America - The Freest Country?

[LittleGrizzly]

Prison population is one thing I was thinking off.. America would be let down badly there..

Although technically isn't somewhere like Somalia the most free place on earth....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Although technically isn't somewhere like Somalia the most free place on earth....

It isn't a good idea to confuse anarchy and liberty.

[Lemur]

Yeah, I'd say our prison population is a pretty hard strike against us being the "freest." Not a knockout blow, but definitely a hit.

But in one area America is going from strength to strength—the incarceration of its population. America has less than 5% of the world’s people but almost 25% of its prisoners. It imprisons 756 people per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the world average. About one in every 31 adults is either in prison or on parole. Black men have a one-in-three chance of being imprisoned at some point in their lives. “A Leviathan unmatched in human history”, is how Glenn Loury, professor of social studies at Brown University, characterises America’s prison system.

Conditions in the Leviathan’s belly can be brutal. More than 20% of inmates report that they have been sexually assaulted by guards or fellow inmates. Federal prisons are operating at more than 130% of capacity. A sixth of prisoners suffer from mental illness of one sort or another. There are four times as many mentally ill people in prison as in mental hospitals.

As well as being brutal, prisons are ineffective. They may keep offenders off the streets, but they fail to discourage them from offending. Two-thirds of ex-prisoners are re-arrested within three years of being released. The punishment extends to prisoners’ families, too. America’s 1.7m “prison orphans” are six times more likely than their peers to end up in prison themselves. The punishment also sometimes continues after prisoners are released. America is one of only a handful of countries that bar prisoners from voting, and in some states that ban is lifelong: 2% of American adults and 14% of black men are disfranchised because of criminal convictions.

[Jolt]

That is the difference between America and the European States. While American culture values Personal independence over Social Interdependence, Europe does quite the contrary. Bringing the Healthcare example, if you are out of healthcare insurance in America, for whatever reason (Ranging from being so ill stricken that a healthcare insurance's price is astronomical to simply not caring) you're on your own. People don't give a if you die due to healthcare insurance complications. It was your problem. In Europe, you get treated free (Or partially free, paying only a small fee). Likewise if you are in a difficult or handicapped position, in America you can't count on governmental aid to help reduce the gap of your limitations to others (For instance, if you're middle-aged in the USA but you can't find a job in your area of expertise as you're too old, you can't count on the assistence of the government.) While in Europe, you usually find tax bonuses and other assorted incentives for companies to employ the more older unemployed who have a much greater risk of long-term unemployment, which is one of the major causes for concern in an economy. Thus, you see that there is Social Interdependence in Europe, where the government intervenes by giving incentives for the society as a whole to do the right thing.

I usually see a good example for European Socialism: Its like the Jedi Persuasion. The government attempts to encourage society to adopt a certain "stance" in accord with the policy conducted in the government. Of course companies aren't forced to take the incentives the government sets up. I believe the way policy is conducted in Europe (European Socialism as opposed to American Liberalism/Capitalism/Individualism) results in a much fairer society as a whole.

[Kadagar_AV]

Let's see..

A) The government spies on its citizens (Echelon, anyone?).
B) Media is often being cencored (was just recently it was allowed to show troops coming home in body bags again).
C) Censorship against "bad" language on mainstream TV.
D) Second most video camera filled country on earth, watching your every step.
E) Insurance companies has HUGE rights to check medical background and other things (had a depression, dont tell the doctor, your life insurance will cost more!).

I could go on...

But meh!

[AlexanderSextus]

Yeah, I'd say our prison population is a pretty hard strike against us being the "freest." Not a knockout blow, but definitely a hit.

But in one area America is going from strength to strength—the incarceration of its population. America has less than 5% of the world’s people but almost 25% of its prisoners. It imprisons 756 people per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the world average. About one in every 31 adults is either in prison or on parole. Black men have a one-in-three chance of being imprisoned at some point in their lives. “A Leviathan unmatched in human history”, is how Glenn Loury, professor of social studies at Brown University, characterises America’s prison system.

Conditions in the Leviathan’s belly can be brutal. More than 20% of inmates report that they have been sexually assaulted by guards or fellow inmates. Federal prisons are operating at more than 130% of capacity. A sixth of prisoners suffer from mental illness of one sort or another. There are four times as many mentally ill people in prison as in mental hospitals.

