Are you really more "free" if you live in the US?

[kelpdiver 2]

Newbie - the main problem I see in your posting is that you selectively compare the US to various nations of Europe. Since no one yet is a citizen of the EU, you ought to be doing a country to country comparison. Or consider the 50 states.

Nevada does allow open containers. 31 (and growing) are shall issue CCW states. Several make small pot possession a misdomeanor (still lame, but not draconian), some have gone for medical usage in spite of Federal policy. Gay rights are shifting as well in at least a handful of states (CA,HA,VT,MA). A lot of sodomy laws still exist on the books, but haven't been applied since the courts made it clear that private acts are fine.

In the whole, the differences between here and European nations are slight. Obviously gun rights are stronger here. Speech rights are slightly better - isn't any Nazi talk banned in Germany? Due process - long before Bush started jailing terrorists without trial, the Brits were doing the same with the IRA. Taxes - well, that's a philophical question.

Is social mobility as great there? I get the sense no, but not a very informed feeling. It appears that students are tracked into different paths early on.

The UK seems to coddle its citizens more. Looking at the BPA, BS-AC, and the motorcycle laws, participants have to jump through more hoops before they're allowed to make their own decisions.

The biggest negatives on the US side stem from the puritanical origins. It's odd given that the Church ruled Europe long before America came to be. So we're uptight about drugs and sex. In this the tyranny of democracy beats out guaranteed civil rights.

In the end, I don't see the divide great enough that people would see a compelling reason in and of itself to want to switch.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

They can drink out in public. The drinking age is lower. I am not sure about this one, but I bet the blood alcohol level limits are higher. There beer can be made stronger (more alcoholic). .

Taking a cursory search, looks like England, Austria, Switzerland are at .08, France and Germany at .05, Sweden at .02. And the penalties tend to be much higher.

I'm not going to say that's less freedom. Personally I think it's more freedom for everyone else on the road.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

on the alcohol side I think a big part is attitude as well. When I grew up in Holland, the legal drinking age was officially 16. Though if a 14 year old walked into a store and wanted to buy a couple of beers, there just would not be a problem. Most kids start drinking at home, at the dinner table, with their parents. It is all out in the open.

To me, it all comes down to the thought that the more you forbid people to do something, the more people will end up abusing it. To me, that is clear with alcohol, drugs and sex when comparing Europe to North America.

[Hummusx 0]

Quote

To me, that is clear with alcohol, drugs and sex when comparing Europe to North America.

Are you saying that Americans have more sex than Europeans?

____________________________________
It’s like selling a million grills all at the same time…with extended warranties. -Hank Hill

[SkyDekker 1,147]

no, I am saying that teen pregnancy for instance is a bigger problem in North America.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

I think 100 years ago, people in the US were free.

These days, no way. Not even close, by comparison to me here in Africa anyway.

agreed.. but at the same time the level of economic prosperity gives me a reasonable about of 'freedom' to do things here i could not accomplish in any other place......


the question is how long will that last?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

There beer can be made stronger (more alcoholic).

This is a myth. I regularly buy beer that's between 7% and 9% alcohol with an occasional 11% or even the beer I had last night (OK, so it's probably technically a barley wine) at a whopping 21%.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

I think 100 years ago, people in the US were free.

These days, no way. Not even close, by comparison to me here in Africa anyway.

Not everybody. If you were an white anglo- saxon protestant 100 years ago you were.

Today: surely you are not talking about Africa in general.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Tonto 1]

Me here in Africa refers to me here in Africa. It wasn't intended to infer that all Africans were free.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Tonto 1]

Quote

agreed.. but at the same time the level of economic prosperity...

See how many TM's get paid $58 for a Tandem on gear they don't own? Or $42 for an AFF dive?

Ahh... the joys of Africa........

