Slashdot Mirror
Is The U.S. No Longer The Choice For Freedom?
"I've been keeping my eye on other nations as places to live, and tallying whether they are cutting down on their citizens' freedoms, as well as whether they seem likely to be in any wars in the next 50 years... I'm personally getting tired of living in a nation where apparently no one in the capital city has read its constitution, or gives a damn. Where everyone elected to high political office breaks the oath they all take, to uphold and protect that same constitution.
I'd love to hear what my fellow Slashdotters have to say on the subject. If not the U.S., then where should I go? Please, no national biases, give me some actual info about places worth living. I'd like to get some ideas on this NOW though, so that if I decide to leave I can get out before doing so becomes a problem. (Did I mention I'm probably too paranoid about this?)"
ripe for a revolution and all...
Don't mess with me... I write code
to buy your own politician. It's really cheap in Latin America, expensive in the US/Europe.
Except a bit colder
pronoblem
I'm personally getting worried (OK, paranoid) due to all this stuff I'm seeing on Slashdot
;)
Everyone knows you shouldn't believe everything you read on Slashdot.
NO CARRIER
and it's probably going to continue getting worse until more people get involved in the political process. This last election was the first time I have ever endeavoured to get involved, and with the way it turned out, it really let me down and made me lose even more faith in the system.
That, and the fact that anyone who would make good candidate material has too many skeletons in the closet that they are afraid of the media uncovering. I know that if when I was older I decided that I had what it takes to hold office I would never run because I have done some bad things in my time that I would NEVER want exposed to the world.
This is not meant inflammatory but I'm really irritated by this statement: Is the United States still the best choice of a place to live for safety, freedom, and quality of life?
Do you really mean that? What led you to believe that this ever was the case?
I really have trouble grasping this US sense of patriotism.
Seriously, I'm just curious...
That said, if there is a country that would be able to pull it off with little or no bloodshed, it's the US. More realistically then the previous suggestion, stay here and keep fighting the good fight. With the American system, it is possible to win, just not easy. (It's never easy under any system.)
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
...what about Canada? It's a great place to live, seems to keep scoring reasonably well in UN assessments or whatever (for quality of life and all that)... still nice and close to the States...
:*)
And it *is* a nice source of amusement to be able to read about various new American legislation every few weeks, react in horror/disgust, and then realize it doesn't apply to us.
At least not yet.
myselfmusic
Half the countries in the world would have started shooting each other had this election fisaco we just went thru occured there. We didn't.
We developed the Internet - and one of the best federalist governments ever developed. We still have freedom - just some mega Intellectual property issues that will be ironed out one way or the other.
- I wouldn't leave for the world,
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
If I left Vancouver, it is highly unlikely I'd move to the US. I'd probably make a break for Copenhagen, London, or Hamburg instead.. those Europeans are much more enlightened in the ways of what Truly Matters in Life than us North Americans.
I adblock all animated gifs.
Blessed be the prime numbered slashdotters
...just a thought
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill (aptly acronymed RIP) basically allows the UK government to snoop on any Internet traffic at the ISP level, with a suitable warrant from a senior police officer.
Yes, there are ways around it (PGP, create your own mailserver, sign up with overseas ISP or ZeroKnowledge), but the average Internet user will now be leaving a trail behind them that can be used in evidence against them.
Oh, and by the way - this law isn't being debated. It's been passed.
[This post may contain factual errors. Please feel free to correct them.]
Has Microsoft taken away your right to form a militia? Has Pepsi told you what religion to practice? Has Exxon tried to force you to harbor soldiers against your will? Which basic rights have the corporations take away from you? Yes, companies are suing individuals left and right over so-called intellectual property rights. However, these suits have yet to be challenged in the Supreme Court and set as precedent. To answer your question, yes, there are possible countries that are more free than the US. However, I believe you'll be hard pressed to find one. Exactly what rights are looking for?
Saftey - is the right not to be harmed for speaking your mind.
Freedom - is the ability to be heard by people if you speak.
Quality of life - is what you make of it, if the first two don't address your concerns.
However, it's the "freedom" issue that bothers me. In any sort of a media state (like the US, but not only the US) opposing viewpoints get no recognition. If you have something different to say, you're told to go elsewhere, to find the minority who agree with you. In ages past, philosophers, thinkers, novelists, and writers all had the ability to have their works disseminated over a wide base to people who didn't already agree with the ideas. That's no longer the case when the media controls the distribution.
What this means is that every media state ends up a bit like Brave New World, i.e. banishing those who speak and think independently. Thus, there is no freedom. BNW was not the picture of a free society, despite the option of exile.
So, where's the freedom? There is none. Saftey? In the US, sure, you can get physical saftey. It's irrelevant without freedom.
And, like I said, if the first two aren't enough to you, then quality of life is what you make of it.
My other sig is extremely clever...
How can a corporation infringe on your rights unless the government gives them that right?
I see this anti-corporate stuff on slashdot all the time and I simply don't get it. Unless the _government_ explicitly gives someone the ability to infringe on your rights, any corporation can only act just like any other individual.
Now, if you believe in positive rights (such as the right to be fed or the right to healthcare) then you are part of the problem with freedom in the US.
(Yes I work for NSI. No I don't pretend to speak for them since they don't pretend to speak for me.)
The United States (although somewhat corrupt at times) is the only place that I can actually say is stable, inexpensive, and mostly free.
.02
I complain about the government and the assholes who tend to be in office, but for the most part it really hasn't affected me all that much yet. I would rather live here than Kosovo or Russia, etc. At least here I don't have to worry about political struggles that will completely change my way of life or even kill me.
To address your point of biases... Most people are going to tell you to live where they do b/c that is where they are comfortable living...
Just my worthless
For instance, if you want to own a gun, it's hard to beat the US.
If you wish to practice Scientology, stay away from Germany.
I hear Canada has strange porn laws, you can probably find harder porn in the US (I'm talking dead tree porn here).
If you're a woman (I know, only about 5% of Slashdot) there are a lot of countries that are less enlightened about women's rights than the US.
If you will obviously stick out as a foreigner, there are other countries you may want to stay away from.
If you desire sexual freedom, stay away from highly religious countries, like Ireland, which bans abortion and may have birth control restrictions.
Sorry this isn't more help, but you've asked a very broad question.
Article: Is the US No longer the Choice for Freedom? Score -1 Flamebait
Doh!
If you really wanna live in liberal country, you should try Netherlands. And if there is still some patriotism left in US, then its definitely not on racional basis.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
I like the fact that you seem to be having something of an epiphany about political freedoms in the supposedly 'free' west, but COME ON - how can the US claim to be a democracy with an entrenched two-party system that now seems to be sliding alramingly towards oligarchy? ( hillary, george jr., etc ). I'm canadian, and I don't think we're all that much better off - we have more political parties, but the elected members of those political parties aren't allowed to vote their own conscience - they have to toe party line.
I think too often we confuse political freedom with personal freedom. In N. America, we enjoy IMMENSE amounts of personal freedoms ( ie 'free as in beer' ) but as far as political freedom goes, it's really quite debatable.
What do you think?
Christmas Island is the way to go! They let you do pretty much anything
Everyone here in the US seems to have this mentality of "I am OWED such and such, and if I can't get it on my own the the government should give it to me......" Not to mention the congress being in big corporations pockets. Until people wake up and realize government should only be there to ensure rights, and allow citizens to fail, or suffer the consequences of their own choices (good or bad) the country will not improve.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I'd venture to say that you're too paranoid, at least for the time being! ;-)
America is still a great company, with an unequaled amount of freedom. I still wouldn't trade it for anything.
One of the reasons we hear a lot about stuff that can take away our freedoms, yet we're still free, is that people are always trying for more power for themselves. However, due to the way that our government is set up, it A) takes forever to get a law passed, and B) that still doesn't make it legal, since it has to pass the inspection of the courts. Plus, even if it passes inspection once, it has to continually pass inspection by pretty much everyone. Things just take time in our government. Be patient.
Personally, the fact that we are able to have this discussion says a lot to me.
The root of the problem isn't that the Government isn't willing to check these companies power scrambles. IMHO the root of the problem IS that we the people (as a mass) are either stupid, misinformed, or just don't care enough to elect government officials that will keep our liberties from being slowly depleted by the likes of big business.
The reason is that the trend toward the dominaiton commercial interest in almost every field is a global one, and as such, no technologically advanced country is safe. If a country were to chose to push for individual freedom over the interest of large corporations, it might well find itself excluded from the technological progress that these corporations bring. As such many nations might be "scared" into giving away the pie.
The U.S. is the one country that has little to fear in this respect. For a company with a global vision, excluding the American marketplace is not an option, and therefore America is in a better position to protect the interests of its citizens.
So while it might happen that some concessions to the corporate world are made, i think that US has the best chance of any country in this battle, should they chose to undertake it.
Ñ'
I've said it before and I'll say it again, all coders should get out of the states for the reason of IP laws. I have previously promoted Europe (and hey why not my little isle of Ireland) but honestly I feel that it does not matter overly where as long as it is outside of the direct control US legal system.
I have to say though that all countries (IMHO) have taken steps which are abhorent to the rights of individuals, often through backdoors. Examples include Ireland's removals of many human rights in the case of the "War on Drugs", freedom of speech and right to property and the UKs RIP act to protect against "child pornography et al" which makes carnivore look benign (we all now they snoop but at least they aren't saying it's illegal to stop them).
I don't think (bar coders who are subjecting themselves to stupid legal requirements) people should emigrate.....just be vocal and do what you can (e.g. vote) to stop these errosions. If you think the whole population agrees with the politicians run....if the population disagrees help get them vocal.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
I know I am not the only one, since I have some friends and family that have recently taken the plunge and relocating to Canada.
There was a post above about "Canada...what US was supposed to be". This is not quite an exaggeration. Please spare me the flames.
I can not find a link (perhaps someone will help here) but Canada, and not the US has had the highest standard of living for quite awhile.
The rights of citizens are more protected.
(donning flamesuit)
They even have rudimentary healthcare. I know the USian propaganda makes light of the healthcare situation and mentions the true statement that the US has the BEST healthcare...but the US fails to cover all its citizens. If you have cancer, you want to be here...if you have the flu, you want to be in Toronto.
(takes off suit)
I say look into Canada.
Cheers,
Tom
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
(well, if you live in Florida, anyway).
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
Which freedoms are you worried about?
I know this: you are free to not enter into contracts with those big bad corporations!
Flame away, but the U.S. has always been a rather conservative nation. Whether it be the witch hunts for pacifists during WWI, the locking-up of Japanese citizens during WWII, or the Red Scare of the '50s and National Guard shootings of the '60s, this nation's always been a dangerous place to speak freely. Now that Bush's in office, I'm seriously considering moving to a certain liberal-minded nation up north.
After all, they have the Internet Privacy Act, rank higher in Amnesty International annual reports, have multi-party elections, and are way more advanced on rights than we are.
Sadly, they have a lousy exchange rate.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Also, I can't see how things would be better in other countries. Things always seem rosy from far away, but it doesn't seem like that when you get there! For example, people always talk of Holland and the EU as being free places to live these days, while ignoring the huge democratic deficit at the heart of the EU that Holland and other European countries have to confirm to.
The simple fact is that most Countries around the world have their own problems regarding freedom, and I don't see how the USA is uniquely better or worse in any area.
Speaking for myself, the things I like about America are its Constitution which safeguards certains rights. But as a European, and a Scot at that, I am a wee bit uncomfortable at the lack of a National Health Service that is government funded and the Gun laws make me nervous too, but that is only to be expected.
There are always trades and balances! :o)
--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
We shouldn't fool ourselves. Corporations want to wave the banner of whatever sells best and for the most. If parents scream "ban everything but whitehouse.com!" (wouldn't that be funny?) then some company will make software to do it, assuming those same screaming parents will cough up the money to cover it (or, at least, make their local library pay for it).
There are companies willing to play "fair". I always think of O'Reilly as a shining bastion in that way. But, sadly, I just now paused for a minute or so and couldn't come up with anyone else. Even seemingly angelic "organizations" like the SPCA have odd ways of doing business that make you wonder what they're in it for.
I'd much rather have the freedom to be surrounded by assholes than be where everyone's only being nice because they HAVE to. Even with all the unsavories abounding, you can always find your element. And, if you have the will, push forth with your idea of "fair" and "free". And if you're really lucky, maybe that's what you can call work everyday.
There will always be room for the next way of doing something (anything). Once some people realize what they're giving up by holding steady with the status quo, they'll convert to your (at this point hypothetical) way of doing things. And they'll tell and convince their friends...and so on.
Don't give up.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Was the US ever the best place to live? The UN seems to like to vote Canada into that position (of course, they might be biased as the US doesn't pay its bills).
...
The US is a great place to live if you have money. Otherwise, it's rather lacking in health, education, freedom of speech (McCarthyism was hardly a surprise), enviroment friendliness, electricity supply, revenge and retribution obsession in the name of justice (death penalty anyone?), value of human life, racism and xenophobia, prejudiced justice system (DAs, judges, sheriffs, etc are often more concerned with re-election than real justice),
I know, it's one of the countries that I've lived in in my life, but I am planning on returning for a few more years as there are some other benefits for those with enough dosh.
"...safety, freedom, and quality of life..."
In some ways, I can't help but think that's like the old project-management axiom: "Projects can be cheap, fast, or right. Pick two."
There was probably a time (although it may be a myth of "the Good Old Times") when safety, freedom and quality of life (along with goodwill, common decency, self-respect and responsibility) were positively correlated, but that would seem to rely on a social consciousness in every individual, rather than today's US-pervasive, "Screw You! I [need/got/will get/lost] mine!"
But maybe that's just me?
I mean, corporations are pretty bad and all. What I *would* worry about, however, is the absolute ignorance of the populace. How many people are aware of the travesty that has been made of separation of powers? 10th amendment, anyone? How about the separation clause of the 1st amendment? It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Seems kind of clear to me: Congress can't make laws about religion or prohibit religious practice. And yet, they constantly impair religious practice and make numerous laws concerning religion! Our tax system is out of whack, our legal system is out of control, and I just keep going on and on but I don't have time. We're in bad shape, folks.
Dude. The whole point is that you're supposed to get in there and fight for what's right. Now get to it!
I didn't know Bill Gates was a /. reader. Sorry Bill, but they will still be out to get you, no matter where you go.
-Spackler
You pay a lot of taxes, but your rights are ensured.
The posting population of Slashdot shuns control, regardless of the source (Government or Corporation). Posting opinions is one form of anti-control. Another is the lively discussions about the apparent constant erosion of U.S. civil rights.
Although it seems that Things (tm) are getting worse in the good old USA, I suggest you take a step back (from Slashdot) and read some other opinions. Do they confirm or contradict the sentiment here?
. . .
The most interesting part of the debate is the fact that Corporations seem to want to us to exchange our liberties for capitalism. I am not sure why there is a dichotomy between liberty and capitalism. Further, it is laughable that Corporations seek to impose liberty limitations on the purchasing Americans at the expense of their own personal liberties.
People like to complain about how their privacy has been invaded, yet continue to work for and purchase from the Corporations that try to erode their libery. Maybe it's me and my arrogant attitude, but the majority of folks that I know do not care that their liberties probably are eroding. They only seem to care about how much money they can make while doing as little work as possible. Are these people legitimately stupid? or just not clued in?
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life."
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
Just curious,have you lived in any other countries? I've been stationed overseas twice,plus one deployment,and I still look forward to coming home. The US may not be perfect,but overall I still think we have the best deal going.
Here's a suggestion:instead of moving out and giving up,why not try to improve things? Do you vote? Have you encouraged other people to? Instead of jumping ship,how about becoming more politically active and try to inact some positive changes. The whole reason our rights are slipping away is because of apathy/inaction on the part of the people.
==== Warning:this poster contains subject matter that may be offensive. Flaming discretion is advised.
I'm not in a position to say the US is the best having never lived anywhere but there. Every country has its disadvantages. My uncle lives in Germany and complains of high taxes. I mean outrageously high. A $100 per TV tax. Income tax of around ~50% or more. The list goes on. From what I have read, other European countries are similiar. To each his own, but I feel no one can really say one country is better than another without having actually lived in both places.
BigCat79
BigCat79
"The dead have risen and are voting Republican!" --Bart Simpson
I would say that the US is still the most 'open' of contries economically. The government isn't as involved in our daily lives as most news reports would lead you to think. Companies have been collecting information on you for years. If you've ever answered a Publisher's Clearing House advertisement in the last 15 years they know who you are. I have done some computing work for large colleciton companies and you'd be amazed the way they find you. Computers have made it somewhat faster, but they still use time told methods that have always been around. Publisher's Clearing House is just a clearing house for your mailing address & interests. They sell these large databases on the open market every month or so, companies buy them, data mine them, and then track you down. I've seen systems where you type in a persons name, and it comes back with every adress on file, who owned the home, if it had a mortgage who holds the mortgage, who your neighbors were, who owned those homes, and on and on. At what point do you make collection of basic information illegal?
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Don't come to the UK as we usually get into them at least two years b4 the yanks arrive.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
I absolutely hate stories like this. The problem is that is approaches the problem as if there is some Utopian country out there and it's just a matter of getting away from the big bad USA and all your problems will be solved. Nothing could be further from the truth.
All countries have their pluses...and all countries have their minuses. Web forums, such as this, delight in pointing out the problems of the US, and the declaration of "I'm seriously thinking of leaving the US." is heard time and time again.
Do you seriously think that life is all wine and roses elsewhere? Australia is forcing ISPs to block content from their people, slashdot has posted numerous stories concerning British libel cases, where ISPs are forced to remove offensive material. Canada has taxes on recordable media...the list goes on and on.
The point of my rant is not that the US is #1 in any of these categories, but that this "grass is always greener" attitude is not going to get you very far in life.
I've been thinking the same thing, for a very long time. As a teen I began thinking this way. I was an exchange student in high school to Switzerland and that really made me want to leave the US. Not a day goes by that I don't think about leaving, and if I had the proper oppurtunity I would be out of here the same day.
