line and tried to be good citizens but they still got screwed. So obeying the law doesn’t guarantee freedom.

Another said, despite all our laws, we have safeguards in that we have a jury system and that those laws are filtered through juries. I pointed out that more and more agencies regulate us without juries. E.g., the IRS, family courts, OSHA, the EPA, etc. don’t allow juries. And where juries are allowed the courts exclude people who realize they can nullify bad laws. This is hardly a recipe for freedom.

So, somehow, I have arrived at a paradox. What, on paper, would appear to be the freest society in the world appears, in practice, to be among the most oppressive. Does this bother anyone besides me?

 
Yes, it bothers me greatly.

Our fellow citizens seem unaware of the rights that they give away, while the flag is waving behind the news reader on the television. That news reader sure seems to spend alot of his corporate sponsored time telling the audience they are 'Free'.

The story is told about a citizen wanting to speak with President Jefferson, and to do this, he knocked on the White House door. Compared to today, where if you want to hold a cardboard placard for the President to have the possibility of reading, you are cordoned to a far point in the roadway, as the President drives by at 30 miles an hour.

I think there is not enough 'Civics' taugh among our citizenry.

I think the media controlled print and broadcast networks create an Orwellian community.
 
michaeledward said:
Yes, it bothers me greatly.

Our fellow citizens seem unaware of the rights that they give away, while the flag is waving behind the news reader on the television. That news reader sure seems to spend alot of his corporate sponsored time telling the audience they are 'Free'.

The story is told about a citizen wanting to speak with President Jefferson, and to do this, he knocked on the White House door. Compared to today, where if you want to hold a cardboard placard for the President to have the possibility of reading, you are cordoned to a far point in the roadway, as the President drives by at 30 miles an hour.

I think there is not enough 'Civics' taugh among our citizenry.

I think the media controlled print and broadcast networks create an Orwellian community.

This is becoming especially true in the UK too. Sure they use the excuse "there's a war on", but the increase in CCTV, in dumbing down of educational policies, in the increasing levels of social decay, an increasing amount of the populace becoming dependant on social welfare to provide them with their only source of income. There is no future left in the UK as I see it. I'm not proud of being British, it's just lines on a map to me. Western governments are seemingly however, leading us closer and closer to BB society. Makes me shiver.
 
michaeledward said:
I think there is not enough 'Civics' taugh among our citizenry.

I think the media controlled print and broadcast networks create an Orwellian community.

I'll agree with the civics statement. I'll also agree with the new/media statement, though probably from a different angle.

Times have changed for the newspaper industry. Used to be that large towns had several prominant papers. Now most towns just have one major newspaper. TV is a bit different. Used to be just the big three (ABC, CBS, NBC). With the introduction of CNN a while ago and more recent additions (Fox, MSNBC, etc), you get different slants on things. However, it seems that most are saying exactly the same thing.

The advent of the Blog and the internet have been a God-send of sorts. Now people can easily disseminate their ideas. Granted, you get alot of loonies out there, but you get alot of solid ideas being presented. Its harder and harder to keep things secret these days (if that is good or bad can be debated).

I think overall, there is more diversity in media. You have an equal chance of getting everyone upset now :D


This is becoming especially true in the UK too. Sure they use the excuse "there's a war on", but the increase in CCTV, in dumbing down of educational policies, in the increasing levels of social decay, an increasing amount of the populace becoming dependant on social welfare to provide them with their only source of income. There is no future left in the UK as I see it. I'm not proud of being British, it's just lines on a map to me. Western governments are seemingly however, leading us closer and closer to BB society. Makes me shiver.

In that statement, its the "dependant" nature that bothers me the most. I don't see government as a parental unit. Its not there to provide for us. Thats relatively prevelant here in the US too. I'm a big fan of drastic cuts in welfare, except for those unable to work (the disabled, injured) or perhaps those desperately trying to find a job but can't. I think its a bit deeper rooted than that though, and I think much of it is rooted in what you call "social decay".

Just for clarity, what is "BB society"?

What, on paper, would appear to be the freest society in the world appears, in practice, to be among the most oppressive

Umm... what I think bothers me more is not the number of laws perhaps, but the reason/manner in which some are written. I think some premises are written out when they should be common sense. Then again, in our society, common sense seems to be lacking (or at least people differ on their opinion on what can be called common sense).

I think it also depend on how you count laws. are you counting strictly federal? State too? You have 50 unique sets of laws for states. City/county laws too? I know its not just the number, but if thats part of the arguement, then lets clarify your source. I also believe we are one of the longest running democracies. Lots of time to write up a ton of laws.

I'm a big fan of small government, but I realize we do need some kind of laws. Are we going at too fast of a pace? Sure, I can acknowledge that. Where do we cut back? Which laws? Is simplification the answer? You will always have some loon who finds the need for a new law. I don't like the concept of laws by exception, but that seems to be the way the legal system works. I also don't like the concept of appointed judges for life. Make them periodically undergo a review (5, 8, 10 years perhaps).

I might try to post more on your original topic, when I get the time...
 
elder999 said:

So, somehow, I have arrived at a paradox. What, on paper, would appear to be the freest society in the world appears, in practice, to be among the most oppressive. Does this bother anyone besides me?
Your not alone! I realized this a while back. I like to call our country the land of the DO NOTs, not the land of the free. I believe, in many respects, people are more free in some other countries we would have never considered. Such as the former Soviet Union, several countries in South America, and I am sure there are others.