As well as being brutal, prisons are ineffective. They may keep offenders off the streets, but they fail to discourage them from offending. Two-thirds of ex-prisoners are re-arrested within three years of being released. The punishment extends to prisoners’ families, too. America’s 1.7m “prison orphans” are six times more likely than their peers to end up in prison themselves. The punishment also sometimes continues after prisoners are released. America is one of only a handful of countries that bar prisoners from voting, and in some states that ban is lifelong: 2% of American adults and 14% of black men are disfranchised because of criminal convictions.

Also consider the fact that a significant amount of the US prison population consists of non-violent drug offenders.

[Meneldil]

Freedom doesn't mean anything.

As the other topic pointed out, each individual has is own view of freedom. For one, it's the right to bear arms, for the other, it's the right to have an abortion, for yet another person, it's the right to believe in a religion.

Most of the time, one person will think that her view of freedom is the right one, while trying to limit other persons's liberty when said liberty goes against her own values (one could think of the freedom to have an abortion, often dismissed by the traditional apostles of 'freedom', but obviously, there are other examples on the other side of the political spectrum - I for myself, despite being a leftist, oppose unlimited freedom of religion).
Freedom is also cultural. For the US, and for the people who admire the US, freedom mostly means little government. For myself, and I think most Europeans, access to a decent healthcare system is also part of 'freedom'.
For a french, unchecked freedom of religion is not freedom. Hence why we are very touchy about laïcité, whether it's related to catholicism or to islam. Yet, as the POTUS rightly pointed out when he visited France in June, the french conception of freedom of religion is not really freedom: people can't do whatever they want and don't give a crap about the rest of the society. Another example of 'my freedom is free-er than yours': I think my freedom to not have to bear with other people's religion is more important than their freedom to show me they're catholic or muslim.

Thing is, the US from their very beginning, have been claiming to be the land of the free, the country of freedom. They created this mythology, and decided to stick to it, even though history has shown repeatedly it's nothing more than a national myth (one could bring up the fate of the native populations, the ACW, the MacCarthysm era and the overall censorship of any communist or socialist idea, the limitations of civic liberties enforced during all the wars fought by the US, the Patriot Act, and the list goes on).

I'm not saying the US have a worse record than any other western country - I don't think they do : European democratic countries have repeatedly trampled freedom when they had to, or thought they had to. I also think the US puts more emphasis on individual freedom, at the expense of society (and I don't think it's a good idea), though it seems to me this individual freedom is strongly kept in check by a wannabe police state.
What I'm saying is that the myth of the the US as the most free state in the world is just another national myth, which really has little ground. Just like France (which is in many ways a country similar to the US) likes to present herself as the country of the Human Rights (tm), and as history shown us, this is quite a big joke.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Freedom doesn't mean anything.

As the other topic pointed out, each individual has is own view of freedom. For one, it's the right to bear arms, for the other, it's the right to have an abortion, for yet another person, it's the right to believe in a religion.
[...]
What I'm saying is that the myth of the the US as the most free state in the world is just another national myth, which really has little ground. Just like France (which is in many ways a country similar to the US) likes to present herself as the country of the Human Rights (tm), and as history shown us, this is quite a big joke.

Yes, that's pretty much it. Freedom is relative, it depends a good deal on what one considers freedom.

If I have a definition, I'll give an answer to the question of whether America is the most free - as measured by that definition.


In absolute terms, applying a gut definition of freedom: for all its imperfections, America has been remarkably succesful in providing a better life, for more of its citizens, for a longer period of time, than, let's say: 'a whole host of other countries who broadly apply the same definitions of succes and freedom as the US'.

[Tribesman]

Freedom is relative

So that means west virginia must be the most free place on earth, after all if its all relative its all free

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4594392/

[Hax]

That is the difference between America and the European States. While American culture values Personal independence over Social Interdependence, Europe does quite the contrary. Bringing the Healthcare example, if you are out of healthcare insurance in America, for whatever reason (Ranging from being so ill stricken that a healthcare insurance's price is astronomical to simply not caring) you're on your own. People don't give a if you die due to healthcare insurance complications.

Besides, what's the use of freedom if you're dead/severely ill?

[Husar]

Although technically isn't somewhere like Somalia the most free place on earth....

I just thought the same.

It isn't a good idea to confuse anarchy and liberty.

Isn't anarchy the ultimate form of freedom from government then?
And if you're free from government, then there are no government restrictions on your personal freedom either, which is why Somalians can be pirates and Americans can't!

[HoreTore]

It isn't a good idea to confuse anarchy and liberty.