The current trends towards privacy violation and the general culture in the US just gets worse and worse every day. 1984 isn't too far away I'm afraid, and most of us either don't care, or don't know what to do about it. I'm not even so sure there is any way to stop the trend towards complete corporate rule of America anymore. A very large number of my friends are from outside of the US, and most of them do not think the US is the greatest place in the world. Even my friends from "less developed" countries think they were better off at home, both socially, and financially. I also get the consensus that America is far from the most free country on earth. A look towards the social scenes of northern Europe can confirm this.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for my "anti-American" opinion, but I challenge all of you to wake up, look around a little bit, and do some comparisons. Is America REALLY that great, or has years of cultural brainwashing just convinced you so? Is there something we can do about it, or should those of us who value our freedom and privacy start relocating?
It seems like corporations have no desire other than to strip us of what few remaining freedoms we have, and the government is doing nothing to check their power scramble.
What right does the government have to infringe on the rights of private corporations? You want the government to get bigger and bigger, more and more restrictive of rights, and have the ability to direct all business.
This means you want less freedom, not more. You want the government to get bigger and and more restrictive.
In a completely free government, corporations would be bigger and more powerful than they are now (no antritrust law, for example). By definition, only government (and not private corporations) has the ability to restrict rights.
The general public will stand for a loss of freedom as long as its for someone else. The majority of voting Americans are between 35-55, this age group really has little concept of what an mp3 is, what linux is, thinks the internet is just hackers and porn, never heard of Free Software, browse the web via AOL, etc. There are exceptions of course, many in this age group are bright and visible contributers to an online society, but I would estimate 70 percent of voters dont care about online interests. Where the laws will change is when they start encrouching in areas that affect them. The danger that they are not yet aware of is some of the precidences being set in laws that were made this year. I still feel confident that will time these will be judged to be unconstitional and eventually overturned. Secondly feel enourgaged that a Republican President is in the house, as crippled and uncertain as this might be traditionally those that give more expect more, i.e democrats normally have pushed an agenda of the government "caring" for the people, as in welfare, social security, government run health care, emissions testing, etc...while this is all great (if you dont mind the taxes to pay for them), if you arent careful this makes a more and more powerful government that has the power to legislate away your rights. While I didnt vote for Mr. Bush I feel confident that the recent trend will slow and possible reverse especially if Bush gets to appoint 2 supreme court justices.
"...your future, make it a reality, all you have to do is fight for me"
If you're really interested in keeping the same standard of living as you're getting in the US, you've only got a few choices, namely the EU, the US, Canada, and a few countries in Asia (Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan notably).
For Asia, you're dealing with a situation which might seem like it offers more things like privacy, but have much less open political processes (like Singapore) which might actually reduce your overall level of freedom.
For the EU, while you'll get more chance to protect your privacy (the EU is much more forward thinking than the US when it comes to individual rights), many EU countries offer MUCH less than the US when it comes to the conventional US perspective on personal freedom (higher taxes, more government regulation, bizantine regulation on things the US takes for granted [like shop opening hours in Germany and the lack of a Bill of Rights in the UK]). So while you might get some things, you give up others in return.
So it depends on what your personal tradeoff is. If you're most concerned with fighting your perceived corporatism, you want to leave. If you're mostly interested in your personal liberty, you probably want to stay.
I can't really comment that much on Canada....can someone else fill in the gaps?
But the entire question is completely moot, as national standards have completely removed your ability to emigrate to anywhere which is a developed economy (while you can LEAVE the US pretty easily, you can't go TO anywhere else). So you're pretty much stuck here regardless.
Don't elect politicians who destroy the constitution (especially if they are then labled 'Defenders' of said Constitution.
Defang corporations of their power over citizens, vote to reduce governmentI seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
...that 'we the people' hold the responsibility for running this nation. We delegate some of that responsibility to a cadre of politicians and civil servants, but in the end we must answer to ourselves.
There exists no other nation on earth where the people are given this much power, and it is up to us to each make our voice heard. Yes, it's work to get involved, it takes away from other fun activities, but would you really rather live in a nation where you never have the chance at all?
The new Senate is being sworn in today. Get to know who these Senators are, keep their feet to the fire, continually remind them that they hold their jobs because we say they can, and that we will revoke that privilege if they abuse it.
Sincerely, Kathryn AegisAmerica was bought and sold long ago to those with the most money. Not everyone seemed to realize that until the Internet boom. As with all forms of media, the people in power need to represent what's in your best interest. How do they know what's in YOUR best interest? Well, by being in power of course. I know it's not necessarily any better, but I'm moving to Canada. If only to experience a different type of system. Country-wide Health Care, Prime Ministers, etc. etc. My thoughts may come off random and stupid, but what I can I say, I'm at work with another 4 projects going on =\
I leave you now with lyrics from a Propagandhi song:
You can vote however the fuck you want,
but power still calls all the shots, and believe it or not
even if (real) Democracy broke lose,
they'd just make the economy scream
until we vote responsibly
Every country gives you some freedoms, that others don't give. Some countries in Africa where nomads are the largest faction give you the most freedom, but at the expense of many things you take for granted. Assuming you aren't willing to live without them (Like , you have to take some compromise.
If you want the freedom to drink when you are under 21, most of is better, likewise for many drugs.
If you want to own guns, then the US has the most freedom here.
If you want to be assured to will have food and shelter even if you don't work, Sweden is the most free, but they have in their own way limits on freedom. One is taxes, you don't have to work in Sweden, but if you want to buy something (Other then food and shelter) you have to pay for it, and that normally means work. Work means they take at least 60% of your money in taxes. (In the US it is about 40%)
Vote libratarian. I don't need freedom to look at porn because my religion prohibits me anyway - but I need freedom of religion. Joe down the road loves his guns, but doesn't care about religion or the press. Alone we are divided, I oppose porn, but if I'm willing to allow you to have your vice, and you allow me mine, togather we are a large force.
Don't forget that in the US your vote is counted. Get involved, make sure there is no election fraud in your distrcit (even if it is to your favor!). Alone we lose freedom, togather we stand up for everyone in a force that the corruption in DC cannot hope to match.
One of the paradoxes of a free society is the fact that it is free enough to destroy itself. The alternative isn't very applealing if you think about it.
The great thing about this place is that if you really do believe things are wrong we have the tools to fix it. This also means that if you oppenent doesn't want you to fix them then they have every right to stop you from accomplishing their goals. You can't have "free for the good(me) guys but not for the evil(other) guys". How do you determine "evil(other) guys"? To have anything less would be problematic.
Slashdot just like other place tends to grab the senasational topics and hold on to them. I'm not saying it there aren't problems out there. There will always be problems in any culture. I really don't believe things are horribly wrong and studies have shown that if you aren't afluently rich open soceities like the US are the best places to be.
Let's keep in mind that Civil Rights (in capitals), while provided for in the Constitution, were never really enforced all that much until the mid- to late-60's. Also keep in mind that politicians are almost always older than 40 and frequently older than 60--making them pre-Civil Rights-era. Just think of the McCarthy era in the 1950's and THEN ask yourself whether freedoms are greater or lesser nowadays.
Also remember that politicians aren't the last word. Joe Lawmaker can pass any law he can get enough votes for....but they are still subject to judgement by the Judicial Branch. There's been a lot of talk about how the Judicial Branch in general and the Supreme Court in particular has been compromised by the election controversy, but on the whole I think the system (the *Judicial* system) works well.
That's not to say I counsel complacence. Don't just sit around saying "it's pretty good, I think I'll stay". The Judicial Branch is passive by design. It can only rule on cases that are brought to it. So go out, find an unjust law and challenge it! Think of it as removing bugs from the legal system.
--
MailOne
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
It all depends where you put your emphasis on.
I'm from Germany, but I lived for one year in the US when I was sixteen years old. (Which is, by incident, only four years ago.)
What amazed me the most was how strongly you restrict the freedom of your children. E.g. curfew in major cities, drinking age being 21, whole school policies like lav passes. You get my drift. Being from Germany these restrictions where extremely hard to put up with.
OTOH, some people might find it troubling (sp?) how some forms of speech are limited here in Germany, e.g. hate speech, denial of the holocaust, personal insults (= libel?), etc. I don't really have a problem with these restrictions, but I expect very libetarian people to cry out loud at these restrictions.
So it all depends, which freedoms you value most. You will definatelly not be able to enjoy all freedoms one can imagine to the fullest, because, after all, you have to live in some society. And given that no two people are alike, you will run into problems at one point which can only be solved by restricting your freedoms in some way.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Every country may not be quite a bad as ours, but they are all heading that direction, and it is only a matter of time. I guess you could move to Cuba! At least right now, in the US, citizens have some rights and protection from the authorities, even if certain forces are constantly lobbying to reduce our rights and freedoms. I would still rather live in a place where the press is free to report what they want, even if the press is almost entirely dominated by corporate interests, and where cops have to at least call a judge before breaking down my door to confiscate my belongings.
I certainly wouldn't mind if my tax dollars went to services that I actually felt I needed, but then I wouldn't have to spend my after tax dollars on the very consumables I should have subsidized by my government, and that might cut into corporate profits. God forbid I should spend a couple dollars a day on public transport, rather than $20,000+ dollars on a car plus maintenance, insurance, and petroleum costs (and pollution). But that's just my opinion. Ask this question again in 4 years, and we will see just how bad our new friend in the white house has made things.
I'm originally from England, and moved to the States about 15 years ago. From what I'd seen and read I believed the US had a frontier spirit of freedom and essentially unfettered capitalism/entrepreneurism, but this notion was dashed very quickly after I came here.
Compared to England, the US has a zillion restrictions on individual freedoms that everyone takes for granted and doesn't question. I guess most countries are the same, but US citizens (which I am now myself) do seem much more naieve in that they seem to believe their country compares favorably in this regard when IMO it does not.
What makes you believe this was ever the case in the first place ? The UN publishes a "quality of life" ranking from time to time, you migth want to read up on it. (hint: the US is not first now, and never was) Admittedly this is nessecarily subjective. But a little less cockiness from some US people would be good. Also see the recent Kuro5hin.org article on the same subject.
I just visited Ireland for Christmas (my sister-in-law is Irish) and they seem to get a lot of things right. Over the past few years they have been steadily removing certain taxes, and reducing others (Ireland used to have a large black market economy, but people are declaring more and more as the taxes get less onerous.) They also have a history of rebellion against all forms of authority, mostly due to having been ruled for some periods in their history by their neighbours the English.
A story related to me when I was there was of a barrier placed across a street to stop commuter traffic using it as shortcut. (Ireland's economy has been booming over the past 10 - 15 years, largely because of a strong IT industry, and population growth plus lots of new cars has put a strain on their roads.) Each time it was put up someone would go down with their jeep and pull it out again. That kind of attitude is one of the best safeguards against tyranny. Governments enforce stupid laws because it becomes easy to do so. If it's difficult to enforce laws they will concentrate on the ones that matter.
Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
Who says the US has ever been the best place for safety, freedom, and quality of life ???
:) Best food, beautiful country.
For freedom, you may choose the Netherlands.
For safety, move to Monaco (omnipresent police, security cameras everywhere).
For quality of life... The obvious choice is France of course.
Campaign Finance Reform.
Go write a check to John McCain for $100 or whatever you can afford. He's the only politician I truly believe wants to use the system to fix the system. After all, thats the only way this stuff will be remedied.
We need more individuals funding campaigns, and less corporations and soft money, etc.
Which "freedoms" you are losing, and what "power" is being stripped away by the evil corporations you mention? What precise facets of the government and society have you itching to expatriate? Be specific. Give examples from your own life.
And once you answer those questions, I'd like you to answer this one: what could/should be done differently? Provide a solution. Complaints without solutions are only slighty better than useless...
Enough bullshit about how corporations are taking away your freedoms. Corporations only have the power that we as a society give them. The real fear is the power that our government has in restricting our freedoms. Does gun control ring a bell?
Nothing is quite as frightening as giving our government more power. If you think corporations abuse the power we've given them, you haven't seen the power of government.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
I've had many of the same feelings as you, dear poster. And I thought about going to England.
However, I soon learned that there is no constitutional protection of speech in England.
While "The Guardian" and other are allowed to do very serious investigative reporting on a lot of issues, they are watched keenly by the government and are not allowed to pubish much information very important to citizens interested in their freedom.
And heck, isn't the NSA listening post, "Echelon" there?
Other suggestions?
I still reccomed the U.S.
The fact that we here on Slashdot (and about 100000000 other places) bitch and moan about the United States and its problems proves just how great and strong our nation still is. While it may seem to be in the grips of political, social, and economic apathy, there is still an undercurrent of respect and desire to achieve a base of freedoms which is either unavailable or unattainable elswhere in the world.
Does the United States, its governement and corporate structure, have problems? Of course. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of living in a perfect Utopia. The problems of the U.S. are the problems of human beings as a whole, they are a reflection on our attitudes and actions towards one another on a scale of history. However, moving from place to place, in an attempt to avoid dealing with the human issues that could topple a country, isnt really the answer. By moving once things get tough, you would essentially be running from a greater responsiblity to help make your country a place that YOU can believe in again.
Remember, when this country was founded by some revolutionary crazies a few hundred years ago, popular support was with the British. Most people could care less about any vague notions about future governments, just as long as they had peace and entertainment. It was up to the men (and women) who believed in something greater and better to move the minds of the masses, and effect the change that freed us from the rule of a dictator (which, no matter what others say, IMHO still have not regressed to).
Constant pundancy and demonstration. These are things that can actually change a government, and it has been proven time and time again, in country after country (no matter how naive it sounds). The more desperate the situation, the louder you should raise your voice. That is why the founders of the country included those rights in our constitution, and why they must continue to be practiced, even in the fact of governmental ignorance of our basic rights as Americans (yet another thing to change).
I still believe in the basic ideals of freedom and equality this country was founded on. Were grevious mistakes made along the way, rights taken and people slandered without hope or cause? Yes. Again, we are, unfortunately, human and governed by nothing more than flawed human beings. However, to negate the idea of a good government because of the flaws of humans is a mistake.
Dont give up on the U.S. just yet. Not when it most needs your help.
I really hope that doesn't fall under the realm of national bias (it might, and i apologize). I was just trying to address your disillusionment in the U.S.
"Moving through the masses like a fish through water." syrup
Well, if you have the money you too can buy your freedom!
You say you don't like a law that prevents you from taking advantage of employees? Well get a few lobbyists and give them wads of cash and you too can buy your own law! (please check the changes to IT professionals and overtime laws if you doubt me. Why are only IT pros exempt?)
Want to shut someone up who says what they think of you or your company? Hire a gaggle of lawyers and sue their pants off, if they are poor they won't even be able to afford the court costs!
What's that, you say you want to get a polititian in your back pocket? Just contribute to the polititian's campaign of your choice, that will get anything you want done real quick if you have a few mill to help him buy the election.
Hmm... What makes me think that the founding fathers never intended the US to become "for the money and by the money"? Is anyplace better? Probably not, even though I don't know this first hand. Anywhere that there is a government there is corruption, and where there is corruption there is a lack of freedom.
Oh, and a happy new year to all...
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
I just read about Yahoo implementing software in its auction area to filter out "hate material". And while I'm not a big fan of censorship, Yahoo is company, not a government institution or anything similar, so we can't complain too much.
The fact is, not matter how bad Yahoo or any existing site gets with regard to censorship, we can always create our own new site. Just like in the ongoing crackers versus security warfare ensures that there is never a truly secure system, the opponents to free speech will never be able to keep anyone completely silent.
If you don't like hateful speech, then respond to it, don't silence it. Many oppressed groups flourish because having an enemy unites them. The answer to false, ignorant, hateful ideas, is MORE FREE SPEECH, not less. Respond to ideas that you don't like and everyone will learn. If hate mongers choose not to listen or behave irrationally, let them. They will look like fools, not martyrs.
Through our dependence upon their products. They are just tightening the leash.
Is the United States still the best choice of a place to live for safety, freedom, and quality of life?
*Still* the best choice?? God, no! I wasn't aware that America has ever been a good choice for safety or quality of life. Maybe freedom in the most abstract sense and certainly as a good place to be extremely wealthy.
It sounds like you want to be moving north of the border. Unbeknownst to most Americans or Canadians, the lower 4/5 of Canadians have a higher standard of living than lower 4/5 of Americans. America is a great place to live if you're a millionaire.
Violent crime is quite rare up here. You might have to check you beloved guns at the border, though.
As for freedom, Americans have more freedom in theory, at least when not talking in the context of Americans being 0wn3d by corporations. There's less corporate dominance in Canada. But I am concerned about Intellectual Property laws spilling across the border under Bush.
Of course, we do pay more in direct and indirect taxes (though not as much more as most people would think) and the weather is colder (okay, a lot colder here in Ottawa).
For years...no decades people in the US have whined about how the Corporations are running everything and takine our rights away.
/. just has alot of Chicken Little's screaming the sky is falling all the time.
I'm 27, I still have my Right to Bare Arms, my Right of Free Speech, My Right to Record stuff on my Replay TV and my Right to Download P0rn on my G3.
I've been all over the World, and I'm pretty up to date on Geo-political issues, and IMHO there isn't a more free Democratic-Republic on Earth.
Corporations are not evil. They are just there. Attempting to do what is right for thier shareholders and employees.
To answer your question. It's not that bad.
If you think the US is bad...I suggest you go out and read up on...Oh. Nazi Germany, Czarist or Communist Russia, most of Central and Southern Africa. North Korea or Communist China...Places where there really are no rights.
People on Slashdot act as if somehow things are getting worse and worse. Any look at history will show in many ways things are better now then in the past. For instance, take a look at the power that the robber barons had over the government, both local and federal. J.P. Morgan used to manipulate the stock market for is own personal gain. Other used to sent the police to kill union strikers. In terms of class turmoil the current troubles pale in comparrision to the past.
That said, people do need to become more politcally involved. The reasons the unions where able to get the power they have now was because they worked within the political arena. Something people in this day and age seem to be too lazy to do, other then complain about it.
