The U.S.A. are a free country, but how free are its citizens ?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 4:43 pm

Originally posted by Tybaltus
I wouldnt think I would make enemies from my post, but if you realize-its one of my first opinion posts-so its basically a first impression.

Besides, other than Random Thug, I have the least posts among everyone here. And, Weasel, your picture intimidates me.

Now I see.

Welcome to GameBanshee, a board different from most out there. Where all opinions are welcomed...as long as it isn't flaming opinions.

(Watch out for a group called the Dark Flamers, another called SLURRS and finally LURKERS --- a branch of SLURRS.)

Now why would a 'Holy' Cavalier have a intimidating picture??

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 2:48 am

Apart from the specific incidents our friend Beldin has posted, I must say that in general, I don't find the US the most free country in the world. The reason for this is well explained in Tom's last post in my old thread about freedom. I share Tom's opinion that freedom for individuals must be a mix of positive and negative freedom. IMO the US has a lot of negative freedom, but many people are a lot like Tom's example with the man alone on a remote island - there are no obstacles, but they can't actually do anyting.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 5:25 am

Originally posted by C Elegans
Apart from the specific incidents our friend Beldin has posted, I must say that in general, I don't find the US the most free country in the world. The reason for this is well explained in Tom's last post in my old thread about freedom. I share Tom's opinion that freedom for individuals must be a mix of positive and negative freedom. IMO the US has a lot of negative freedom, but many people are a lot like Tom's example with the man alone on a remote island - there are no obstacles, but they can't actually do anyting.

They are free to actually do one thing: consume. And this is what all the negative freedoms lead to: the ability to get enough money to support the economy.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sat Jul 20, 2002 8:30 am

As all I had to say has been said, this post is spam.

Originally posted by Weasel

(Watch out for a group called the Dark Flamers, another called SLURRS and finally LURKERS --- a branch of SLURRS.)

Hmm, we SLURRs seem to have gained prominence. It used to be that we were the offshoot of Lurkers/DFs, we're moving up in the world.

@Tybaltus-Welcome to the board. Drop in on wherever us SLURRs are at the moment for a virtual drink.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sun Jul 21, 2002 7:13 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
Apart from the specific incidents our friend Beldin has posted, I must say that in general, I don't find the US the most free country in the world. The reason for this is well explained in Tom's last post in my old thread about freedom. I share Tom's opinion that freedom for individuals must be a mix of positive and negative freedom. IMO the US has a lot of negative freedom, but many people are a lot like Tom's example with the man alone on a remote island - there are no obstacles, but they can't actually do anyting.

I disagree. I think people in the United States are more free than most anyone else in the world. I will also acknowledge that we often choose to surrender that freedom by conforming to a mainstream society that dictates to us our likes, dislikes and habits.

As fable says, we are free to consume, and Americans consume more per capita than any other nation. We are also quick to be led by the nose both by our government, advertisers and demographers (wag the dog kind of stuff) who obstensibly have our own best interests at heart, but really it is their own they are looking after.

In the United States, I believe our citizens have the maximum amout of positive and negative freedom possible for people living in a large society. However, I think that many people find it more convenient to give up the hassle of choosing to be free and we settle for monopolistic utility companies, hegemonic retail chains and a fairly homogenous two-party politcal system.

@Tybaltus:
Do not feel intimidated or think that your opinion is not important or is not welcome at SYM. If the folks here disliked everyone with an opinion, everyone here would absolutely hate me. We welcome everyone's say, as long as 1) you play by the forum rules (see the stickies at the top of the SYM page for details), and 2) you respect the opinions of others and value their point of view, even if it conflicts with your own.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jul 21, 2002 8:05 pm

In the United States, I believe our citizens have the maximum amout of positive and negative freedom possible for people living in a large society.

Purely my own opinion, but I think the US has a moderate, not a great deal of positive freedom. While on the surface the culture stresses individualism, it often amounts to choosing among a series of consumer-oriented entertainment forms, colors, and sizes. Pressure to conform is considerable in many American sub-cultures. Active involvement by the public in the political process is frowned upon. Forums for debate on a range of issues are lacking. Doubting or critiquing the culture, in print or aloud, is only considered good form if you're part of a college crowd that's into that.

I'd venture to suggest that while you can do a lot in the US, the ability to *imagine* what you can do is sorely underdeveloped. Reading is discouraged through a public school system that's inept, its materials dated, its teachers poorly paid and unsupervised. The operative economic force spends billions every year getting people to spend money solely on mass market entertainment.

I'm reminded of a Soviet writer, possibly Sozhenitzyn, who was confronted by American reporters loudly declaiming freedom from censorship. "That's because your culture has no regard for truth," he replied. "Where a people recognize the value of truth, a government will censor it." He had a point, I think.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 1:40 am

Originally posted by fable
"Where a people recognize the value of truth, a government will censor it." He had a point, I think.

I think there IS some censorship in the U.S. (See here for more.) - but it's not necessarily politically motivated - at least not in the same way that the Soviet censorship worked (= "THAT IS THE TRUTH. EVERYTHING ELSE ARE LIES.") .