Neither is it smart to confuse anarchy and chaos...

[Peasant Phill]

Firstly, I follow Jolts statement of Personal independence and Social Interdependence as the 2 defining characteristics of freedom. Which one you prefer is culture related but it doesn't mean that one is more important than the other.

Secondly, I question the benefit of being the 'most free' country. I believe that everything should have boundaries in order to achieve a greater surplus value than could otherwise be achieved. Just think about what the free market resulted in for the moment. Nearly everybody now agrees that 'laissez faire' isn't the solution.
Similarly, I don't believe that neigh unlimited freedom, be it personal or social, is a desirable situation to be in.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Let's see..

A) The government spies on its citizens (Echelon, anyone?).
B) Media is often being cencored (was just recently it was allowed to show troops coming home in body bags again).
C) Censorship against "bad" language on mainstream TV.
D) Second most video camera filled country on earth, watching your every step.
E) Insurance companies has HUGE rights to check medical background and other things (had a depression, dont tell the doctor, your life insurance will cost more!).

I could go on...

But meh!

A) My government does that too. And worse.
B) Check.
C) Yep. I'd consider ours to be worse, but hey.
D) Cameras are bad, but I can't find a statistic to back up that remark. All I can find is that Britain is the worst.
E) That doesn't really have anything to do with liberty, in my opinion.

Neither is it smart to confuse anarchy and chaos...

anarchy [an-ark-ee]
Noun
1. general lawlessness and disorder
2. the absence of government [Greek an without + arkh- leader]

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

"Freedom" to be a slave, that's what the illusion mostly consists of.

[Meneldil]

cha⋅os[key-os]
–noun
1. a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.
2. any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases.
3. the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe.
4. (initial capital letter) the personification of this in any of several ancient Greek myths.
5. Obsolete. a chasm or abyss.

Anarchy as a political state - as defined since the 18th century - obviously refers to the lack of governement (or to the lack of state). Not to general disorder. I think you know this already, but since you decided to use dictionary and what not.

Even people from the World Bank (which could hardly be described as a leftist agency) describe Somalia as being in a state of chaos rather than in a state of anarchy.

Oh but in practical ways, it is and there is no way around it. By strongest I mean obviously the most capable.

I beg to disagree. The second Paris Commune wasn't ruled by the strongest or by the more capable, and I think the same applies to the anarcho-syndicalist communes of the Spanish civil war era. As those are more or less the only example of applied anarchism we have, I can't see where you got the idea that anarchy = chaos.
Note that I don't think anarchism proved to be efficient, or to be a possible political state. I'm just sayin' it's not simply rule of the strongest or chaos.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Americans tend to conflate the terms anarchy and chaos. That too goes pretty far back in our "national myth" since we view the early Confederation days as having been too problematic.

Freedom in the USA is mostly freedom "from" as it was put ealier.

Our freedoms are mostly encoded as limitations ON government rather than specific assertions of rights. You aren't really granted the freedom TO do very much, so much as the government is prevented from infringing on your ability to do what you want.


Interestingly, the right TO keep and bear arms is a "to" statement.

[HoreTore]

Americans tend to conflate the terms anarchy and chaos. That too goes pretty far back in our "national myth" since we view the early Confederation days as having been too problematic.

But.... Doesn't relatively many americans define themselves as libertarians?

Anarchy, as a political term, simply means not having a government. What you put in place of it defines your brand of anarchism, it could be unions, extended family units, militias, etc.

But then again, american libertarians seems to enjoy putting people in prison, while a true anarchist would have an extreme hatred against putting anyone in prison....

[Furunculus]

Americans tend to conflate the terms anarchy and chaos. That too goes pretty far back in our "national myth" since we view the early Confederation days as having been too problematic.

Freedom in the USA is mostly freedom "from" as it was put ealier.

Our freedoms are mostly encoded as limitations ON government rather than specific assertions of rights. You aren't really granted the freedom TO do very much, so much as the government is prevented from infringing on your ability to do what you want.

Interestingly, the right TO keep and bear arms is a "to" statement.

this would appear to be a characteristic of common law countries, the principle being that you define the few things that cannot be done, rather than recognise and regulate the many that can.

Don't confuse freedom with independence either. A 17th century frenchman had less freedom but more independence than a 21st century London City financier.

It's a balancing act. A fun fact, the European country with most legislation text is actually Spain. It is also the european country where less legislation is enforced as a percentage of the total. As usual, quality and quantity do not go hand in hand.