"Attention Citizens, 2+2 now equals 3.947547175. Please recalibrate your equipment now" --The Computer
America is a country without an identity, unfortunately. If our politicians don't seem to have a personality, it's because the people don't seem to be very opinionated about anything. Perhaps what America really needs is a political party that actually has active members of society in it, not bureaucrats scratching each other's backs.
Adulterous president (think Marilyn Monroe) with a 9th-rate foreign policy to boot (think Vietnam/Bay of Pigs/almost getting us into a nuclear war).
Taking one to the dome was the best thing he could have ever done; if he hadn't gotten shot, we'd be looking down on him farther than we do Nixon. Who, Watergate aside, wasn't all that bad of a president...
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Your attitude seems to be "Individuals should have their freedom protected for them (rather than doing it themselves). Corporations are the ones who shouldn't get freedom, the government should control them."
Here's the thing: freedom is not something that can be applied in whatever way is convenient. It has to be universal.
Don't like what a corporation is doing? You always have a choice. You don't have to support them.
Are you disgusted with the apathy of consumers? For instance, people that buy from Home Depot even though they are a contributor to the destruction of rainforests? Do something about it! Hand out leaflets outside of Home Depot! Don't shop there! Be an intelligent consumer who makes choices based on what you believe, and urge others to do so as well. Don't just whine about how the government needs to put corporations in check. What next? Get rid of corporations all together and put them under state control? Hmmm... seems to me that communism doesn't work. Where do you draw the line?
Carl
p.s. If you really believe in freedom, vote Libertarian (sorry, shameless political plug).
Vote Libertarian
The only way you can ask that question is if youve never lived anywhere else. It aint perfect but its better then the alternatives.
I started with nothing and I still have most of it.
Asking "Is the United States still the best choice of a place to live for safety, freedom, and quality of life?" is definitely flamebait and this sort of question can not result in a serious discussion without all kinds of bigotry. I'm sure many people will see this post as very anti US and anti gun. This is not the case however. As a matter of fact I enjoy sport shooting a lot and I just got back from a vacation in the USA (San Francisco & Las Vegas). I like the USA a lot but it certainly isn't paradise.
:)
Having said this, I want to say that the question I just quoted is pretty bizarre. Was the USA *ever* the choice for safety, freedom and quality of life? I mean safety!?!? Where else in the world do kids shoot other kids in school? There's a mass killing every week or so when some madman starts playing real-life Quake at work!
Freedom? I never understood why people in the USA think their country is so free. Just about every European country is at least as free and many are much more so (the Netherlands and Denmark quickly come to mind). It seems to me that the only thing that is really more free in the USA than elsewhere is easy access to guns. You can own guns in most other countries too though, so go figure.
Quality of life? Canada comes up on top in the UN quality of life evaluations all the time and are closely followed by many European countries such as Finland, Norway and Sweden.
Myself, I'm from Finland and I consider it a very nice country. One noticeable thing I see a lot in the USA that we don't have here is a type of fear for "big brother" and "the government". I think it has to do with the size of the country. Here, most people have friends or relatives that work or have worked in some government function at some point. We see the government as "us" - not as "them". It's not "they pass laws" - it's "we pass laws".
If you think things are getting out of hand in the USA and want to move, I cound recommend just about any European country. For those fearing the cold, there's much more cold and snow on the east coast of USA right now than there is here in Finland.
I recommend the Alarishi Empire. Don't like the government? Make your own! All you need are some class 3 batteries and a small fleet to defend yourself.
The U S, by it laws alone have been limiting freedoms as long as I have been alive for the sake of corparate intrest among other things. What can we do about it I have no clue since voting does not seem to work that well a the moment. In this country its all about the bottom line at the moment. MONEY. Money is the dominating force in this country. NOT morals, safety, rights of the people. I obvious that you can buy your position in the goverment now. The more money you have this country the more power you have. If a person with little or no money come around and hints at a threat of taking away some money from the large companies. The large companies try to crush the smaller ones (Napster vs Record Labels and Microsoft vs Anybody who steps in their way) Freedom is a right, but with all the laws there are these days I dont know. When things like this exist -- Copy-protected hard drives. When I first read about this, I almost fell out of my chair. If this doesn't bring your geek blood to a boil, nothing will. Plans are in the works by a standards committee to place unique identifying numbers on all new PC hard drives. This would be part of what's known as the ATA specification, the current design on which personal-computer hard drives are based. The implications for this are immense. It would be easy to tie either software or data to that number. Here's an example: Suppose you order a piece of shareware over the Web. You pay for the software in a secure transaction, and the Web site from which you're buying the program grabs the identifying number from your hard drive. You then install the software and go about your merry way. Six months later, you buy a new computer. You find your copy of the software and try to install it on the new machine - and it either won't install or won't run. You'd need to get another installation from the originating Web site, which may or may not charge you for it. Or how about this? Let's say you download a song from a respectable music-industry Web site. You pay for it like a good citizen. Then you decide you want to listen to it on your laptop, or burn it onto a CD for personal use, or drop it into your digital music player. Uh uh. Sorry, Charlie. The song is encoded in such a way that it can be played only on the original hard drive. Not surprisingly, the entertainment industry is a big proponent of copy protection for hard drives. Stung as it has been by technologies such as Napster and low-priced CD burners, it sees this as the ultimate defense against music and movie piracy. But the scheme has implications for business users as well. Drives that comply with the standard would not be willing to share data with drives that don't use the system. That means businesses would have to convert all their drives to these new copy-protected drives. And, of course, there are privacy issues, just as there were when Intel introduced unique identifiers in its Pentium III chips. That caused enough of an uproar that almost all PCs now are shipped with the identifier, while in place, disabled. For more information on this alarming development, read an excellent article about it at the Register Web site at www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html. --- I really start to have mental issues. Ok I have vented enough
If we refuse to be flexible, we are in effect opting out of the game of life. The world moves on without us.
...I'm gonna buy myself an island....or build a hugemungous oil platform type thing. Somewhere in the Carribean, over 12 miles from any land. Put a resort and a golf course or two up there. Can't cost more than $1bln USD...
Of course, there will be a data haven too.
"Is the United States still the best choice of a place to live for safety, freedom, and quality of life?"
Was it ever? I've never read or seen anything to suggest it was. My impression has always been that in general you have huge inequality, low standards of education, no welfare state, widespread gun ownership, high crime rates, racism, a massive prison population, the worst obesity problem of any country in the world - the list goes on.
Personally I would recommend Northern Europe - good standards of living, good education. No guns. Cleaner than London (where I live). You pay 'high' income tax, but get something in return, compared to a lot of other places. Probably less entrepreneurial than the US, but you have to compromise somewhere...
What idiot moderator rated this Offtopic? Since when is someone quoting the article and directly responding Offtopic?
-N
the world is only a limited number of steps away from UN domination
Woah, woah, woah, there, pardner! I reckon you have the wrong letter in there. Shouldn't it read, "the world is only a limited number of steps away from US domination"? From my perspective, anyway, untainted by rumours of Zurich Gnomes, the ZOG, and other Z-things (including Zundel), the UN is pretty ineffectual and hardly does anything -- at least not compared to the US Government, which has its tentacles in too many international pies to count; various and sundry US-based/spawned trans- or multinational corporations, and "organizations" like ICANN. Based on that evidence, I'd say the latter version of that first statement is closer to some version of Reality[TM] than the former.
As to the original poster's question about places where you might want to live, I'd suggest Canada (of course) -- can UNESCO surveys really be that wrong? -- and Iceland, which, going by recent developments in R&D, "green" technology, and business over there, is going to be kicking our collective North American @$$es around the block in a few years.
Note on the former: Don't plan on going to either of those places if you don't like the cold and/or don't like paying taxes. My suggestion on the former, though, is to wear layers (it's -23 C outside my window this afternoon), and my suggestion on the latter is that generally you get what you pay for...particularly in places like Canada and Iceland.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
But, for most of the Israeli population, it seems, the laws fit. I think they are not so fitting in the US, where the courts' involvement in people life seems to be ridiculous.
From what I've seen in my life and in through talking to people it looks that the very democracy and freedom is in Holland and Scandinavian countries, and an absolute freedom, where government lacks sometimes the control you do WANT (law enforcement) used to be in Russia, especially in Moscow, until the very recent times.
-- "If you had fallen into a shit pit during a battle, lick yourself off and move on." - Jaroslav Hasek
While the US is definitely in a downward spiral of personal freedoms at the moment (and I speak from experience, as a US citizen, and as a musician that has had more than one piece of music stolen by some "corporate entity" that said I was working for them at the time I wrote it), I don't think you will find things much better anywhere else.
The problem is not so much the government, but the fact that the government isn't actually running the way that it is supposed to be. It is not running based on the idealism of the forefathers, where the people have a say in what goes on. It is running purely and fully on the greed and money of the multi-national corporations. And these multi-nationals are going to be powerful no matter where you go on this planet. Unfortunately, at the moment, you are limited to this planet.
The money is what runs the show. If you have enough money, you can have all the freedom you want. But, most of us don't have the money. And our "choices" for political offices are made by the people that do have the money. We can choose between the guy that is getting half of the political money of big business for his campaign, or we can choose the guy that gets the other half of the political money of big business for his campaign. Of course, there are the third parties, but, as always, we are told that a vote for any third party candidate is a vote for (most evil option here) to scare us into staying with the status quo.
Our freedoms are eroding, and I have looked into the possibility of moving out of the country myself. But where would I go? I can speak French passibly (as well as English) so that opens up a few more doors, but the possibilities that I would move just to face exactly the same situation seems ridiculously stupid. In America, we are supposed to have a voice. But, until enough people wake up out of the rebuplicratic fog that they are in and vote their heart instead of their fear, well, it just isn't going to change.
Maybe, if more people became informed it would change. But don't hold your breath. Oh, and one other thing. If you do find a cool place to live, move there and are satisfied with it, let me know. I'd love to get away from here.
------------
The main reason the US Constitution doesn't hold as much weight as it should is because people keep running away (or hiding) instead of standing up for what is right. The US wouldn't even be here if our founding fathers didn't give everything they had to make it so. If you realy want your freedom, for you and your children, make a stand and be ready to give everything for it. Anything else you may have is worthless without your freedom.
It's just capitalism. If there's no demand for an internet service with a rediculous TOS, it will change or go out of business.
The Constitution gives the government no means to protect you from making bad decisions. Anyway, it's not as though there aren't hundreds of places for those of you who can't handle freedom to go.
No universal IDs, even though they've been fighting a Marxist-Leninist insurgency for 30+ years.
May change with EU laws being harmonized. For now, however, it's pretty free.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Granted, our freedoms are in need of attention, but even so, the rights we have here are greater than the rights I have seen in just about any other place.
From what I can see, other countries make a policy of selective enforcement of their laws, often resulting in relative freedom for a particular set of folks. This could be good for you now, but come the revolution (or election...) you might end up of the receiving end :(.
Also, it seems that the US tax structure is one of the more fair ones in the world. Compared to to others, at least you get a CHANCE of saving your money. If you think it is bad here, check out Canada, Sweden, or New Zealand. And these were the good spots.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
The essential role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens; this is the libertarian ideal. Historically, this has meant protecting against encroachments by foreign nations, other citizens, and the government itself.
To this, I would add a fourth role: protecting the citizenry against encroachments by private corporations.
This throws the libertarian ideal into a quandry. How does one protect the citizenry from the growing power of the corporation whilst preserving the freedom of the corporation to operate? Currently, only regulation gives the government any power in this fourth regard, but regulation is antithetical to libertarian ideaology.
I've thought long on this. There are some ways to mitigate the threat-- liability law with teeth, for instance; doing away with limited liability; nullification of anticompetition clauses and nondisclosure contracts-- but even together the problem remains.
-- Cerebus
I really enjoy living in Canada. Moving here from the US would be really easy because of our lower dollar (for every US doller you have it would be worth ~$1.40 CA).
The UN ranks Canada as the best country in the world to live in and has done so for several years in a row. We have free health care for most basic health needs (not dental). Canada has one of the highest standards of living in the world (i think higher than the US).
For an American, moving to Canada isn't a huge step compared to most other countries. Our culture is very similar and we have access to the same entertainment at the same time.
Having never lived in the US - but visited many times - I can't say Canada is better, but I do know that over the past 100 years I wouldn't have wanted to live anywhere except Canada or the US, so for someone contemplating leaving the US, Canada is the obvious choice.
-----
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
As an American citizen, I am disappointed with the direction I see my nation heading. However, I still believe it to be one of the best in which to live in regards to the protection of basic rights. The question that now presents itself is, Who is to blame? Many wish to blame government, while others wish to blame big business. This may very well be true, but I place much of the blame on the very citizens of this country. In spite of what some people may think, more and more power has been given to the voters over the many years of this country. It is our right, and duty, to vote, and to do so intelligently. In my experience, the average American just doesn't care about what is going on about them. The attitude of a number of my fellow co-workers is, "It doesn't matter who I vote for, they are all going to screw me." This leads to the "why vote at all" attitude. This then leads to even more atrophy of the democratic system as it allows money, not principles, to buy votes. While I admit that money will always have power, the power of social momentum should not be overlooked. In the end, for America to become/remain the greatest country of all, the citizens must take action on a large scale and help to mold the country into what they wish it to be. There are many dangers in this, but there are also many great rewards. Let us thank the founding fathers for their far reaching sight. God Bless America.
Its just when they happen they are *VERY* big news. I mean the one in the Boston area last week got covered in the British Press. (And probably other places as well, I don't read them). But the truth is that in a nation of 283 Million people this type of thing happens only about 2 times a year or so.
The cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
the most is the ingrained culture of stupidity here in the U.S. Nobody cares about education or knowledge seeking here anymore, outside of a few enclaves. I'd dearly love to live in a country where learning and rationality were top priorities.
You say freedom has declined? I put that in a broader context, where everything has declined ove the past 30 years. We have less of everthing. Less intelligence, less civility, less culture, less money.
I'm not sure moving will solve anything, as this is worldwide decline, and not just local to the U.S. I would take a look at what you like to do best, and find the country that allows you to that better than any other. Maximize your fun!
Besides which, the Constitution is an agreement between the people and the Federal government on what the government will be allowed to do. Unfortunately, people have stopped enforcing the Constitution on our government, and our government is fully aware of that.
Corporations have nothing to do with Constitutional freedoms.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
but I'm a Texan, so I'd probably last until October, then they'd uncover a man-shaped ice block next May. =)
I recently moved in Bern and I'd give anything to stay. :-)
Swiss are friendly, they care for you and they are the best educated people I've ever met.
The tax system is comfortable and because of their neutrality, you can be sure no political issue will make people threaten you because of your ideas.
BTW, if you love fresh air and innovant people, this is definitely a good choice provided you accept the rules.
As a French, I however wouldn't fight for the French but rather for the Swiss which peaceful spirit makes life here a Paradise.
It's also quite a tempered country where you won't get a cold, despite some rumours spread by the collegues I had in Duesseldorf (Germany) where the weather might have been the most horrible I subished.
So, 2 thumbs up for the Swiss
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
If you wanna have true freedom as a citizen go to Switzerland. We have a special form of democracy here where you get your say in every matter affecting the state. Every other month on Sunday you get to vote on a nationwide subject. Also you have your say in the town you live in. There are votes on local stuff every other week where everybody who wants meets in the 'town parliament' to discuss.
The government consists of a 'parliament (Nationalrat) and a 'senate' (Staenderat) both of them are elected by you the people. They elect 7 'presidents' (Bundesrat). These guys take care of the everyday government business and decide what is going to be voted on by the people. But if you want to have something else voted on you just have to collect 100'000 signatures to send them what is called an initiative. So you as a citizen have pretty much to say here.
Note, though that bureaucracy is pretty bad here. Everything is taken care of and people go by the rules. But I guess that's pretty much everywhere the same.
Since you read slashdot I assume you have something to do in the IT business so it should be absolutely no problem to move here since there is an incredible shortage on the market in Switzerland. Salaries are very high, too, but living costs aren't the cheapest, too (we have the highest price for a Big Mac in McDonalds worldwide).
Mind you that you will need to be swiss to vote. It will take up to 5 years until, and that is the drawback, the people of the town you live in can vote to accept you for swiss nationality.
Does it really matter where you go?
Don't forget that the MPAA was able to influence a foreign government to go arrest someone for a crime that really wasn't.
Steven V.