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Airman1270 0]

Wow - I don't have the energy to respond point by point, but the short version is that, while we here in the USA can still claim to be the "freeest" nation on Earth, we're going in the wrong direction. For proof, consider the lengthy list of things we were free to do just 30 years ago which are illegal today.

This is largely due to the creeping expansion of secular humanism, a philosopy which rejects God and makes mankind the ultimate authority. This system rejects mankind's God-created limitations, instead believing that perfection can be achieved and that any failure to attain perfection (i.e. crimes, accidents, tragedies, etc.) can be remedied through the legislature and the courts. This results in stupid laws (smoking bans in bars) and ridiculous lawsuits (such as suing the airlines for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks.)

Your point is well taken; at the same time, I know that if I make the effort to visit a DZ in your country with my old Wonderhog (belly band, round reserve, no AAD) I'll not be allowed to jump.

One other point: Our country was founded on the concept of freedom based on morality. Several of the points you made, such as a reference to "gay rights", indicates a total moral collapse. Over here homosexuals not only have the same rights as everyone else, they already get preferential treatment and are seeking even more so-called "rights."

In the 1990's a lesbian applied for a job with the Georgia Attorney General's office. During the interview procedures, she volunteered that she was a quiff girl. (Nobody asked.) She was not hired, then made a big legal stink, with the full support of the media, claiming she was entitled to the job and that the failure to hire her was some sort of crime.

As a normal, straight white guy, I can be denied a job or an apartment and no lawyer is going to volunteer his services to represent me. Yet, when the same thing happens to a homosexual, they start bleating about how their "rights" are being trampled. The easiest way to be called a bigot in America is to treat gays just like everybody else.

But I digress.

Good point, also, about law enforcement. While I don't support drug legalization, it's clear that the cops' reaction to minor violations is way out of proportion to the offense. The fact is, police work, which used to be about helping people and chasing bad guys, has become more concerned with the enforcement of liberalism, using any excuse to stop people, check their papers, run their names through a computer, and search automobiles. Much of this is driven by the insatiable need for revenue to pay for big government programs and make sure everybody on the public payroll has taxpayer-funded health insurance. This stuff costs money.

Anyway, my two cents. Good post, thanks.

Cheers,
Jon S.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

This is largely due to the creeping expansion of secular humanism, a philosopy which rejects God and makes mankind the ultimate authority.

Did you really just blame our lack of freedoms on lack of religion? Of course. If we were all religious, we would not need laws against murder or theivery. It would just all work itself out.

Quote

The fact is, police work, which used to be about helping people and chasing bad guys, has become more concerned with the enforcement of liberalism, using any excuse to stop people, check their papers, run their names through a computer, and search automobiles. Much of this is driven by the insatiable need for revenue to pay for big government programs and make sure everybody on the public payroll has taxpayer-funded health insurance. This stuff costs money.

You say liberalism is the cause. Well, this "any excuse to stop people" idea is being perpetrated by both Democracts and Republicans (who both voted for things such as the PATRIOT act). So I guess that makes every one a liberal.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

This is largely due to the creeping expansion of secular humanism, a philosopy which rejects God and makes mankind the ultimate authority.

Damn skippy ... as it should be. I would much rather trust my fellow humans that trust some mythical make believe (the bible is fiction) God which can not be proved. Plus who's God should we be following? Your God? What about the God(s) from the other religions? Oh yes I forgot. It is the duty of every Christian to convert all fellow humans into Christianity. Please ...

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Zenister 0]

Quote

This is largely due to the creeping expansion of secular humanism, a philosopy which rejects God and makes mankind the ultimate authority. .

hardly.. a great many things were illegal for religious reasons as well.. it is largely due to the general erosion of personal responsibility and the tendency of those in power (in any party) to believe they know what is best for everyone and to mandate their beliefs in law.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 2,435]

>This is largely due to the creeping expansion of secular humanism, a
>philosopy which rejects God and makes mankind the ultimate authority.