I have heard the same arguments many times "If you obey the laws, you are free", as you pointed out, this can also be applied to the oppressed, so it cannot be true! I have always held to the belief the 2nd Ammendment is the "In case of Fire, Break Glass" safeguard for the citizens, but apathy is so high, that very few would break the glass. So even the 2nd ammendment is becoming more useless every year as more and more people become brainwashed with the anti-gun propaganda and those that come here from countries where guns are already outlawed, they all tend to be very apathetic regarding their use.

So yes, I have great concern over this. Not for my sake, but the generations to come. Nothing can be changed to really impact things in my life time, but it is the generations to come that are going to be cursing us.

Just my opinions.
 
It is bothersome. Part of the problem is the pressure to ally oneself with one of the two major political parties. Add to it that the major opposition party is made out to be evil and supporting a third party is considered to be 'throwing away' your vote. This puts people in the position of always defending their party and attacking the opposition. This has been especially pronounced during the Clinton/Bush years.

If 'your' President is engaged in wars and military actions (in the name of freedom, of course) those wars are good. However, if it is the other guys President it is bad. It isn't just the warring, but also crackdowns on personal freedoms. Many of the same people that defend the Patriot Act following 9/11 are the same people that voiced opposition to similar crackdowns following WTC 93 and Oklahoma Cities bombings as unnecessary infringements on freedom (and vice-versa).

If the President is a Democrat, his opposition are right-wing extremist militia members. If the President is a Republican, his opposition are left-wing communist traitors.

If the two parties weren't actually so similar, the roughly even split between the two would help implement gridlock and help prevent such a large amount of legislation of citizens. They aren't as similar in the rhetoric, as they are in their actions. The rhetoric is for show.

This may be all related to Michael's point of not enough civics being taught, and perhaps the media is an accomplice.
 
crushing said:
If the two parties weren't actually so similar, the roughly even split between the two would help implement gridlock and help prevent such a large amount of legislation of citizens. They aren't as similar in the rhetoric, as they are in their actions. The rhetoric is for show.
Very good point! I have come to realize that the two parties are the two hands of the same body. The agenda remains the same, (as you say) it is the rhetoric that is different, and this is to keep people occupied and from realizing that they are indeed the same. In many respects it keeps the country divided, which of course works to their advantage. It is like they are playing charades!
 
It seems to me, we have the Democrats on one hand, that would love to make us a socialist state. The Republicans however are propelling us towards fascism. Moderates on both sides of the isle are being marginalized more and more. Moderation doesn't seem to make good sound bytes.

My point is, it seems to me the end result of both parties goals are pretty similar. They just seem to be taking different roads to get there.

Jeff
 
JeffJ said:
It seems to me, we have the Democrats on one hand, that would love to make us a socialist state

Although you probably exaggerate on purpose to make a point, I always have to smile and shake my head at comments like these. Really, you people have never even really had a fully functioning communist party in your country :) I consider myself quite right wing (by Finnish standards) and I think that my views are still more "left" than your average Democrats

Moderation doesn't seem to make good sound bytes

Unfortunately this seems to be the case
 
JeffJ said:
It seems to me, we have the Democrats on one hand, that would love to make us a socialist state. The Republicans however are propelling us towards fascism. Moderates on both sides of the isle are being marginalized more and more. Moderation doesn't seem to make good sound bytes.

My point is, it seems to me the end result of both parties goals are pretty similar. They just seem to be taking different roads to get there.

Jeff

nough said :asian:
 
mrhnau wrote:

Just forr clarity, what is "BB society"?

Big Brother society. And I don't mean as in an AWFUL, crappy reality tv show with self obsessed social misfits either. :asian:
 
and this is the problem with people who draw conclusion based on what they read in a paper of some sort - even if they are facts - you haven't the slightest idea (or more likely are unwilling to admit it because it interferes with your extreme viewpoint) of the reality of the world. Think we're the most oppressive?

Go write a critique of Iran as a Iranian citizen. See how that works out.

Go to Rwanda and complain about the oppression in a public forum. Let me know how you do.

Go tell the Eastern Europeans that they need to stop mass genocide and see if you can last longer than the last guy who tried.

go to Columbia and push for Government reform - it's been nice knowing ya.

It's actions, not words on paper that cause oppression. We are guilty of oppressive actions here in America - true - but citizens DO NOT dissapear in the middle of the night for posting rants like yours - they do elsewhere all over the world.

All you stated was true, but your conclusion is wrong. I applaud you for being concerned - I am too. I fear for our liberties and I want to protect them and get back the ones that are slowly disappearing, but running around like a chiken bitching about the most oppressive government ever in the form of America is stupid - it alienates those you most need to join you. If you want to preach to the choir go ahead, but you won't get to many converts with this kind of extremism.

You want to get the freedoms back, don't tell people something that their life experiences tell them is patently false, let them know about what is happening RIGHT NOW that they can help fix. Lets get rid of the Patriot Act and PREVENT our government from becoming these oppressors you fear. Lets fight at a state level to get rid of all laws designed to protect ourselves from ourselves. Lets get to the polls and elect in new, young, forward thinking senators and congressman. Instead of silly rants, why don't you organize a voting drive for like minded people?

JMHO
 
As for the BB society - yeah it scares the hell out of me, but right now they're still mainly watching. Lets end it before they start really acting by honest education and intelligent debate / discussion. Then, of course, we need to get off our lazy butts and act. If wwe do become an oppressive society on the level of central America or the middle east it wil be because of too many armchair whiners and not enough action. It's up to the citizens to control government - it always has been.
 
Back
Top