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
Don't leave pubic hair on soap cuz: 1. At least outa general respect for others cuz most people don't like it. And if you care about why most people don't like it: 2. Hair is used for style, appearance. Where it is not needed it is shaved off. So when we use it, it is vital, dear, near to home, a part of us. When we shave it off it becomes not us. Its near death state while clinging to our bodies is revealed. We get scared that we are covered in death, our outsides constantly shedding into the void. The void that is everything not us. Yet a void that we call "Existence" and embodies all life. A void that inherently we must be within. But we like to think about that even less than death. So, of course we wash the hair down the drain or throw it in the trash because it is a horrible monster. Then, when you think of where most hair on soap comes from: the pubic region? Well, sex, death, and void all at once? Come on, even Shakespear knows about that one! And he's old! So the counter argument is that people need to get over their fear of death and the unknown and then we will stop caring about loose hairs? No! No! No! Please do not believe this for a second you fuckin' hippy! We would just stop cutting/shaving hair in total and then we would be so in tune with "Existence" that we would be just like it: a void. We would be only concerned with the things vital for being a part of the void. No more doing things just for the sake of doing them. In other words, no more Entertainment - OUR TRUE GOD. No! We would just be animals. No! We are privileged to have minds that control things and thus adjust our environment. We must use this privilege because it is our biggest evidence that there is a God who in some odd way - loves us. Why should we have so little self respect that we don't take advantage of this privilege? Not for God's sake. He doesn't care if we fail. It doesn't hurt Him at all because He is perfect in compassion. A compassion that never fades and could never be shaken. For if it was, Existence itself would end. He must be perfect in compassion to keep the "humans as thinkers/civilization" machine going. People that desire the apocalypse hate themselves and wish to die like a pubic hair. Self respect is needed to participate in the civilization machine. So participate in it. If not for yourself then for the slim possibility that eternal compassion can be shaken. You must embrace society, civilization, culture - which is nothing more than groups of people finding ways to maximize their happiness via entertainment. This does not mean be a mindless zombie though. No, the point is not just to be entertained, but to take active control in your environment. Use it towards maximum benefit. Make yourself as entertained as possible. If everyone had this goal we could do amazing things. How about advertisements that the people actually control. Forms of media that are actually a discourse. That would get rid of all our politicians right off the bat. Image if Bill Clinton had actually fielded unscreened questions at the MTV conference. Questions asked by a "Real Audience?" What real audience? I wasn't there! Does this mean I am not a part of the audience MTV intended to have? I guess I'm not. So do I change the channel and forget about politics and never vote or do I pretend to care and spend my life checking boxes, as if I speak in perforations? No! Don't be a lazy ass! Stand up and take control of your sensory input. Until we gain control of our TV, don't watch it. If an online magazine doesn't allow you to post responses to their articles, hack their server. Instead, go hang out with a friend and write a dumb ass essay like this. Show it to as many people as possible. Community access, email, postings, handouts on street corners. Tell everyone that we are a civilization and should make ourselves happy and as well entertained as possible. If some people must remain pushed into submission by the media then let us entertain them well. Is there an appropriate balance of active and passive citizens in the US? Perhaps we are at that balance level now. If so I still feel like I am on the passive side too much and that it is not easy to get on the active side. If you wish to be in control of your life then be in control of it. Working together towards this goal is necessary though. Entertainment is politics. In conclusion: 1. If you love civilization don't leave pubic hair on soap. As active controllers of our environment even this small symbolic detail can be detrimental. 2. Hippies hate existence and are just as evil as religious freaks.
we're just marketing. marketing our bad attitudes.
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
As for the cold, I just got back from a week in south Minnesota, where the temperature never got above +10 F and it snowed pretty much constantly. Live there? No fscking way. I live in Houston for a reason.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
>In school they learn that World War 2 started with Pearl Harbor, not with Germanys invasion of Poland and US entered after Pearl Harbor. Either that or I learned that the US' non-involvement policy which began after WWI ended roughly about the same time that Pearl Harbor was attacked, along with discussing whether or not the US would have gotten involved in the war if it weren't for the war being brought to us. (for whatever it's worth, the revelation that they knew the japanese were coming and didn't bother stopping it was a fairly good indication that they would, but it was made that much easier by giving the public a reason to focus on).
So. Doesn't the stereotype go that we're the ones who are supposed to be making faulty blanket stereotypes of other nations? Everything's topsy-turvy now.
Or: one person's experiences aren't necessarily true for everyone else's experiences, even if they do happen to live in the same country.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
The only correct answer is: It all depends.
Canada, Northern / Western Europe, Singapore / Hong Kong / Japan ( and a few more ) all have decent standards of living. All have advantages and have all have drawbacks, depending on what field you work in, what languages you speak, and what elements of personal freedom you deem important. The USA isn't #1 for everything any more than any of the others though.
Get a round the world ticket and do a tour
It's the only way to decide for sure.
/usr/games/fortune > ~/.signature
If you are worried about your constitutional rights being taken away from you...act to prevent it. Follow political debates, write your congressman, maybe join a political party (I understood there is more than just republicans or democrats). But don't sit at home waiting for things to happen. Change doesn't happen, you have to act to achieve a change.
what you're going to hear here is a lot of opinions. Freedom is, and always has been a relative term (to anyone but an anarchist).
However, will I say that it's bad in America?
No. Not yet. Several changes have been made that set the stage for some potential very bad things to happen in the future. Many of these changes are reversible, and many of them are clearly unconstitutional.
However () the courts have shown quite clearly with the election debacle, that they are not above political bias. The courts are the ones who decide on a law's constitutionality. Also, the relative cluelessness of politicians who passed these laws, coupled with a recent and strong conservative shift in our government, all seem to point to the notion that the constitutionality of these laws will not be challenged, moreover, new laws are likely to be made, even worse than the ones that are already on the books, especially with the calls for globalization, which put the requirements of the global economy and businesses above the requirements of the people - it sure looks like things are going to get real bad soon.
All of this was brought to you by the corrupt campaign financing codes of the United States election system, and of course billions of dollars of bribes ^H^H^H^H^H^H contributions from the richest corporations and 5% of the population.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I blame the morons who didn't vote for McCain in the primaries. (especially the idiots in Michigan who believed that bullshit "McCain is for breast cancer" propaganda that Bush's rich Christian whacko buddies telephoned out on their soft-money dime) Without campaign finance reform, it will be business as usual, no matter which party holds sway. We are fucked, fucked, fucked, until that changes.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The guy keeps on saying how paranoid he is, so his statements would be skewed right there. But the guy give NO support for his ideas. He makes obscure references to other slashdot articles that could be argued even if he did point out the specifics. And all the articles that have corporations censoring stuff don't matter anyway. Like the Napster, Nazi thing. That is not what I would consider a loss of my rights. Napster cannot keep me from listening to white pride music or something. And the government won't try. Napster is a "private" service, they can do whatever they want. Same with porn censoring companies and whatnot. And then he goes on like moving to another country is going to help, it's the internet!
You expect the government to guarantee freedom and liberty? I sincerely hope that's a joke...
Any government (or, really, any group of people gathered in sufficient numbers) will take every opportunity to garner more power for themselves -- it's human nature. Take a look at your company's IT department for confirmation ("Yeah, we need to go with Windows NT, sotto voce: so we'll be guaranteed a job").
You never want the people with all the money and all the guns to be the same people (see puppet dictatorships in some of the more squallid sectors of our planet). With unheard of money coming in from taxes, and a military (paid for by same taxes), the government has both.
We're lucky in America that the founders thought little enough of governments that they specifically limited it's power -- and it worked pretty well. It took almost 150 years before the government managed to sneak off with our liberties.
Personally, I believe our problem stems from the vanished wilderness. 100 year ago, if you didn't like how things were going in town, you hitched up your wagon and headed west, where freedom and liberty was still available for those with the desire to seek it out. Now, you can travel from New York to Los Angeles in a car without needing an oil change, and there's nowhere left to go to "get away" (except a few _really_ undesirable places like, say, the tundra of Alaska).
You have a few choices to deal with this, and one of them is not bashing "evil corporations" (remember, a business has to sell the Vietnam War to you, the government can just enforce conscription and ship your ass over there):
Remember this -- as long as government has the power to take your freedoms, the ones with the dough will abuse that government to take more freedoms from you (vis, the DMCA, UCITA, et al). Without the power of government to enforce these crappy freedom-losing laws, the MPAA-crew can't chase you down, hang you up by your ankles and shake all the money out of your pocket. You have to reach in yourself and give it to them.
(i.e. vote Libertarian next election cycle, unless you're really attached to governmental largesse)
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
I would be very careful when considering the level of freedoms in other countries. While the US does in fact have a lot of bad law that does not protect it's citizens properly (and the lack of a right to privacy in our Constitution is a real flaw), we also have a lot of things that work very well compared to other nations. One example is that our economic system is much less socialistic than many countries. The implication of this is much lower tax rates than other developed countries (isn't having to give a large portion of your income to the government a big loss of freedom?) and a resultingly more robust employment picture. It seems to me that having the freedom to take another job anytime you want is a VERY big deal. Another aspect of this is the US is by far the most entrprenural contry in the world - it is much easier to start your own company here than anywhere else. Other areas that I think are very important are stronger local vs. federal governments and a real guarantee of freedom of speach and the press - missing in most other western nations.
When I was in high school I got a job, busted my ass, and eventually got a nice car. I worked hard in school, got a scholarship, and attended college. Now, I'm in a great job and I'm able to buy all the things I need and some things that I just want.
I don't pretend I didn't get help from other people, directly or indirectly. I make an effort to thank and help the people who helped me and I don't flaunt what I have. However, I worked the hardest to get where I am today. Now, I actually get grief from people who think I'm too successful.
At what point does a business go from a hard working company to an "evil corporation" to be paranoid about?
The US can be a really neat place. There's lots of pretty girls and guys, sexual freedom (ignore the Sunday morning pundits; nobody actually cares, not even George Bush Jr.) And there's every kind of food, and all (most) of it cheap. Cost of living is comparable to other highly rated countries (Canada, Japan, etc.), although part of that comes from having lots of land to play with (and assoc. taxes). It can also be really horrible when it comes to certain things. That is: getting certain electronics from japan (you know which ones), and being able to speak your mind and having someone listen to you even though you're not on MTV.
:)
Of course, if you're really smart, you'll invent a new popular medium like the Internet which will solve both those problems (like eBay and Slashdot respectively)
Until then it's buying an island. When will Sealand start selling real estate?
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
I traveled about for six years and although I found some places quite pleasant (UK,Germany,Italy,Japan), I also found quite a few that were not so pleasant. Atleast your basic human rights cannot be taken away. If you don't like the way things are going don't run away, stand up and scream foul, make your voice heard. Over two hundred years ago a small number of men put their lives on the line "to establish a more perfect union" don't repay them by putting your tail between your legs and running for the comfort blankie of some other country.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Soft money is the problem. How can the government not reflect the interests of business when:
a: you need money to get elected
b: the corporations have the money
It's easy to demand that remorseless corporations stop owning us, but hard to implement. Where to start? By demanding that politicians make it _illegal_ to receive bribes.
As an example, check out who is donating the most money to BOTH political parties in Washington state - and it's not Boeing even tho they have the most regulated industry:
http://www.opensecrets.org/states/soft/WA.asp
I predict that with MS showing the feds some re$pect their problems are going to be less in the future.
Campaign finance reform should be the major issue in every election until it happens.
To each, mine.
I live in both worlds (the US and Canada) because I live in Canada and work in the US as an engineer. I can tell you that I let out a great sigh of relief every time I return to Canada at night. Canada is truly safer, quieter, and altogether a 'nicer' place to live. I do, however, find my American acquaintances to be wonderful people, but the American society as a whole is a different matter.
The ideals promoted in the US seem to be the 'big brother types' (i.e. conformity, allegiance, etc.). In Canada, diversity is celebrated, and in the US, it is crushed.
I have even been known to compare the current mentality of the US with that of Nazi Germany. I do not believe that this is being too harsh - when nationality takes precedence over humankind, that is a dangerous situation. I can tell you first hand that most Americans consider themselves to be "leaders of the free world" even though many have never travelled outside of their own country or continent.
If I left Vancouver, it is highly unlikely I'd move to the US. I'd probably make a break for Copenhagen, London, or Hamburg instead.Regarding this statement, and having visited all of these cities (except Vancouver :-) I would have to recommend Hamburg. The beer in Copenhagen is much more expensive, though it is a very fun place too.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Of course, you have to be an IT specialist and to speak Japanese is a definite plus but this is the case of my older brother who has been living in Tokyo for years. He loves this place as much as I love Switzerland.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
usually every body expects kids that grow up in rich families to run the risk of becoming spoiled and start thinking that they are better then every body else and loose respect and understanding of people living under different circumstances .
Some times i tend to think that growing up in the last remaining super power can have the same effect. in large parts of the world, being patriotic is not that great, it borders on being nationalistic (in turn borders on being a natzi).
in the us some one said that it was great that you could come so close to the white house, it was a sign of how great the democracy in the US was. here in sweden antigovernment punk bands have been aloud to have concerts on the stairs to the national assembly hall. in sweden any one has the right to read any politicians paper work including mail and messages. in sweden we don't have software patents
im not saying that sweden is the greatest country on earth, im just saying that you should not say that your country is the best until you have been in, and properly evaluated all other countries
I don't know, which is why I'm asking, but I here the Catholic church holds such sway over Ireland that access to birth control and abortion is to the right of Jesse Helms.
One probably apocryphal anecdote I heard was that a pregnant tourist (non-Irish citizen) was detained in Ireland for fear that she would go get an abortion. True or false?
Corporations have become little nations in the US by the way that they barter with the US government and create laws, (policies), to control employee freedom. Sure, you have the freedom to find a different employer, (move to another nation), but the policies (laws) are still just as repressive.
Of course, you could try to start your own business but the economic downturn that we are supposedly having isn't quite consusive for that type of venture.
Sure, you could try to boycott corporations, but there are too many Americans who are too apathetic to make a stand. We are but cattle begging to be caged.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
http://www.chairetmetal.com/chomsky.htm
Let's see.
- ------------
- You have 10 vacation days a year (in Europe more like 30)
- You can't drink until you're 21. (in Europe that's usually 16)
- Don't get me started on weed
- Your country is almost completely owned/run by corporations. (in Europe by governments/comittees. I think corporations are a little worse.)
- You have hideous medical care except if you have money in USA. (much less an issue in Europe)
- Situation for minorities is less than optimal in the USA. (in Europe too, but nowhere near as bad as in the USA. Depends on country though.)
- Living standards are comparable between USA/Eur., but if you're poor, you are much better off in Eur.
- Movies come out in USA 9 months earlier. But most hollywood movies suck anyway.
- USA has a ridiculous legal system. And patent system. Most european countries are not that modern, but their systems are nowhere near as perverted as the ones the USA have.
- Every bloody park you walk into in the USA has a plaque with a long list of do's and dont's. In Europe you don't have that. You're expected to use your common sense.
- Authorities are very strict and used to ordering people around in the USA. From the police to busdrivers to clerks at offices to even bartenders. And americans obey them too. In europe this is usually very different.
I could go on for hours, but all things considered you are probably much better off being born in Europe. If you come here you will earn much less though, about 2 or 3 times. But then life is 2 or 3 times cheaper than in the USA.
-------------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead, it just smells funny...
-------------------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead, it just sme
I think the only sense the US is more "free" than any country in Western Europe, or Canada. Is that anybody is free to go get armed to the teeth. If you can do without weapons you'll have more freedom and less regulations in many places.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Stupider like a fox! - H.S.
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
Wow, that's SO Libertarian of you, Mr. Maynard. Remember, I'm Canadian. We don't put a whole lot of stock (not Stock -- but we didn't put a lot in him, either) in opinions like that when it comes to publick policy. And you know what? I like paying taxes. I like schools, hospitals, good roads, and all the other things that a government tax-funded pool 'o' funds can pay for much more efficiently than can individuals, municipalities, or other small societal units. So go be paranoid. I love my OHIP.
Interrobang
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
There have been plenty of discussions on this thread about personal freedom and such. The fact is, that this political system was designed by and for corporations.
You have this lovely constitution image in the corner of the screen, but the constitution itself was designed for wealthy landowners to benefit. To paraphrase Alexander Hamilton, "them that owns the country should run it" is the name of the game.
I am personally a socialist but libertarians and other points of view also have some good critiques of the corporate control of American politics. In other countries this may be more or less the case. But as the most powerful country on earth the US needs to adopt a more stringent separation of cash and state than it has to date. Corporate control over politics has led us to 2 leading parties whose studied, too-similar stances during election season leave people stoned by boredom, yet unable to make the connections when "compassionate conservative" Bush nominates a largely hard-right cabinet.
The open source movement is about self-literacy in computer programming. to a greater or lesser extent the open source user should be a programmer, a self-diagnoser of problems and someone who knows where the best sources of information are should s/he need, or want, to share knowledge. Huge corporations have scarred the constitutional system, which for all its faults was designed to be an open source political system, in which any belief and any method of propagating that belief could compete for adherents. No more! The humorous, creative and powerful alternatives to the Republicrats need freedom to breathe and grow.
Please, please use your skills, hardware, and bandwith to support the radical political alternative of your choice. Check out this site for a structural model of how you can self-publish distinctly political content in a way that PEOPLE WILL READ IT, not your little rant sheet on your website. There is also a conservative/libertarian model . Also, read news sources you disagree with for healthy political thinking.
Goat sex free since 2001
>How is campaign finance reform the solution?
It'd be nice to have people in office who haven't already been bought?
>There was a case last year where a guy was told that by operating a political website, he was in effect donating thousands of dollars to a candidate, so he had to either file a bunch of paperwork or quit.
Of course there was, and of course it got publicity: why would you point out the gross excesses of the rich when you can demonize the little guy? Corporations fnding loopholes to get their millions to their candidates' pockets is easy enough to ignore when we've got the little guy who's obviously up to no good. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... capitalism as we know it only works when you've got someone to look down on so you don't notice what the big guys are doing. Divide and conquer are wonderful tactics, or so I hear.
You don't believe it? Then why all the focus on people exploiting welfare and illegal immigrants as a viable issue, when closing up corporate/"megarich" loopholes would bring back in many times more than what's being leaked out through the bloated welfare system?
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
... is to look at which countries people are trying to get into, and which ones they're trying to leave. The US still has people lined up around the figurative block trying to get in. Most other countries don't.
... but I'd still much rather see that than tanks rolling through the streets of Washington.
In terms of everyday, personal freedom to do what you want to do, most of the First World democracies are pretty much about the same, IMO. I'm born and raised in the US, and served most of my adult life in uniform, and consider myself a patriotic American, but for professional reasons I may find myself living in Canada or Western Europe or Japan one of these days and that wouldn't break my heart. OTOH, there's not a job in the world that could lure me to, say, China.
We do have our problems, but we do still have the major advantage of living in a country where change is possible without bloody revolution. Bush turns my stomach and I'll be deeply sorry to see Clinton (who is no great friend of liberty himself) give him the keys to the White House
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Well, to answer your second question, yes - you are too paranoid.
;-). If you don't like your surroundings, if your surroundings are forcing you to change then you need to take control! Change your surroundings for once. Humans are one of the few creatures on this earth that change their environment instead of letting it change them. Does the trash on the city street bother you? Pick some up and throw it away whenever you go out. Does it bother you that the internet may be taxed in the near future? Make sure the people YOU helped elect know what your position is (and make sure you know theirs!).