Actually it's the opposite. We have lost a lot of freedoms to religious busybodies who try to legislate the morality of their religion through our government. Laws against certain types marrying - bills that take care of loved ones out of their hands and put it in the government's - laws against things like prostitution or gambling - all passed by people who mistake their religious beliefs for what government should be doing.

Want to find god? Want to pray? Want to decide on a morality you can live your life with? Go to church. Leave government to the business of defending the country, maintaining our court system, keeping trade free and open, stuff like that.

>Over here homosexuals not only have the same rights as everyone
>else . . .

They can't get married - just like blacks and whites couldn't get married in the 40's. So they have fewer rights. The christian taliban is even pushing for an amendment to remove even more of their rights, based on an idea that the government should enforce religious morality.

>As a normal, straight white guy, I can be denied a job or an apartment
>and no lawyer is going to volunteer his services to represent me.

I'm an average straight white guy. I know several laywers who would volunteer to represent me, doctors who would help me if I needed it etc. I call these people 'friends.' (Believe it or not, a few of them are even gay!)

>The easiest way to be called a bigot in America is to treat gays just
>like everybody else.

I treat gay people like everyone else. None of them have ever called me a bigot.

[Croc 0]

I suspect that freedom has declined worldwide with the advent of technology. Ultimately, freedom is a state of consciousness. The world seems totally insane to me compared to how it was even forty-five years ago when I was a boy. Then, as a nine-year-old, I would jump on my bike and ride ten miles to a park, play all day without adult supervision, and come back home for supper. Today if a kid tried that they'd put out an Amber alert and arrest the parents. Sorry--parent, as there would likely only be one. American kids today are prisoners in their schools--so much PC they don't even know what free expression is. Nearly all their "free" time is spent in adult supervised activities. These kids will grow up without a clue as to what is missing in their lives. They have traded security for freedom without even realizing it. T.S. Eliot was right; the world will end with a whimper, not a bang.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[Airman1270 0]

>Over here homosexuals not only have the same rights as everyone
>else . . .

They can't get married...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


They are perfectly free to get married. Of course, if they're not attracted to the opposite sex there's little point in doing so, but they're free to marry if they really want to.

You're falling into a common trap by claiming that the government has some sort of obligation to reject Judeo-Christian moral standards when writing legislation.

The erosion of liberty is directly related to the increasing influence of secular humanism, which is being forced on us by members of both political parties as well as the legal profession.

One small example of this principle can be found at numerous DZ's where they won't let me jump because my rig does not have an AAD. Under Judeo-Christian principles, I place my ultimate fate in the hands of God, knowing that if I do suffer an accident He allowed it to happen for reasons we may never understand. This is my choice. To interfere with this choice is to trample my liberty as well as my religious freedom.

This is not an imposition on you. By allowing me to make this choice, you are under no obligation to worship Jesus Christ or modify your own behavior in any way.

By forcing me to wear an AAD, you are imposing your own secular humanist beliefs on me, beliefs which are based on the assumption that there is no God, that mankind is capable, through legislation, of removing accidents & tragedies from the human experience. You'll defend this practice by pointing out that if I go in, you might be sued for failing to prevent the accident. This is how the legal industry is working to impose the religion of secular humanism on society.

Legislators are under incredible pressure to vote for new laws which are designed to restrict our freedom, micro-manage our lives, and further criminalize things which are already illegal, in an effort to prevent bad things from happening. They know that the media, which is dominated by the secular left, will portray them as "not caring..." if they vote against these new laws. This is how liberty is eroded.

Look at the list of things you were once free to do, which are now illegal. It's not the "religious right" that is demanding these laws. Perhaps they're not speaking out or fighting these trends very vigorously, but it's not the Church that wants to impose smoking bans in bars, force you to wear a seat belt, or insist you be arrested and have your car taken away if you have a dime bag of weed in the glove compartment.

A glance at the 20th century, including but not limited to nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, China, and Cuba, illustrates what happens to personal freedom when the government is dominated by atheists.