In the U.S. it's more along the lines of "how we would prefer you to lead your lives and what we would LIKE you to believe" - Or am I taken wrong ?

Understand please that I'm "victim" to the News I get here in Europe - I can't be sure how much of it is simply made up to fill some space in the papers and what really happens - that's why I ask your opinions.

No worries,

Beldin

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 3:15 am

There isn't government censorship in the United States, rather American's general disinterest in the truth is fostered by our hunger for tabloid and sensationalist journalism and the fact that there are really only three or four major media outlets. These consortia, who are funded through paid advertisements are in my opinion less interested in reporting the news as they are in selling airtime or print space.

I think there is a fair amount of cooperation between the government and the media, but in pursuing the "story" various media have made a habit of getting under the government's skin, especially since Watergate. As our friend fable says, our society is content to have its whims and desires dictated to it by a few fashion designers and ad execs, although if you want to think for yourself and be an individual, it's possible, just not encouraged nor made easy.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 3:18 am

freedom in the balance

I don't think the story about police violence have much bearing on freedom or lack of it as apparently the person who filmed the violence was wanted and so should have been taken in anyway.

I don't think that the USA is the country in the world where people have the highest degree of freedom. in Scandinavian countries education is free right up to PhD level and there is equal and free health care for all. That is an important part of freedom for a large number of people that would otherwise not have the money to get proper treatment or education.

There are no homeless in Denmark and I suspect the same is the case for the other Scandinavian countries - there is simply a huge social security network protecting the weakest in society, adding to their freedom. There is of course a price to be paid for this in terms of tax - especially tax on the richest limiting their freedom. in my view though that is a trade of that works in the favour of freedom overall.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 3:19 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
There isn't government censorship in the United States, rather American's general disinterest in the truth is fostered by our hunger for tabloid and sensationalist journalism and the fact that there are really only three or four major media outlets. These consortia, who are funded through paid advertisements are in my opinion less interested in reporting the news as they are in selling airtime or print space.

Not surprising though is it? If your business can only survive by gaining greater advertisment revenue then you would do everything in your power to sell more papers. I maintain it is the fault of the consumer that tabloid papers exist (much as you say) if there wasn't a market for that type of journolism then they wouldn't bother, very few people are interested in telling the news, rather they want to sell papers.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 5:09 am

...our society is content to have its whims and desires dictated to it by a few fashion designers and ad execs, although if you want to think for yourself and be an individual, it's possible, just not encouraged nor made easy.

That's a fair assessment of how I feel about it; so that no matter what positive freedoms may exist within theory due to the law, the cultural reality creates formidable hurdles. These range from the free money and media access provided to the largest, best-funded political parties, effectively preventing the establishment of small, grassroots political parties, down to local cultural suspicions of and inhibitions against the arts. (In Germany, citizens take pride in paying taxes to support local symphonic orchestras. In the US, any public funds suggested for such a project are viewed with reactions ranging from skepticism to outright hostility.) IMO, and from an admittedly superficial study, the Scandanavian governments show a far better balance of law-given positive freedoms and cultural imperatives for their exploitation.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 12:26 pm

Fable sez:

. Say that often enough, criticize what everybody else says or thinks often enough, and eventually people are going to take delight in however you fail.

@Fable, classic chicken-egg scenario. What comes first? The flag waving Americans or envious RoW?

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Fri Jul 26, 2002 4:47 am

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Fable sez:

@Fable, classic chicken-egg scenario. What comes first? The flag waving Americans or envious RoW?

I'd call it a parallel evolution . As long as ANY nation is powerful enough ther will be people envious of it.

In my personal POV there are restricitons on personal freedom EVERYWHERE - just the means to restrict people are different.

No worries,

Beldin

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:14 am

Originally posted by Beldin
In my personal POV there are restricitons on personal freedom EVERYWHERE - just the means to restrict people are different.

As long as people live together, restrictions on personal freedoms will exist. These restrictions are necessary for people to live in groups. Even hunter-gatherer cultures have rules and mores; they're not always codified or written down, but they exist.

People's behaviour must be limited otherwise all of the ids in the world would run wild and there would be anarchy. After all, without a restriction on my personal freedom to own as many firearms as I want, point them at anyone or anything that I want and fire them at anytime that I want, who's to say that I wouldn't be a mass murderer or at least a gun-toting maniac? The function of government (whether it's a dictatorship, bi-cameral legislature or chiefdom) is to promulgate and enforce laws. The question is: How invasive should society be in restricting the personal freedoms of its citizens.

I believe that, at least on paper, the United States is as free a country as there is in the world. Does it always pan out that way in real life? No, but you will find no other country on earth that was founded on such high-minded ideals and consistently fights for the rights of its citizens to believe what they want, say what they want and even dissent against the government as you do in the United States.

While many of the western nations were being ruled by consititutional monarchies or dictatorships, the United States had essentially the same form of government as it does today. Our government was founded on freedom, and we waged an armed insurrection to get it. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's far better than the next alternative.