I won't answer the first though, you are asking the wrong question. You can try to find the 'perfect' or 'best' country to live in, but once you get there you'll find they have many of the same problems, as well as many different problems. It probably evens out in the end. You might try asking, instead, "What country has laws and problems which suit me and my lifestyle the best?"
Of course, that's still not a good solution to the fundamental problem you are having. Chances are you are really asking, "How much can I get doing as little as possible?" Your post didn't seem to indicate that you are doing (or want to do) anything to improve your situation. Your first thought was, "I don't like it here, let's see if there's someplace else I can go to where I don't have to work at my own security and happiness." Too many people are apathetic (emphasis on the latter 8 characters) about their surroundings.
You are human! You are master of your fate (as long as you aren't infringing on other's fate
The only time a human has good reason to move is if 1) the oppressive conditions are non-controllable or 2) there is a significantly better (and more easily adaptable) environment elsewhere.
You might be surprised how much control each state, county, city, township, etc has over your area (and how much control you have over them). I doubt you know. You should visit their meetings, find out what issues they have to deal with. Become involved. You can't fight an enemy you haven't studied, and, trust me, you'll be fighting different enemies in other countries. You'll just be fighting on their turf and in their language and culture. You may find it easier to mold your current environment to your needs than to find the perfect environment, or mold a foreign one to your needs.
-Adam
Ten loud voices are heard more readily than ten thousand silent voices. Don't be silent!
Web developer:
Resume
Imagine living in Chechnea and being scared for your life every day. Or in China, where human rights violations are a part of the political process.
You are worried about listening to digital content while other people are worried about what they are going to eat tomorrow, or whether their kids will live until monday.
The US still has quite a bit of freedom that exists almost no-where else in the world. On the digital front, at least the US is lessening encryption laws. Look at the laws passed in Europe - You can be jailed just for not giving up your encryption keys (was this overturned yet?).
Stay a patriot - you are still in a good country.
--
Twivel
No it's not new. It was forseen in both 1984 and brave new world. They understood that a tyranny works best when people are led to it, bit by bit and force fed the idea that it is good. I.E. "Guns are unsafe, so for your safety we'll take them away." or "Drugs are bad, and you the average citizen cannot understand the dangers of putting them into your body so we'll take them away." The operative principle is to use safety and security to take away freedoms thus making society "safe" from itself. In addition this is then backed up with the threat of force against those who do not or will not accept the new rules. Look at Waco. Were those people idiots? YES. Did they hurt anyone? No. But in the interest of "safety" they had to assault the compound and now they are "safely" in the ground.......
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
From what I can tell, it's about to depopulate vie the twin scourges of AIDS and Socialism.
Give them another 15 years, or so, and that's a huge hunk of country waiting to be recolonized.
Let's make it the first Libertarian nation.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
If by freedom, you mean the ability to affect change as a private citizen, then I think the U.S. is still far and away the most 'free' country on the planet. It's FAR from perfect, but we don't have military coups even when our election process is completely hosed. Any private nutcase (hello, Mr. Perot) can run for president, and might even do well (assuming he's _not_ a nutcase, that is).
You can find countries with better & socialized health care systems (and _much_ higher taxes), you can find countries with much better public education (and _much_ higher taxes). There are some countries with better stances on citizen privacy, crypto controls, and the like, but when you get right down to it, you have to take the whole of a country, not just their stance on one or two issues. And you must consider how feasible it is to affect change in that country, as mentioned above.
The U.S. has pretty good healthcare (though obviously corrupt and with a focus on after-the-fact rather than preventative care), our taxes are pretty low, we've got welfare, social security, and medicare (though those could all be overhauled pretty seriously). We've got okay public education (though thanks to 'local control', it varies wildly. Our food & fuel prices are among the lowest, also.
Grass-roots initatives are gaining in popularity (at least, they're going crazy here in the Seattle area) - anyone can start one (hello, Tim Eyman), and they often pass.
I think many people feel disenfranchised in the U.S. simply because they don't understand how the system works, and that they CAN make a difference if they have the right idea, and put in a lot of work.
As far as the political machine goes, the most obvious problem is the two party system. I'm of a mind that it should be a NO PARTY system. If you belong to a party, your loyalties go to that party, not to the people who elected you. Is every stance by your party going to be good for those that voted you in? Not hardly! Campaign finance reform needs to be done immediately, too, to minimize corruption. (Help! Help! I'm being repressed!) Something I thought was interesting was when people were 'vote swapping' via websites before the election and all the politicans were aghast at that - vote swapping, imagine that! Well, just what do you think EVERY SINGLE POLITICIANS DOES whenever they want something passed? "Sure, I'll vote for your upcoming nuke-the-whales bill if you vote for my guns-for-tots bill." And let's not even get into the people who influence politicans for a living (LEGALLY!). Yes, there's a lot wrong with the system, but the underlying freedom to change it is vast.
And what about our legal system? Now _there's_ a fucked-up mess! Instead of trying to find the 'truth' of an issue, instead we have a battle between who has the best lawyer (hi there, O.J.). And the death penalty is ridiculous considering we don't have a way of verifying _absolutely_ whether someone is telling the truth or not. Even people who confess to crimes are sometimes lying, for various reasons. You'd think videotape would be enough to convict someone of a crime, but that's apparently not the case (hello Rodney King-beating police officers). Until such time as we can absolutely, 100.000% verify whether someone has committed a crime, the death penalty should not be an option. On the other hand, keep in mind that many prison inmates have better living conditions than U.S. military field personnel do (a fact - a friend of mine was in the Gulf, and this pisses him off no end, apparently). You'd think the idea of prisons being self-supporting would be an obvious one, but I guess not. There is apparently no such thing as 'common sense'. Too bad.
Now, often when I get on a tirade like this, some dufus brings up something about how the Founding Fathers intended this or that. Completely ridiculous. First, the Founding Fathers were hardly saints - many of them owned slaves (including Thomas Jefferson, who had more to do with creating our governmental structure than anyone), plus they were all part-time politicians, and had intended that to be the case in the future for others. They had no knowledge of what this country would be like over 200 years later, but they put a process in place to change the Constitution - the process of amending the constitution. It's even been done several times already (though not for a long time). They obviously INTENDED the Constitution to be modified over time. Talk about foresight! I think their taking their own fallibility into account when creating this country was probably THE best thing they did.
Okay, that's enough - I'm tired of typing right now.
>the witch hunts for pacifists during WWI
Who was pres. then?
He was a member of what party?
> locking-up of Japanese citizens during WWII
Who was pres. then?
He was a member of what party?
>National Guard shootings of the '60s
Who was pres. then?
He was a member of what party?
I'll add Ruby Ridge, Waco, and a cuban boy to the list.
Now tell me who was pres. when these occurred and what was his party affiliation?
And you fear Bush?
Sounds to me like those government schools have really done a number on your head. They're probably smiling as they read your post, "Success! the sucker can't even recognize contradictions in his own thoughts".
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
The corporations aren't taking our rights. The government is. Granted, they are doing it at the behest of the corporations. But without the abuse of power by the government, the corporations would not be the threat they are today. When a company takes legal action against you, no one from the corporation locks you in a cell, forcibly takes money and assets from you, or shoots you if you resist. The government is what does. THEY are the ones that decide to levy charges and judgements against you. THEY are the ones that enforce it, at the point of a gun, or with a bullet to the head if necessary. The corporations only suggest to the government and bribe the government into taking those actions.
Stop the government and you've stopped the problem.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Personally, I think a lot of "hackers" are just plain paranoid. "CueCat won't let us take apart their free scanner!" Give me a break, people. Do you really think that they're going to come to your house with a SWAT team, knock down the door and demand the stupid piece of plastic?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Okay, the above was idealistic. Now for the other point of view:
How do you feel about abortion. Now look at the other side and try to convince me the other side doesn't have a point. You have rights vs rights. The right of a person to live vs the right of your own body. Most people have taken a side here, but any honest person has to admit the other side has a point even though on balance it is wrong.
Now take drugs. Same thing, alacholism has destroied the lives of some friends. It (Generaly in a parent) has affected the life of other friends. How many people are killed in car accident involved drinking drivers? Are you sure we want alcahol legal? Of course there is the other side, we all remember the lession of prohibition. (But less alcahol was consumed then) I haven't touched hard(er) drugs, but similear things apply. What someone does to themselves doesn't bother me, so long as it doesn't affect me, but we have proven that alcahol all too often affects me, when other use it.
Now take guns, they enable several great sports. Your only chance of re-gaining freedoms if it really gets that bad. A few psycos have use them to kill others (outside of the last ditch effort to re-gain freedom) and ruined it for many.
Lets take the last a little farther. Some have proposed to get guns out of psychos by registration. Problem is two fold, on the one hand psychos have been known to steel guns which means it doesn't work, and on the other if it really comes down to the last ditch effort the freedom theives know who has the guns to take away. (And we are not even getting into the feasability of accually succeeding in a last ditch effort against a modern army should it come to that)
And so we see that freedom isn't quite as simple as I make it sound. It isn't just a matter of "Well it doesn't affect my life so if you want to be immmoal", but rather your freedom causes my prison. I did my best to be unbiased above, but I suspect you can see my personal biases. (If you can't at least name one you need to practice critical thinking)
1. What president wasn't into adultry? (Well, aside from Regan who probably hadn't gotten it up in the ten years prior to his term.)
2. What president doesn't go out of their way to involve America in all sorts of other countries problems/wars? Even Clinton jumped into stupid-ass battles to cover his ass during some of his personal "crisis".
But, that aside, I agree. If Kennedy hadn't been shot, I doubt that we would look at him as such a great man. Sure, he pushed some great scientific advancements, but aside from the shooting, his presidency wasn't all that spectacular.
What can I say, realism sucks.
------------
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
If that isn't a great reason against gun control, then I dont know what is. Kids shouldn't be able to buy guns, but adults should be able to buy what they want.
The constitution only stops the government when it agrees to stop itself. Paper barriers are the least effective when they're most needed, the founders knew this, hence why the right to bear arms is second only to FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
FunOne
FunOne
Unfortunately, these three goals are almost mutually exclusive. Thomas Jefferson said something like 'Any populace that will trade a little freedom for a little security will lose both, and deserve neither.' I don't think the qoute is exact, but the content is right.
True and complete freedom carries a great deal of risk. It also requires considerable toil to preserve. The people who signed the US constitution understood this. Some died for it. Most people who strive for high freedom suffer for it wherever they live.
Everyone makes trades between these three values according to their own preferences. Governments and corporations are just factors that play into the way the balance works out.
Read Jack Williamson's "With Folded Hands" for a really scary picture of extreme safety and quality of life.
Also, remember what the US part of the name stands for. We have 50 states that set most of their own laws and 45 of them are larger than many countries. Where you live in the US has a big influence on your S/F/QoL.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
... name someplace better?!
... errr... where you can worship... umm... prosecution... crud.
Someplace where you CAN express your opinion without getting into trouble or getting sued! Like the good old US of A!!
Hmmm... OK hold on, that isn't the best example.
AH HA! Where you can practice whatever religion you choose without oppression or having someone else's prayers and beliefs shoved down your
OOH! Where you can not worry about the government invading your privacy in... oh. Right. FBI and Carnivore
*ahem*
Nevermind.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
By Peter Brimelow, Forbes Magazine, 12.11.00
THE LEFT IS RIGHT: AMERICA IS AN UNJUST SOCIETY." Startling words to come from Paul Craig Roberts, 61, an architect (as assistant secretary of the Treasury) of the Reagan tax-cut revolution and now a syndicated columnist and chairman of the Institute for Political Economy. But he's not talking about discrimination or the unequal distribution of wealth. The problem, he says, is this: "Americans are no longer secure in law-the justice system no longer seeks truth and prosecutors are untroubled by wrongful convictions."
The primary advantage of North America is that it has a reasonable amount of individual freedoms combined with very high geographical and cultural flexibility. This means that if life on the eastern seaboard is becoming too oppressive for you, it is relatively easy to move to South Dakota or someplace with very different perspective on the individual lifestyle. It also works in reverse: Some people live a lifestyle that is more accepted and "free" in San Francisco than in the Rocky Mountains or the Bible Belt. If you're more inclined to the NY -> SD direction, check out a book like "Strategic Relocation" (Amazon link) .
I admit I'm a little pessimistic about the whole country turning around towards a more principled, freedom oriented approach. Every country in the world has way too much inertia towards voting themselves more benefits at the expense of the structure required to maintain liberty.
> [Nixon] Watergate aside, wasn't all that bad of a president...
That's like saying ``Except for kidnapping & killing all those women, Ted Bundy wasn't all that bad of a person."
Sheesh!
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Use fertilizer. Really I wouldn't normally comment on something like this but this time, as someone who has lived in far worse places than the US, I feel I must.
One of the problems with /. and with the media in general is that the only things that ever get talked about are negative. Here at /. we worry about corporations taking our freedom especially in the area of computers. This is good, because someone has to do it. But in reality, those of use living in the US have it pretty good, and most of the stuff that gets posted on /. gets horribly skewed by raging paranoia.
A few things to remember:
- Corporations want to make money no matter where in the world they are
- Corporation will bend laws to make money no matter who it hurts
- Greed will ensure that rule 1 and 2 always exist
We can't have it both ways. We let the gov't control all production and we'll end up like Russia.As for the US government I'm a little annoyed by the idea in this article that none of them have even read the constitution. This is not at all true. I have met several of my own representatives and I truely believe that they are trying to do what they feel is best for the people. Those of us reading /. and using Linux need to understand that most people out there just want to have nice homes, families, and jobs and make money. They don't want to worry about the l33t h@X0rs trying to get into their computers. The lawmakers aren't trying to take our freedom. They are trying to give people what they want. Average Joe windoze user doesn't understand that legislation will do nothing to effect what's on the Internet.
So back to my original comment. If the grass is greener on the other side, use fertilizer. Move to italy but it won't change anything. Educate the people that vote for your government and change everything. You don't like corporations, don't buy what the sell. Sadly everyone complains about the phone company, the internet service but no one stops buying it. I guess here in america we can't live without those things.
I've lived in a 3rd world country, people dont' have the right to get a decent meal everyday much less 3 and much less the ability to speak out freely about their conditions. But you know, a lot of those people are happy anyway. Maybe the best thing that could happen for us here in america is if we put away our fax machines, phones, pagers and computers for awhile and try to see what's really important, probably cut down on the problems with snooping greeding corporations as well.
Never knock on Death's door:
The Anti-Blog
I sure don't want to play off one country vs. another. I'll bet most people would rather live in their homeland than anywhere else.
As to corporations "stripping away our few remaining rights", I think you need to take another look. Believe me, we still have a healthy supply of rights.
It's true that some corporations have been pumping and getting legislation (like DMCA) that does violence to some of our fundamental rights. I still hold out hope, by the way, that they will lose by the time these issues work their way up to the Supreme Court.
The reality, however, is that corporations really don't care very much about our rights. They don't especially want to take them away or to protect them. They want to make money. Hollywood is the great example. Let some mother or priest or someone exercise their First Amendment right to call for boycotting some movie, and moviemakers will wrap themselves in the flag and bleat about freedom of speech. Let you or me try to exercise our legal write to access a DVD to which we have purchased a license, or our Constitutionally guaranteed fair use rights, and they will push the rediculous copy protection circumvention clauses of the DMCA.
It ain't personal, it's just business.
The good news is that it's completely unprincipled and open to attack. The attack could even come in the form of other businesses who realize that they have a financial incentive to protect those rights that are being trampled. That, by the way, is how the original "time-shifting" case transpired. It was Hollywood vs. Sony for the write to tape TV shows.
The price of liberty is eterneal vigilence, as true today as it was in 1790.
It should by noted, that once basic rights are obtained, higher-leve "rights" are what citezens concern themselves with. The United States (and other countries to be sure) are now at this level. We can assemble and speak out against our government. We can own guns. We can worship whatever god(s) we desire without (much) fear of oppression. But we are now concerned with other things that will not so much inhibit our basic ability to seek happiness, but inhibit our abilities to advance ourselves.
This is not meant to be patriotic. I am not particularly PROUD to be an American. But I enjoy being one.
Say what you want about levels of freedom, and such things. It all boils down to this:
I live in the States, and I am happy here. As far as US class goes, I am poor/low-class/blue-collar. Still, I am happy. I feel free to do as I choose, and have never been stopped from doing so. All other things constant, I think the amount of freedom that I am given by my country is quite reasonable considering what my country gives to me. I pay taxes, and though I wish that the money could be spent more wisely (and often less selfishly), the returns are good, and a good amount of my money is working.
Note that I do not mention HOW the things I am thankful for arrive at my door. I am aware that the US does many things that I do not approve of. I am just saying that I enjoy the life I have.
It is very common for people to hate Americans. I have seen it often. In fact, it is often trendy for AMERICANS to rant about how much the country sucks. It is also common for foreign people to complain about how America sucks, while they are employed in America.
I think that this is a good thing. It is a fine freedom to be able to complain, for often it only brings improvement. I do not often complain, but am happy that we have the right to do so. All things could use improvement.
You want to feel paranoid, here's paranoia for you:
It says right in the Constitution that the president is the "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces, right? That means that he has the full ability to take the armed forces, order them to march into the House and Senate floors while they're in session, and kill every single congressional leader in the country, leaving him dictator (well, he'd have to take out the Supreme Court justices too, but you get the jist of it). No one could stop him, and he'd become dictator.
So far, no president that we've had has "exercised" this "power" to it's full extent.
This is a country that you're responsible for, because you have the ability to take part in it. If you want to preserve whatever integrity's left in the system, you have to take the iniative. If you whine and complain yet at the same time do nothing about it except skip the country, you're as guilty as the ignorant who do nothing.
If I had my druthers, I'd live in Amsterdam, The Hague or Rotterdam. I have EU status, so it wouldn't be hard... Just gotta get off my ass.
Granted, I'm of German descent - but Germany has too many employment issues at the moment.
I don't think corporations mean to strip anyone of anything, but common sense would point out most of the things they are being restrictive to are possibly done in an effort to avoid lawsuits, and this can be seen with earlier actions such as companies blocking certain types of emails floating around.