Cheers,
Jon S.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

I like cantaloupe.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

A glance at the 20th century, including but not limited to nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, China, and Cuba, illustrates what happens to personal freedom when the government is dominated by atheists.

The Nazi's were ardent Christians. Goering was a nutter... but the regime as a whole and Hitler himself espoused the Christian faith. The Nazi party constitution stated that they stood for positive Christianity - hell even their belt buckle was engraved with the motif "Gott Mit Uns" or "God With Us".

The severe difficulties in the other countries you list are as a result of the communist govt. not as a result of a change in "official" religion, which needless to say, doesn't actually equate to a change in the population's religion.

Don't dress things up as they were not to simply prove a point, it's very bad form.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I like cantaloupe.

Dude! What the fuck?

[KevinMcGuire 0]

Quote

I like cantaloupe.

I have always been partial to honey dew

[Nightingale 0]

I agree with you that seatbelt laws and the majority of narcotics laws are stupid and an attempt to protect an individual from their own moronic activity. If people want to do stupid things, let them do stupid things.

I have no problem with anyone doing drugs or consuming alcohol in their own home. Now, if they are driving under the influence and it causes a car accident, that endangers other lives, that of people who have chosen not to take the risk of using drugs or alcohol while driving. I think our alcohol and narcotics laws are overly strict.

I don't think people should be allowed to smoke in public places, such as government buildings, public parks and streets, etc. Second hand smoke puts other people at risk. If smoking were confined to the smoker, I would have no problem with anyone smoking. However, when I have to breathe the smoke from someone else's cigarette while waiting in line to get a passport, that's not cool. And yes, that actually happened. I have no problem with any private establishment, such as a bar or restaurant or store permitting smoking. They own the place, it's their choice and the government needs to stay out of it. If there is enough of a demand for non smoking bars and restaurants, the market will supply them. I choose not to go to restaurants or bars that allow smoking, but that is my choice, and I will not force my choice on someone else, but I will not have them forcing their choice to smoke on me either. Their freedom to smoke in public places should end where my right to not smoke begins.

I think any person of any gender should be able to marry any other person of any gender. Mainly because it's none of my business who anybody sleeps with or marries, provided that all parties are consenting adults. Other people's marriages don't affect me in the least, so I don't feel as though I have any right to restrict them. I also don't think there should be any tax benefits for getting married, because your choice to marry or not marry should not entitle you to more or less taxes. Marriage should be something the government mostly stays out of, as it is primarily a religious issue anyway.

[Airman1270 0]

>...The Nazi's were ardent Christians...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Huh????! - What evidence is there to support this claim? Which Christian teachings were they putting into practice? Love your neighbor? Consider others more highly than yourselves? Treat others as you'd want to be treated?

These people may have attended church in their younger years, and maybe even believed in God, but there's no evidence that they allowed New Testament principles to influence their public policy decisions. Consider the brutal treatment of clergymen who spoke out against nazi policies.

Christianity does not endorse hatred, let alone mistreatment, of Jews or anyone else who rejects Christ as Savior & Lord.


>...Don't dress things up as they were not to simply prove a point...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Good advice.

Cheers,

Jon S.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Christianity does not endorse hatred, let alone mistreatment, of Jews or anyone else who rejects Christ as Savior & Lord.

The history of Christianity is filled with mass killings of heathens of all sorts. The history of religion in general is worse, with no shortage of even more current examples.

All of them say they tolerate infidels, but it only seems to require the wrong leader for that to go by the wayside.

[Airman1270 0]

>...I think any person of any gender should be able to marry any other person of any gender...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

You're trying to change the definition of a word that has meant a certain thing throughout thousands of years of recorded history.

The benefits of state-sponsored respect for traditional mariage, and the potential long-term harm to society resulting from efforts to simply discard this definition due to left-wing, secular political pressure, have been articulated in great detail in many other forums.

Cheers,
Jon