I would have a lot more respect for a government which enforced a very small amount of legislation rigidly and without exception than Spain.

Personal freedoms-wise, well, we're getting less and less. In that sense Somalia probably is the freeest place on the planet.

agreed, and again this may be a symptom of a civil law system where an attempt to define all the freedom to's results in a flood of laws which are then treated with contempt by the subject populace.

[CountArach]

No country's citizens are free. They still have an oppressive apparatus looking over them their entire life.

Ah well.

[Lemur]

I think we should all take a quick scan of Hume's work on this subject, Leviathan, for a refresher on just how much infrastructure "freedom" requires.

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think we should all take a quick scan of Hume's work on this subject, Leviathan, for a refresher on just how much infrastructure "freedom" requires.

That be Hobbes work, managed to get him in the bad books of both sides in the civil war.

I beg to disagree. The second Paris Commune wasn't ruled by the strongest or by the more capable, and I think the same applies to the anarcho-syndicalist communes of the Spanish civil war era. As those are more or less the only example of applied anarchism we have, I can't see where you got the idea that anarchy = chaos.

How much of that is due to the fact that the existing social structures never had time to be properly dismantled?

[Lemur]

That be Hobbes work, managed to get him in the bad books of both sides in the civil war.

The sad thing is I knew that and still typed Hume. Entirely my bad, apologies.

[The Stranger]

holland is not at all such a free country as most people believe it to be...

[miotas]

Because it's a province, not a country?

[Jolt]

It isn't a good idea to confuse anarchy and liberty.

True. That is at the basis of the so called "Social Contract". While in anarchy you have total freedom from a theorical point of view, the fact is that if you annoy/oppose/have something valuable to someone else in that total freedom area, there is virtually nothing to oppose them from harming/killing you but yourself. If/once they killed you, there is no government to trial for his murder. It is the law of the strongest. Likewise, since there is no Social Cohesion, you are forced to take matters into your own hands, and if someone does oppose you, since there is no other way of preventing other inidividuals from stepping in what you believe is/should be yours (In Nations there is a thing called Law, to which individuals can go to, to force other individuals on the same society to abide by the society's rules), you generally have to defend your possessions through force.

In Anarchy, you sure have no duties, but problem is, you also have no rights. It is the law of the strongest. How do you become stronger in such a way of live? By banding together with other people to bully/kill third-party groups/individuals so you/your group can get what you want. Thus we get to where Somalia was a few years ago. A country run by clans/gangs, each with their own little territory where they could exploit as much as possible for their own well being.

As such, in Anarchy, if you are not the strongest, you have no freedom. If you try to have that freedom, you usually wind up dead.

In a cohesive Social construction, you also don't have full freedom, but you have it inside legal boundaries, and you can use those boundaries to theoretically do anything you want, despite how many people you bother. (For instance, pornography has appalled many people. In Anarchy, you'd probably see some conservative/religious individuals take the matter into their own hands and exterminating those which do not follow their own principals. In Society, they cannot do that, for as long as the majority of society, through the laws, allows such industry to exist.)

Thus you can conclude that you have much more practical freedom in a society than in anarchy.

[Meneldil]

I'll point you to HoreTore's message:

Neither is it smart to confuse anarchy and chaos...

What you're describing is chaos, not anarchy. Somalia is not an anarchic country, it's merely a chaotic country.

People wrote hundreds of books about anarchy. I doubt many of them described it simply as the law of the strongest.

[Jolt]

Oh but in practical ways, it is and there is no way around it. By strongest I mean obviously the most capable.

[SwordsMaster]

It isn't a good idea to confuse anarchy and liberty.

Don't confuse freedom with independence either. A 17th century frenchman had less freedom but more independence than a 21st century London City financier.

It's a balancing act. A fun fact, the European country with most legislation text is actually Spain. It is also the european country where less legislation is enforced as a percentage of the total. As usual, quality and quantity do not go hand in hand.

I would have a lot more respect for a government which enforced a very small amount of legislation rigidly and without exception than Spain.

Personal freedoms-wise, well, we're getting less and less. In that sense Somalia probably is the freeest place on the planet.

[LittleGrizzly]

ohh forgot about that...

Well the context of the discussion seemed to be focused on how much our goverments interfere with our lives... so Somalia would obviously win in that regard...

If you are talking about freedom to live an enjoyable life with little goverment interference we would have to look at things such as crime figures as well, maybe even health as well (UHC for the win )