We still have groups like the A.C.L.U., EPIC, and others who continuously fight to retain what can be seen as questionable issues. These people are often unsung heroes who operate mainly out of the hopes of not becoming somewhat of communist country.
As to whether we're becoming too restrictive if you'd take a quick minute to view this article on strict regulations that were just passed on to the chinese, you would see that no matter how hard you think things are over here, things are much more difficult to live abroad.
It is a strange thing to see politicians playing games especially when we can't fully determine a rightful president without falling into some sort of 'agenda' from some right wing like sector who may have been afraid to fully count votes. Its also annoying to have politicians try to sneak in some shady bills in hopes no one would notice.
Thats life no matter where you go I guess...
Recently I went to Sweden in which I found things more relaxing although their taxes were higher I heard little complaints their and things were much more relaxed and I plan on heading out there within the next 2 years.
360 degrees of Karma
child pornography has been found to be protected under free speech laws
This isn't true; it's (at best) based on a half-truth..
Kiddie porn is illegal under bill C-128, which is an amendment to Canada's criminal code.
The courts ruled that the wording of bill C-128 violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our constitution.) The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does more that just guarantee free speech.
The reason that the courts ruled that it violated the Charter is because the bill is badly written. It makes an overly-broad definition of the term "child pornography", and severly limits who is allowed to "possess" it (it's not completely illegal.) The part the BC supreme court had a problem with (specifically) is that the definition of child porn includes nude pictures of anyone pretending to be under the age of 18, or writing that describes sexual acts with anyone under the age of 18.
In their ruling, the judge specifically singled out the written part, saying (correctly) that if someone were to write down a personal fantasy of a fictional account they could be thrown in jail, and "this comes dangerously close to infringing on freedom of thought" (quoting from memory, it's been ahwile since I read the breif).
The problem stems from Mulroney's conservative government, who passed the bill even after they were told that the wording was flawed.
If the damn liberal government was really serious about this crap, they would re-write the law, and address the issues mentioned in the judge's ruling.
In Norway (or was it the Netherlands?) the
government HAS to divulge anything when asked.
Now, this may be a rumor, but if you look
at all of the other things the Norwegians are
doing, it all adds up to a nice place to live
(aside from the high taxes). But before you
leave the USA....
<br><br>
If you are paranoid about privacy, as I am,
then write Congress.
Go to <a href="http://www.junkbusters.com/">http://www.j unkbusters.com/</a> and "take action".
Write letters to everyone you can think of.
In addition, make a stink about the use of our
Social Security numbers as identification. It
wasn't their intended use!
<BR>
You can also throw out all of your Jewel,
Safeway, IGA, or any other supermarket "savings"
cards because that is how they track what you buy.
<br>
Start telling the DMA you don't want them to sell your info. Tell your credit card providers the same thing.
Is the United States still the best choice of a place to live for safety, freedom, and quality of life?
Still?!?! It hasn't been for some time now. Canada exceeds the US in all three of these categories. Their taxes may be high, but you get what you pay for!
If at one point you considered "patriotism" a virtue, I'd say Slashdot has done you some good. Following authroity figures blindly is never a virtue.
,but read them all critically and always ask yourself "what is the motivation behind this statement."
OTOH don't just swap one jaundiced veiw of the world for another. Slashdot in general has one foot in the conspiracy theory camp and the other in undergraduate politics. (What Abbie Hoffman called "The Infantile Left.")
What you read here is hardly Gospel. Its highly biased and, frankly, not even always honest with itself. (Slashdot has a tendancy to confuse freedom with a view that an best be summed up as one-way socialism. What's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine.)
All this having been said, the only "truth" you are ever goign to find is one you build yourself from ALL the soruces of information. Read them all
Welcome to world as it is.
I've lived all over the US, and Canada is a big improvement so far (at least BC, no experience of the other provinces yet).
.ca
Good universal health care, handguns are illegal, speed limits are lower, taxes are higher but are used for better things than bombing distant lands. You can make more money in the US, but for better quality of life I recommend
--Happy Expat
"I am here by the will of the people and I won't leave until I get my umbrella back."
Now, however, we are still paying this protection money even though the 800 pound gorilla died of starvation.. Why? Because if we don't, our government puts us in prison. The US and USSR were never opposites, they just differ in the degree of theft they perpetrate on their victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcitizens.
Once the Net starts enabling people to move out of high-tax jurisdictions like the US while maintaining a high income level, it will all start falling apart. I plan on leaving the country in about 5-7 years.
--
PaxTech
Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Diderot
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
One issue that many doomsayers overlook is economic freedom. Choosing your own way of earning/spending money is one of the most important freedoms you can have. It isn't protected by the US Constitution, and is usually the first privledge to be hindered by taxes.
In a free economic society, the rich do have more power than the poor, and that is why the government needs to have certain safeguards in place to promote opportunity and productivity through education.
Politcal freedom, expressive freedom, etc. are all fostered in a place of economic freedom ( read Milton Friedman ), and hindered without it.
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
I'd like to be free to keep more than 50% of my income, without having it all go to taxes to support dubious socialist programs that I'll never make use of, because I *work* for a living.
I'd like to be free not to have my government try to reduce my standard of living to that of the lowest common denominator.
I'd like to be free to say what I want - even though I probably wouldn't exercise that freedom - without the Canadian government telling me that what I say is obscene, unfair or unjust, and therefore proving that I have freedom of speech to a point, similar to the way that China has freedom of speech to a point.
I'd like to be free to drive on roads without jackasses talking on cellphones reversing on freeways because they've missed their exits.
I'd like to be free to know that upon returning to Canada, the Canadian Customs agents will treat me as well as the friendly, chipper, informative, helpful and welcoming American Customs staff always do.
I'd like to be free to live in a country where national unity is not a central issue to every political decision.
I'd like to be free to live in a country where I can pay for health care that doesn't leave me sitting in an emergency room for three hours waiting for a Keflex prescription for strepped throat, while homeless heroin-addicts with needles broken off in their arms come in after me, sit beside me, play show-and-tell with their pus, and then get served before I do, despite the fact that I'm a tax payer and they're not.
I'd like to be free to live in a land where what is played on TV and radio stations is based on market demands, not on CRTC 40% Canadian Content regulations, forcing broadcasters to play the same really lame Tragically Hip songs and poorly lit Canadian TV shows over and over again.
Most of all, I'd like to be free to go outside without fearing for my life for 5 months of the year. I don't define quality of living by habitating in a place where you can die simply from going outside without a jacket on.
I'd like to be free to live in a land where the politicians don't waste millions of dollars trying to figure out why all of Canada's best, brightest and most talented are moving to the United States, while the problems are so obvious and mostly rectifiable.
And finally, I'd like to be free to post this comment without being moderated down by someone who simply disagrees with me; rather, I'd like to be moderated down if I've said anything untrue about Canada.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
While South Africa has many problems after decades of apartheid, its new constituion is, in my opinion, the best document out there today. It can be found at http://www.gov.za/structure/constitution.htm Thomas Jefferson noted that laws and constitions must change with the times, stating that you would (paraphrasing) ask a man to wear still the coat that fit him as a boy as to ask a nation to be governed under the regimens of its barberous acncestors. As a gay man I find few nations offer me equal protection under the law. South Africa does, as do several EU nations, with the Netherlands taking the lead.
It seems like corporations have no desire other than to strip us of what few remaining freedoms we have...
Take off those reality distorting glasses and see the world as it really is. The only desire corporations have is to turn a profit. And the only way they can turn a profit is to offer products or services that people voluntarily pay for. Side note: Government owned or created monopolies are another beastie entirely.
Let me turn the question around and ask you. What previously possessed freedom of yours has any corporation taken away? Other than patents, which is solely the government's mess, you have the complete and unchallenged freedom to write your own original software. No corporation can tell you what software you cannot originate. Other than government taxation and law, you have the full and unchallenged freedom to spend you money any way you wish. No corporation can force you to buy or not buy any product. On serious reflection, I am also aware of no corporation that can dictate who you may associate with, what religion you may espouse, who you may sleep with, who you must vote for, or even what ISP you must use. Everything a corporation does must either be 100% voluntary or at the behest of the government. If you have a problem with shrinking freedoms, blame the government.
So what has the government done to curtail your freedom? They have restricted your freedom to write original software through patent laws. They have restricted your freedom to spend your money on certain products or give it to certain producers, in addition to dictating how much of it you must first give to them.
Is the United States still the best choice of a place to live for safety, freedom, and quality of life?
You must really be living in fantasy land! Every nation, and I mean every one of them, has corporations. Some nations' governments may be freer than others, but their corporations are all the same.
Some nations will be better than others in certain areas, and worse in others. No nation is going to be better in all areas than all the other nations. And certainly there are no perfect nations. Just put that notion out of your head.
I'm personally getting tired of living in a nation where apparently no one in the capital city has read its constitution, or gives a damn.
Yes, this is a real problem. Funny that you brought up corporations earlier though, when it's the government that's the problem. The good news is that there are some people in DC who have read the constitution and give a big damn about it. Unfortunately those people, from either the left, right, top or bottom, are always classified as extremist kooks. But they are there.
They choice you have is to either help get more of those people in office or run away to another country. Since I don't think this nation has become wholly corrupt (yet) I'll stick around a while longer.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yeah, they don't see nudity or sex as nearly as big a problem as violence is. Or so I've heard.
Really, the US moral values system is a little backwards that way. A little sex gets an NC-17, but major, bloody violence is only R? Gimme a break.
Back on topic, I'd have to think that Norway, Finland, or Sweden would be nice places to live. I don't know too much about them, but that must be good, right?
Is the United States still the best choice of a place to live for safety...
You've obviously never compared gun death rates between the U.S. and other nations. An American is five times more likely to be murdered than a Canadian citizen.
Here's the take of someone who lived many years on both sides of the pond. The U.S. is still a young country, and a lot remains to go through. The Constitution was ideally adapted to the early days of conquest and "Far West". Now, a dominant class has emerged and naturally attempts to perpetuate its power and transmit it to their offspring.
(Good examples of that are the way copyright extensions were bought from congress, or a whole education system where money can buy degrees.)
Western European countries are neither better nor worse, they are just older and more settled. There people have learned to fight for their freedom in the face of economic oppression, obtain things like free education, and another kind of equilibrium has been reached. Some things you may consider "rampant socialism" in these countries may ultimately happen here as well -- when a strong enough majority deems it necessary.
Unless of course, Europe sells itself out in the name of "globalization"...
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
Is the United States still the best choice of a place to live for safety, freedom, and quality of life?
Was it ever?
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
What little freedoms we have? Americans unsafe due to Corporatism? Let me tell you a little story. My fiance is from Albania, a small, poor nation on the Adriatic west of Greece. Albania was a communist nation for nearly 40 years under the "leadership" of one Enver Hoxha. Upon communism's collapse in 1991, my fiance and her family had their hopes high. She came here to study in 1997. Since that time, Albania has become a nation ruled by violent mobs and Socialist lackeys. My fiance's sister coordinated a program for elementary schools in Albania. She was in charge of money from the west and was tasked with the project of hiring new teachers for hundreds of schools in the cities and towns of Albania. When the socialists came to power in late 1997, they replaced all of the Liberal Democrats in every key position. My fiance's sister, more concerned with building good schools than politics, thought nothing of it. THat is until her boss was replaced by a Socialist lackey who demanded that she hire teachers with little or no training who were loyal to the socialist government. When her sister refused to do that, local socialist officials (who by this time were funnelling western education money into their own pockets) met with her and introduced her to a famous criminal/warlord. He sat and stared at her sister for hours as they had this meeting. This criminal is well known in Albania and IS a murderer and a theif. My fiance's sister is just as stubborn as anyone, and still refused to hire politically correct teachers. The implicit threats increased, then became explicit ones. Notes left on her front door, in her husband's car. Even shots fired into their apartment in the capital city- all due to her not complying with the socialists in power at the time. So they came here. She was pregnant. She has a degree in education, and he has a degree in structural engineering. Both of them were under and still are under death threats from the elements in the government in power in Albania. Last month, a note was found in their old apartment that simply stated, "The three of you should take care to watch over each other and not step foot in Albania again." They are currently trying to get political asylum in the USA. All they want is to do the work they went to school for, live a life, pay bills, and gradually increase their wealth. They want to raise their small family. They love Albania, but they see it is full of corruption and problems right now. They truly are the 'tired huddled masses'. And you have the nerve to talk about 'what little freedoms we have left?" They and other immigrants marvel at the freedoms we enjoy. THey marvel at the 'newness' of this nation. There are racial problems in the USA, but they are not as ingrained and divisive as those in some parts of Europe. And a person who wants to get hired for government work or in the private sector here need not reveal his political values or look over his shoulder for fear of some crime-boss whacking his family. You need a reality check my friend- so do the editors of slashdot.
I won't address the larger issue of freedom in the U.S. (It's absurd to suggest that any other major country is more free than us as a whole.) But I want to clear up one common misconception:
Whenever there's a story about some abuse of the DMCA, or some other oppressive U.S. law, all the foreign readers make snide comments about how their country is freer than ours. Guess what? Your country also has a DMCA. (Worse yet, they use MS Word 97.) They may call it something different, but for practical purposes it's the same all over the western world.
Almost all major infringements on our freedoms are accomplished through treaties these days. I'm drawing a blank on other examples, but there are many. I suspect that they make bigger news in the U.S. because of our greater freedom as a whole, which makes them stand out more. In most other countries, restrictions on speech and personal freedom are not that unusual to begin with.
MSK
Our legal system is not the shambles that to OJ Trial showed the US one to be. Our governments actually DO make a difference and attempt to keep corporations from growing to enormous and overpowering proportions.
*shrug* - I wouldn't live anywhere else. :)
I can't speak to the world as a whole. If you intend to look at either the U.S. or the European Union you seem to have a choice between government abuses or corporate ones.
Despite the major problems with corporate abuses and recent efforts by the FBI/CIA/NSA U.S. citizens still enjoy relatively high protection against government intrusion and/or repression. Consider for example the fact that, repugnant as it is to some, racism can be discussed, mentioned, even advocated in the U.S. In france, and Gemany for example one cannot discuss Nazism except as history. For that matter Germany's Anti-Porn laws do not allow for the discussion/distribution of pornographic content online. As a result AOL has cracked down internationally on pornographic chat rooms to keep the Germans happy. Whether or not you support pornography or racism these are disticks for the levels of free speech in a country. For that matter Britan doesn't even have a written constitution thus making their basic rights open to more casual alteration than the U.S.'s.
On the other hand the European Union has taken relatively strident steps to protect the rights of individuals from business. This includes passing strong laws against the sharing of medical records between companies and online profiling. Here in the U.S., a lack of historical fears about business has allowed this to occur rampantly.
This still leaves open Canada who's laws I am not familiar with, Mexico which seems willing to protect the rich, Central and Southern America, Southeast Asia and Russia. I'd love to hear if one country in these areas (not insignificant portions of the Globe) is better than those I know.
Irvu.Governments intrude on your freedom in many ways, but the thing that really makes people slaves are their own internal attitudes. The greatest freedom you can have is freedom of thought, and it is the hardest to obtain. It's no use being able to say or hear whatever you like if you've been indoctrinated to only believe what you want to believe. People are rarely prevented from doing what they wish by anything other than their own internal constraints, their (possibly warped) sense of right and wrong, and most of all their unspoken fears (of discovery, punishment, what others will think etc etc).
By all means go and live elsewhere, the main benefit will not be throwing off government constraints but exposing yourself to different viewpoints. If and when you return the experience will give you greater freedom than if you had stayed at home.
As an example - US media is enormously one-sided. Not through any government or corporate mandated conspiracy but because of a strange vicious cycle. People are most likely to listen to what they want to hear - they generally don't want to hear stuff that portrays America as anything other than the best place on earth, and since they have been told that all their lives that America represents everything good they are rather suspect of something telling them otherwise, they're less likely to believe it.
Now, every nation on earth is taught it's own version of history, the bits that reflect well on that country are emphasised, but this occurs to extraordinary extent in US.
In order to obtain greater internal freedom, you would probably be well advised to move somewhere less free. The UK is becoming a police state more rapidly than US (thanks Jack Straw...) so I think it would be a good place for you to move - it has an interesting mix of less free and more free. For instance, it's perfectly legal to walk down the street drinking a bottle of whiskey, or even to drive a car while drinking whiskey (as long as you are under the limit). Also, the strangest example of lack of freedom I saw in the US was going to the beach at night was illegal ("The beach is closed" !! What the fuck ??). However, the real benefit of moving to England is that you will encounter an ignorant closed mindset in many people that can rival that found in many Americans, but is different and will thus be more striking - it should help you identify similar mental slavery in yourself and others. For greater benefits, move somewhere even less free and even more strange - Singapore might be good.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
"The person with the most votes gets in."...Clearly this is not always the case. The person who got over 500,000 *more* votes is *not* going to be the president. I personally find this quite sad and disturbing. Time will tell as to whether it will result in an increase in people feeling disenfranchised and powerless *or* if it will get more people fired up about the system itself .
.
We live in strange times, the curve of technology is *extremely* sharp...which tend to make those who are not "early adapters" very nervous...nervous folk tend to dig in their heels and refuse to move forward. The reality is that social acceptance is lagging behind where we are technologically and the law *far* behind that. These are dangerous variables...with luck, time and cool heads will prevail...we shall see. Worse comes to worse, I live in coastal Maine and just live off the land
I forget where I found this, but it seems apropos:
First they came for the hackers.
But I never did anything illegal with my computer, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
[appologies to Martin Niemoller]
rootrot
Don't listen to slashdot. Go and travel abroad yourself and realize how good you have it here.
You can't have safety and freedom, even at the cost of QoL. The measures used to guarantee safety are, when overextended, what kill freedom. The relationship of these two to quality of life is something I'm not going to speculate on.
Having lived in a few radically different countries, and being a US citizen, I can see where you are coming from.
The US has one thing going for it that other countries do not, and that's starting to go thanks to globalization and our beloved internet. It's been THE place to make MONEY in the past century.
I have a distaste for much of American culture, so Australia is my recommendation. In my opinion it has a nice mix of European and American culture, it's mostly safe and clean, chances are you won't get shot at work or at school...only it's somewhat inconviniently located...
Uhh, that looks OK. We haven't seen that number yet.
I am also worried about the direction my country is headed. But, I think the solution is to get involved and change the direction of this country. All you have to do is study the recent history of this country to see what a difference dedicated activists can make, i.e.;
Civil rights
Vietnam war
Environment
Don't run away, fight back.
The problem with the system in the US is that it requires that everyone pay for their own service, using either cash, or a personally or company-paid insurance policy.
What if you are unemployed, and do not have the money to pay for an ensurance policy?
In most of the EU (and EØS), the goverment pays for the service. Some countries have privately owned hostitals, with the goverment paying for the service. The individual can choose a hospital, and the ones that provide the best service, gets the patients and thus the money.
This is a system that I would feel is the best possible. You always have the option of having your own insurance policy on the side.
Gaute
i agree. once you can get over the tax rate, canada is the place to be.
...what I think is simply the natural order of things.
>Global Corporate Administration (GCA = New World Order)
Ever since the first trade routes between "territorial entities" were established, the economy of trade has had a steadily increasing influence on the governments of those territorial entities. People talk about the "New World Order", "World Trade Org", "United Nations", etc. but don't realize that even the WTO is a farce. It is natural for "economic entities" to grow, merge, takeover, split and so forth in much the same way as the "territorial entities" do. With rapidly expanding trade, increased information flow and so forth happening without concern for territorial boundaries, those "mapped nations" are becoming less and less important.
In this one point Buchanan was truly enlightened. If you want to stop this new world order from developing, you must stop the flow of information and resources that traverse our mapped borders in greater amounts each day. In this respect his isolationist policies are dead on.
OTOH, I don't agree with you or him that this evolution is a de-facto "Bad Thing". Eventually all of the territorial entities will coalesce into a relatively common set of rights, laws, etc. simply because they will have to do so if they want to be involved in the global economy. The laws will not overly burden, threaten, or restrict the common citizens since they ultimately are the producers and consumers that make the economic world go 'round.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
You know I realize that the results of the last election are discouraging to a lot of people. However, consider that it was a peaceful transfer of power. I don't know but I do believe there are more than a handful of countries in this world where power is transferred at the end of a gun barrel.
We look at atrocities like the Rodney King beating and the death of that poor man in New York who was shot to death by the police and we say "We have horrid people working as policemen". But consider how many places, police forces simply abduct people and they're never heard from again.
You may or may not be a religious person. However, at least in this country being religious or not is your choice. There are countries in the world with state-mandated religions where people who do not practice that religion are disenfranchised and worse.
When you say corporate entities are gradually eroding our freedoms, I say that strikes me as being analogous to a rich, fat person complaining that his second helping of dessert didn't arrive yet. Being able to freely trade music on-line is nice but it's not exactly as essential to life as clean water (something we take for granted that's not available everywhere in the world).
We have it really good here in the US. Things are not perfect but this does seem to be the system that does the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."
-- Stan Dunn
Well, what are guns for? They are to protect you from the police, the DoD, the CIA, etc... in short the freedom to bear arms was created as insurance against bad goverment. Its basically to help enable revolution more easily, should it be needed.
Well, that was her and Brian's wish anyway...
If you're a woman (I know, only about 5% of Slashdot)
Where did you get the numbers? I didn't know
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
"Democracy is the worst possible form of government except -- all the others that have been tried"
There is no ideal form of government, you just have to find one that works and fits.
I'm in!
There are many different kinds of freedoms. What's most important to you -- freedom of privacy, sexual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom to do what you want with your body, freedom of speech? If you focus on each of these you'll find different contries that grant those freedoms. And just because a country allows one type of freedom, don't expect it to allow others.
For example, because of my sexuality sexual freedom is important to me. The US is in surprisingly good shape as far as sexual freedom goes (although Ashcroft may threaten that). Yes, about half the states in the union have seldomly enforced sodomy laws...but half do not, and you can choose to live in any state you like. Contrast that to Britain with its strict BDSM laws -- life in prison for whipping a consenting partner? Similarly draconian statues exist in Australia and Canada, countries who boast about how much freer they are than the US. Yeah, you may gain something, moving there, but you'll lose something else.
If you're interested in drugs there are western european countries that allow that...but you'll lose your freedom to arm yourself, among other things. Arabic countries actually give a lot of freedoms to men, although generally not freedom of religion...and women get almost no freedoms at all. If you want privacy you can't do much better than island nations like Singapore or Grand Cayman, but your freedom of speech goes away and in some cases your freedom to *leave*.
For me the US has the best mix of freedoms, not to mention that laws vary state to state so you can find one that matches your needs. More importantly, the US allows the freedom to fight the system -- you can work to *change* the laws if you wish, without ending in jail. That's something we take for granted, but if you ask a lot of people around the world they'll tell you that's the most important freedom of all.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
If you really have a problem with your freedoms getting trampled, here are 3 sites to visit: http://www.aclu.org; http://www.lp.org; http://harrybrowne2000.org. If it bothers you that much, do something about it in 2004.
There is a war going on for your mind.
The major problem that I see concerning our freedom and the future there of, is that .PAG)
everything in this current economic path is pointing toward complete global centralization.
Unfortunately I feel that (as a person who works for an "small-evil-international-dotCom"),
the internet is empowering the huge-evil-international-businesses of today to only get larger and control
your options more. (Cheap mass-produced goods of all types of generic style and mediocre quality--FOR EVERYONE!! i love to shop at the
For a nice picture of what the world of the future may be I suggest the movie Brazil.
For its portrayal of a society where capitalism and productivity are all that are valued.
So my feeling is that unless you are going to go off and live a self-sustenance life apart from
this capitalistic society that the United States has marketed under the
disguise "democracy" then it doesn't matter which country you live in.
America, for a few people, By a few people and on th backs of the rest of the people.
In the US, there is this saying that (I don't known the full, correct phrase): "the grass next door is always greener".
The point in this statement is that it depends on where you are standing. If you are in your own backyard, than your neighbors grass is greener than yours. On the other hand, your neighbors, standing on his backyard is seeing the same thing.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
here's a few examples (some I disagree with personally, but I feel they should be protected, regardless):
1. personal recreational drug use--this is illegal in the US despite the fact that used inside the home it doesn't bother the general public.
2. Community zoning laws--who is it hurting for you to paint your house whatever color you want?
3. bigamy, where all parties know and are agreeable--why is it the government's duty to pose moral restrictions on these people? It's more than taxes...
I think the problem is that in a democracy (or whatever the US has) the people who want personal freedoms have to demand personal freedoms or the people who demand otherwise will make the rules. The above examples are old and there are probably thousands of similar laws designed to decrease personal freedom in the US and the new avenues technology provides are just a new method toward decreased personal freedom.
I know that you americans think that you have justice and all that to go with it. But the rest of the world looks at you as a modern day Nazi state .
Remember that time last year (1999) when the US was bombing Kosovo, Yugoslavia. Bill Clinton advised you, the americans, to go home and look at your atlases to find out where Kosovo is. You are "helping" other countries and you don't even know where they are. :) Come on !
The example I just used above, was the first thing that came to me. There are lots more.
P.S. Whatch this get moded down to -10.
I sincerely don't understand what types of freedom you are being excluded from. Freedom to walk from one place to another? Freedom to express your ideas and opinions? Freedom to choose among many different alternatives? Freedom to criticise the government?
I live in a Third World country where, 25 years ago, you couldn't say you disagreed with the government without the risk of being jailed, or being considered a communist, an enemy of the state. Those were terrible days, but now we have a democratic ruling, and still there are difficult problems which freedom, simply put, couldn't help solving.
If you are complaining about freedom to get free/gratis products or services, well, you should go to a country where accumulating goods wouldn't be the primary concern of their people. The only problem is that this place doesn't exist yet.
Please, pay more attention to the world, and instead of looking for "better places for freedom", remember that there are hungry people in Africa, there are very poor people in Asia, there are billions of people that live under a pseudo-communist ruling in China. Those people don't give a damn about this "freedom" you say you don't have, they just want to live their lives with a little decency. Now look at your country, and you will see a consumer-oriented society, which gives value to competition and money accumulation, but, on the other hand, cares about quality of life. Are you living in a horrible place? And how does this "lack of freedom" you say makes it more horrid?
Think deep, and you will finally see: You have *never* lived in a totally Free country! There's always been a ruling, good or bad, and it will take centuries (if ever) until the entire human race can be considered Free.
Well, now that the tally is up to about 250 replies, I can address this specifically to you since no one else with a life has time to read them all. But you asked, so you have to read them all, right?
The paranoia you feel is based on the claustrophobic feeling that corporations are taking away people's rights with the government's permission, and by interpolation, the permission of the American people. We all have that same apprehension, I think, to a degree. Our civil rights, the ones that 'made this country great' are being taken away there is no doubt. This is due to two things, I think:
1. We gleefully allow our rights to be taken away, because;
2. since losing a sense of cohesiveness in our American society, we have lost our bearings, some of us have abused our civil liberties and others are reacting to that.
In short, there is an internal war being fought in the US along ideological lines. Closely tied in with that is the fact that there is money to be made on each side and so what should be a clear distinction between right and wrong gets skewed. The word "morale" is close to the word "moral" because once you drop your morals in exchange for whatever profit margin you obtain, once you become Machiavellian, once you sell out, your morale must suffer. That's part of it. We are smoking more and enjoying it less, so to speak. We have lost touch with whatever in our lives made it worth living. We are filled with angst, paranoia, a sense of detachment, a sense of 'is that all there is?'. We can all relate to that feeling (just read today's www.suck.com and see if you don't relate).
The other answer is that corporations are defining the new world order, so it doesn't really matter which country you want to migrate to. You are going to be and remain driftless until you anchor your own self to a creed that has meaning and that you can live by. Personally, I like to backpack around this beautiful country and lose some of the massive overstimulation that I allow myself to experience. Then, when I have calmed down some of my inner turmoil through meditation in the wilderness, I can examine these feelings of angst without distraction. Then I can cope with this crazy world a little bit better, and find meaning of my own.
Trust me, country-hopping is not the answer. Just like the swami sez, "You must find it within yourself."
But, for more answers, I suggest you read some of the writings of Gore Vidal (an ex-patriate) and see if you don't resonate with his thoughts. Another suggestion is Cultural Creatives. In the movie "My Dinner with Andre", Andre speaks in hopeful terms of a coming together of a people in an underground fashion, a spiritual gathering. This, to my mind has not happened, and inasmuch as it usurps power from those in power today, may not be encouraged by the powers-that-be. But it would be a much better world if that counter culture were preeminent. It just wouldn't be this one.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
The Netherlands is the only place I know where the rights of the individual actually mean something.
Could someone actually be kind enough to post a link to info about this??
Ps: Remember Travolta's rant about Amsterdam at the beginning of Pulp Fiction....quality stuff hehe
So, what went wrong?
1) The Constitution, as much as people these days hate to admit it, was built upon the ASSUMPTION that people would remain religious and moral. Adams, Washington, Jefferson (even a Diest) admitted that the system would fail if there was no moral base of Christian ethics.
2) The Constitution outlined a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. People somehow got the impression that the Constitution says every citizen should have their individual voice heard.
So, the U.S. is a great country, but would be SO MUCH BETTER if people would just actually read the Constitution!!!! It pains me to hear people so blatantly misquote and misinterpret, as well as the politicians that just don't care about freedoms as long as they please the majority and get re-elected. If we actually treated this country as a republic of united states, with a federal system for union-specific issues such as defense, foreign policy, and commerce, we'd be much better off.
-Mike
--- witty signature
While I am an unrepentant Canadian, I have traveled on both sides of the pond, I've been through the US on more that one occasion and I've been in New York City since '95. That has provided me with some perspective.
The major political systems here and abroad, are republican systems parliementary systems or monarchic. These are all more alike than not. (If you have to RUN for office or STAND for it or get knighted for it, its still the same. Its NOT democratic. Get that foolishness right out of your head.)
But all the political systems want is to try to insure that you don't stray too far, pay your taxes and avoid hurting anybody. They want your loyalty and are willing to compromise to get it (armed revolution has taught them some lessons and some humility after all.)
The real worry is corporate machination, unfettered by reason or treason and guided by the morals of people who dump waste where YOU eat, pour waste in YOUR water and have only an eye on the next quarterly earnings (or the outcome of the next great five year plan in the late and unlamented Soviet regime.)
Corporations will justify anything for the bottom line. Corporations have absolutely no morals, no conscience and neither heart nor head.
They don't care, they really DON'T CARE about how many people get killed, maimed and ruined by their corporate lack of conscience.
Corporationism can readily weigh profits versus the volume of lawsuits resulting from injuries caused by the products of shoddy workmanship.
Corporationism can readily sell crack to kids while forcing them to fuck for food and shove me and thee to wage-slave jobs in the "maquiadoras" by rationalizing that they are merely "filling a need."
As someone I knew put it, "It doesn't matter whether your pimping pots and pans or pot and pussy, you're still a pimp."
The internet is being dismantled by people who want to stop paying anything to produce any content but make you pay everytime you access the same old content, over and over, because its gravy, all gravy.
The political borders are merely inconvenient fictionalities because of different taxation rules to evade.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
The SWAT team has been known to knock down doors to take your stupid peice of plant material.
FunOne
FunOne
... when Bill Gates defends Microsoft's "freedom to innovate" and when a Linux activist protests for his "freedom" to buy a PC without the Microsoft tax.
The right to compete in a markets conflicts with the right to enter a market; the right to free expression conflicts with the right to be compensated.
Real societies (that is to say ecluding toy nations set up on islands for the benefit of rich ex pats) involve making tradeoffs, sometimes between freedom and security, sometimes between one kind of freedom and another. This process involves conflict and tension, because there is no divinely revealed blueprint for the perfect society.
If you don't like this, you can go someplace where this tension is swept under the rug, but by in large these aren't places one would think of as "free".
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I used to say it every day in elementary school, but nobody made us do it in high school. You know what, I didn't even know what it meant, or bother to think about it until I hit high school. Do you really think that a 6 year old child know what a pledge of allegiance is? It's just something that they memorize and repeat.
Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those that do know me, DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me.
FIGHT!
/.? Nope, but a bunch of people got a good man to write the bill and a bunch more got their representatives to make it a law. That's the way it works.
I don't mean take arms, that time has not yet come (history teaches us it must, but it looks to be a looong way off). Fight with your pen, your wallet, and your voice. Tell your representatives how you feel, and let others know so that they can stand with you. Ours is a highly representative government, and your congressman needs you to re-elect him every two years to keep his job.
You may find a place that seem smore attractive on the surface, but what happens in 5 years when things change? What about in 10 years, when you realize that you don't have a bill of rights, or a strong Constitution (say what you will, but 225 years is a damn long time for a document to stand) to protect you. You'll be in the same boat you're in now, but maybe you won't be able to run away then.
Look, not everything is getting worse. As an example, there's a new federal law that protect people from having their computers seized without being charged, and makes it easier to get seized property back - did you read about that on
The thing about freedom is that it's hard work maintaining it. You can't just wave a magic wand and say 'poof - be free', you have to wave the damned wand every single day, every hour, and with every breath. Our rights may be inaliable, but they don't come without cost. We haven't had to shed blood to defend them in our generation, and for that we're fortunate, but it's led many of us to forget just how valuable these freedoms are.
You've recognized something as being broken - well I say pick up your damned toolbox and get your ass in gear, we've got some fixing to do!
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
Yeah, I cringe at most of the things the goverment does. But do we realize how HUGE a society we live in? And for the most part, it works! Anything that doesn't work is our fault for letting it be that way.
The cool thing about the US is that WE THE PEOPLE, can get elected to office and work to make changes (yes, it does require work). And these changes can happen without a single drop of bloodshed. It's not a perfect system that's gone bad. It's an imperfect system that requires lots of upkeep.
Now if everyone would just leave the silicon valley.
I'm not sure what this guy wants, but I do know that I'd much rather live in a country where it's an *honest* fascism/tyranny/whathaveyou than in a country where they tell you it's a 'democracy' or whatever and then act contrary to that ideal.
Take Serbia for example. At least under Milosevic the people *knew* that they were fux0red, freedom-wise.
If you want to go to a country that's relatively techie, has a nice countryside and is somewhat stable, check out Croatia. Zagreb is a wonderful city. Dubrovnik (sp?) is an awesome city (I've only seen pictures) on the Adriatic sea. Karlovac makes the finest lager in the world, Karlovacko Pivo.
The language (I'm learning it now) isn't very difficult to learn, and is based on the Latin, rather than Cyrillic alphabet, thus making it easier for us Americans to at least read. Sorta sounds like munged Italian sometimes. However, it's very pretty when spoken by my lovely Russian wife.
croatia.net has info, etc. if you want to check out a propaganda site.
I'm not entirely certain on the political climate, but perhaps one of our Croatian brothers/sisters can enlighten us?
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
... except for all the others. Seriously, unless you move to Smarty Man Gaem Designar Survivar Island and live out your life as a hermit, the US is still as free as it gets, despite all the bad things happening.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
That was very informative.
Generally, a government is supposed to provide:
- physical safety (i.e. you will not be mugged by street thugs AND you will not be killed by people who do not like your ideas)
- freedom (i.e. you can do whatever you want as long as you do not threaten somebody else's right to freedom or physical safety)
There is always a trade-off between the two.Also, some believe that a government should provide for the well being (i.e. QoL) of its citizens. The above two rights (safety and freedom) usually provide the framework for each individual to find their level of happiness, the desired quality of life. Of course, it is rather complicated for every person to put in all the work to attain that quality of living - that is why the US has Social Security, for example. Other governments have a more extensive influence on their citizens - free health benefits for a larger income tax.
Now, back to the freedom issue: the majority of people (against which minorities take shape) have a lot of inertia, which reflects in the media. The media serves them by reinforcing their world outlook, and by shutting off the non-mainstream ideas. Is this good or bad? It is definitely bad for those banished to speak.
BTW, independent (as in "independent thinker") does not mean better or wiser.
You need to install an RTFM interface.
... is great! To explain, we are both similar and dis-similar to our American neighbors to the south. First off, many people think that Canadians are hugely affected by US media. While that is true, Americans and Canadians are distinctly different (not just because we will always beat you at hockey). There is almost a different personality, in that generally, Canadians are more polite then Americans, and the average Canadian is far more leftist in their political views then Americans.
Now, Canada has much higher taxes then the US, and with good reason. That extra 15% goes to universal health care, which while often criticized, is the single greatest asset for any country (Kudos to all other countries with such a system). I know, I can already hear Americans saying that "it violates my right to get whatever treatment i choose!!". That said, it means that every single Canadian can walk into a hospital anywhere in the country (well, with a bit of paperwork), and get the same treatment as someone anywhere else in the country, for free. It means that whether rich or poor, you have to wait equally as long, and receive the same level of treatment. People don't get turned down because they don't have insurance here. Much as people say "well i don't wany my tax dollars supporting someone else's sickness", just let them wait until they are in a serious accident, and need intensive care. It aint cheap.
The other major difference between Canada and the US is how we regard our environment. In general, the Canadian government is far more environmentally aware then americans. Not as much as they should be, but still far better. I mean, Canada developed the Candu reactor, which can "burn" used nuclear material from American Nuclear weapons.
The Tradeoff
The one thing Canada trades for our healthcare and smaller, simpler government is freedom. Now, you don't hear as much complaining over constitutional freedoms here are you do in the US. However, things like hate literature and guns are primarily outlawed here. You simply don't see guns in Canada. Hunting rifles, yes, but not handguns and assault rifles. They just aren't around. I don't think i know a single family who has any sort of gun at all! While we do have a declaration of rights and freedoms, its not as ironclad as the US constitution. Not that you're going to be arrested by the though police, but there are slight limitations to free speech. That said, the laws against child porn were somehow overturned by the Canadians courts...
Just my $0.02
-MR
-Michael Roy Some people are like Slinkies. Not really useful, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down
Israel is a great place to live:
..And all of this for FREE!!
The US hasn't yet adapted. People still think of themselves as a frontier society and they are often unwilling to make the choices that are appropriate to a more crowded way of living.
For example, many people seem to think that they can be "tough on crime", but the criminals that are locked away for a decade or two will come back into the same communities; retribution may be satisfying, but rehabilitation is more rational. Or look at the debate about id cards: rather than doing what is obviously the right and sensible thing, Americans prefer the illusion that there is no national id system when in fact corporations and the government already are using an ad-hoc system that poses greater risks to privacy and identity theft than any reasonable national id system. Or look at the hideaways in Montana and Idaho, where people believe they can wall themselves in and defend themselves with guns against the government. Or look at local schoolboards that believe that they can get away teaching creationism and other unscientific drivel, ignoring that they will be placing their students at a huge disadvantage in this society.
Yes, I think people living in the US should be concerned. There is some loss of freedom that is inevitable as land and resources become scarce; there is nothing that can be done about that. But there is a lot of loss of freedom that comes from poor government, government that promises people that they still live in a society with unlimited resources and freedoms and as a result fails to make good, liveable compromises. Other countries are far from perfect in that regard, but they seem to be doing better than the US right now.
The military are not robots, and the command and control system would not permit an unstable president to use the military as his personal army.
:)
Hmmn, interesting point. But...what happens when, in the future, the military *are* robots?
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Preach it, brother canuck. But I have to wonder just how many people here got the Stock joke...
If you feel that you governemnt has ever increasingly infringed upon your rights and not protected youf rom others infringing upon your right then it is you duty to take it back.
the right to murder, yes, very important to me.
If you wish to practice Scientology, stay away from Germany.
if you wish to practice Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, Atheism, or any other non-Christian religion, better stay away from the whole middle and southern US.
I hear Canada has strange porn laws, you can probably find harder porn in the US (I'm talking dead tree porn here).
of course you can't hear or see anything that might piss off the puritans on TV or radio in the US, even at 3 o'clock in the morning. and just try buying any music or video that's remotely controversial .. hope you live in a major metropolis which has more than the major chains, otherwise you're out of luck
If you're a woman (I know, only about 5% of Slashdot) there are a lot of countries that are less enlightened about women's rights than the US.
i guess, but i can't think of a country who sells more cultural sex than the US.
If you will obviously stick out as a foreigner, there are other countries you may want to stay away from.
yes but you are welcome to come here and pump our gas or clean our toilets.
If you desire sexual freedom, stay away from highly religious countries,
what like the US? virginia still has laws prohibiting oral sex, sex before marriage, and any kind of sex other than standard missionary position. hope you're not a homosexual, too, cuz for some dumb reason we like to herrangue them about their sexual promiscuity then prevent them from legally binding themselves to a single permanent partner. i just don't get why 85% of americans are against gay marriage.
i could live a little longer in this prison
If you're serious about leaving the U.S. It might be wise to consider the implications.
Frankly, I find it incredibly disingenous to point to a body of 535 people, most of whom you've never even heard of, and say "every elected official breaks the oath...". That is not supported by the facts, and such rhetoric is alarmingly naive. It's almost as though you really believe that Congressmen, CEOs, and the rest of what passes for American Aristocracy do not face the same issues we do. It might make it easier to rationalize your rhetoric by dehumanizing those who are in government or positions of power, but it is still an injustice to people about whom oyu know nothing.
If you had actually met and talked with anyone at almost any level of government you would understand that each of them tries to do the best job they can. Some are better than others, some are even better people than others, but a couple of bad apples is no good reason throw out the whole basket. It's all in how you perceive it, and no issue is ever so simple as you'd like to think.
Things are much better now than they have been in the past. Ask my grandfather what it was like to grow up in Morgan Park, in a home built by Morgan, owned by Morgan, leased by morgan under the shadow of The Morgan(U.S. Steel) plant, attending Morgan school, buying shoes at the Morgan general market with (you guessed it) Morgan scrip. J.P Morgan was a generous man, but lets not forget he and others owned this country in ways that give the MPAA wet dreams. They usurped rights to peaceably assemble, and speak freely in breaking the unions, and they used their power and money to exert tremendous pressure on our nearly bankrupt government. The era of RobberBarons came to an end, and it ended despite the power that Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, et al. exerted over the government. The good guys won, but it's never so clear cut as it is in the movies. For instance, the income tax was passed and the Fed created as a result of the lack of money the government had with which to do anything. Is that a good thing ? Like everyting else, it depends on where you look at it from.
The point I'm tryin to make, such as it is; is that there are many changes coming down the pipe. I doubt we will get our positions on every issue right the first time, but that is not significant of the corruption inherent in the system, but rather the humanity that our system is rife with. Somewhere in there, people like us, will manage to live, and in most cases be happy anyway. Some of the rest of us need to cut back on the caffeine.
Nephs
--
My hell would be eternity in your heaven.
For a different view, how about taking a look through the Amnesty International 2000 report?
--
Remove the rocks to send email
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
I'm from the Netherlands, so you may think that I'm saying this from national bias, but I truly don't think I am. I seriously believe, and have for some time, that you can't beat the Netherlands for personal freedom.
I have lived in the US for a year (in California, which is probably one of the most 'free' states) so I have some experience to base my opinion on.
In almost every respect there is an 'it's OK if you don't bother anyone else' attitude about things in the Netherlands that I've not found anywhere else, certainly not in the US.
A very recent case in point is euthanasia: the Netherlands is now (short of some formalities) the only country in the world where euthanasia is legal. The freedom to decide about your own life in dignity seems to me to be the ultimate freedom and there's only one country in the world where you have that freedom right now.
Another case is, of course, soft drugs. Taking them is not legal in the Netherlands (so that excesses can still be swiftly suppressed), but as long as you abide by a few reasonable rules you're not prosecuted for it. This makes sense: taking soft drugs doesn't bother anyone (it's considered 'not done' to do it publically) so why should the government say that you can't? I only know of one country that takes that attitude: the Netherlands.
And it's not only the government who give you freedom in these and many other ways, it's also the people. Although even in the Netherlands discrimination is a problem, it is so far less than any other country I know of, including the US. The Dutch pride themselves in being tolerant of other people's characteristics, opinions, ideas, etc. to a degree that most people from other countries that I talk to think even higher than they do themselves.
Protection of privacy is another thing I'd like to mention. In Europe, this is taken very seriously. There are strict rules about what information a company may keep about you and what they may do with it. I like that a lot and I think it's also a form of freedom. The scales tip a lot more in the direction of the individual than they do to big companies, as I've found they do in the US.
I could go on and on and there's many more reasons besides those concerning freedom that make me feel this way. I've thought about it a lot (because I really like the US and have been trying to decide for a long time whether I want to go back and live there for a few years) and whichever way I turn it and whatever other country I think about, I always come to the conclusion that there's only one country in the world that I would want to raise my kids in: the Netherlands...
In the US, there is a distinct line between the government and corporations. Cynics may say that there is no real line, but it is there. The Constitution protects you and everyone else in America from governmental intrusion. Look at the Constitution (here) and you won't find a single word restricting businesses from doing any thing they want. The government, directly, cannot stop it, becuase it is not a power granted to the government. Now, there can be regulation, and the states have some powers, too, but in the end, the Framers of the Constitution were not worried about private violations of rights. A business, after all, cannot put you in jail. What we have to do is identify when a business violates rights of free speech or privacy, or whatever, and boycott them. That is the remedy for this private sector violation. Business runs on its ability to DO business. If no one goes to a site because it collects too much personal information, or no one uses a software product because it has been revealed to be too nosey, then the business will alter its model. More governmental regulation is probably not the answer, else the government starts sticking its nose in places it doesn't belong. The big problem I see is that too many people are either fooled by business into revealing too many personal details, or are too willing to trade personal details for a free screen saver or t-shirt. That is a bit harder to deal with.
It's time for America's second manifest destiny. The first was from east to west coast. The next should be from pole to pole.
... for nothin left to lose - Janice
From the time we enter school we are taught how free our country is and how hard our fore-fathers fought to get us this freedom. If another country did this (and we disagreed with their position) we would call this "propoganda." I firmly believe that much of what we have been told is pure unadultrated hog-wash. However, it is useful hog-wash, it helps the leaders control the masses. We would not want a repeat of 1776!
Society needs ruled to function, those rules when sanctioned by a government become laws. As a member of society, we are told we must obey the laws to be good citizens and to retain our freedom.
Good laws attempt to weigh one persons rights against another (murder is against the law because it deprives another of their right to live). Most of us would agree that laws that protect a greater right are valid issues for a society to regulate. Most of us don't have problems with these laws - or at least the intent of the laws. A well run society needs an established set of rules that allows it to run and grants people rights.
But there is little doubt that our society is corrupt. Money and power are the primary tools of corruption here and almost anywhere else. The powerful can have laws written, sponsored, and enacted that protect them yet restrict others. This is where our system is broken, perhaps beyond repair.
Companies hire lobbiests and lawyers who convince our lawmakers that this bill (that they wrote and supplied to the representitive or senator) are good things, and they work hard to get the bill enacted into law to serve their best interests, or provides them with something that they want and that is that. If the bill becomes law, we the little guy lose some of our rights and the rich and powerful gain.
It is a subtle process that nibbles away at our rights and freedoms a little but at a time. Each bit is so small that we don't even notice it but when you look at the larger picture, we are already a much less free country than we were twenty years ago and twenty years ago we were less free than we were twenty years before that!
One would think that if we give a little here we would gain a little there but because of the nature of the beast, we don't. Our streets are less safe today than they were yesterday but we are spending more to protect them now than ever before. Our schools cost more but kids are getting less and less education. The elderly are less well cared for in this generation than in previous generations. Despite advances in health care some of the people that need it the most don't get it - because the insurance they pay for won't cover it.
Having said all that, I think we still live in a great country. The problem I have is that we are giving too much of it away, a bit and piece at a time. I hope we can fix it.
No offense to the rest of the world, but why do you think americans typically have much more luxury items than the rest of the world. Go to canada, you won't see many lexus or infinities there. Lots of little GM cars all over. Why? Government takes a huge portion of your income. The same is true in england, france and most european countries.
Before bitching about the american situation, get a clue about the rest of the world and THEN decide if america is such a bad place after all.
-
I pledge allegiance to the flag,
which I bought at my local Wal-Mart.
And to the free market,
for which it stands,
uncontrollable, but by one man
Alan Greenspan.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
Eternal Vigilance is the price of Freedom
But better remembered as:
"You gotta fight, for your right, to party"
but this all boils down to:
The biggest, loudest, most agressive monkey gets the bananna.
Which is why selfless monkeys are hard to elect.
Anybody wanna start a space colony? Once upon a time, revolutionary groups could "go west" and start their own little slice of heaven, unfotunately, we've run out of unclaimed space on this rock.
If we all look at the way that history runs, all great civilizations crumble and fall. Rome was great and powerful, and even the sdlaves of Rome were happy; then the romans became decadent and selfish -> Rome fell. The Greeks, all philosophical seekers and wisdom oriented; when they too became decadent and selfish, their civilization fell. This seems to be the life cycle of all great nations. It seems that after a few hundred years, all nations need a revolution to clean the stagnation out of the system. I feel that withing the next century, the US will be the next stagnant nation to fall before their own self importance. We feel that we are better (At least or leaders do) than everyone else, but therein lies our damning breath.
Morbid isn't it? Well, I hope it's true for all of our sakes; otherwise the US will continually slide into a downward spiral.
Deven Phillips, CISSP
Network Architect
Viata Online, Inc.
Wherever you go, there I am...
Say what you want about the US government, that is your right if you are a US citizen. I feel that the development of the Internet has done more to champion the cause of freedom throughout the world than any other form of media. And please don't forget, we (the people and the government of the United States) developed the core of Internet. Not the UN or Finland or Italy or even Canada. God Bless the United States of America You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand Don't tread on me
1) No other country has a Freedom of Information Act. Granted, it's imperfect.
2) It's easier to own a gun here than anywhere other western country.
3) You can distribute Nazi literature here. (They'll arrest you for that in France and Germany.)
4) You can belong to any number of wacko religions that aren't allowed in other countries.
If you're not an extremist, it doesn't matter where you live, but if you are, you're better off here.
For example, it talks about absolute equality and freedom of religion, but a former colleague of mine had to resign and move back to England, after being subjected to racial and religious abuse (he's a Black Muslim).
Even worse, there isn't just a law against abortion, it's the Eighth Constitutional Amendment, so it's not surprising that abortion clinics near airports and ferry ports (e.g. Holyhead in Wales) enjoy the benefits (as allowed by the Fourteenth Amendment!).
Ireland actively promotes high-tech industry, which is why I'm here, and even passed a Digital Commerce bill that formally legalised Digital Signatures and the use of encryption without key escrow or legal requirements to hand over keys (Wired article here.
(this is not a
Son, I'm suprised to hear you say that. I just don't see how you can question the superiority of America's political and economic systems. Particularly at this juncture, when the colonization of the planet by our legal and economic standards is just gathering steam, when the triumph of our language, the enforcement of our trade and property law, the success of our brand of pane et circensis finally approaches its destined global scope.
As to your concern about corporate power, how small a thing does any individual corporation's force seem when you know that it is merely an arm of that incorporation of corporations, the United States government. Rest assured that American corporate interests are working arm in arm with our good friends and fellow board members rotating into service at the head of federal agencies. We will maintain our close working relationship to ensure the continued coordination of our economic, political and military forces toward the common goal of global hegemony.
Why ask about other countries in which to reside? There will be plenty of time to choose, once the remaining minor threats to our power are driven to heel, among the residual climates and cultural heritages around the globe.
illegitimii non ingravare
And then how many of you actually voted? The turn out was what, around 30%? You know, most of the people in the world don't even get a chance to vote at all.
With the remaining, mostly symbolic threads of democracy that you still have, demand a system of presidential run-off elections. Yugoslavia has them, and they're POOR-ASS so don't tell me that the USA can't afford them. Stop taking people off the voter's list. Have proportional representation in your House and Senate so that there is a viable oppurtunity for third parties.
Because obviously your two-party system is failing. All the two parties do is reach for the centre while trying to portray themselves in their traditional light.
Were the US truely the greatest democracy in the world, or even a democracy at all, Bush would have had to survive a run-off vote, not a favour from other Republicans.
If we heard about that kind of shit happening in Eastern Europe, Asia or South America, there's a good chance someone would send troops to enforce real democracy.
Jeremy McNaughton
------ Live simply so that others may simply live.
Canada has allways bein the #1 country for Quality of living and freedom in the world. The UN has voted canada #1 every year since the beginning.
Clinton did nothing for the economy. He passed no laws, made no sweeping reforms or referendums that made Americans more wealthy, happy, and peaceful. He just forced himself on some coeds, state employees, and strippers.
Economy is one of those things that just happens. It goes up, it plumits down. The terrible thing is that a semi-conservative will get blamed for it this time.
People- including myself (dangit!) spend too much and save too little. It's going to bite us/me real hard in the ars soon.
"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas"
Sen. Davy Crocket to US Congress, Nov. 1, 1835
freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
The R's and the D's will never again produce a leader. This much was made clear to me in the 2000 primaries, McCaine really was the only leader running, and he nearly took the nomination despite the fact the he had something like 1/4 the funds of Bush, and the entire Republican machine was working agianst him. The system will not produce a leader from within because a good and just person cannot rise in the current system, it won't permit it. There are too many compromises to make, to many promises to break and too much money at stake (ugh didn't mean to rhyme there)
I however, have no doubts that another leader will emerge, a true reformer who really is for the people, but s/he will NOT come from inside the system. No this great reformer will rise from outside the policital proccess. A real grassroots candidate that really has the support of the people and who is beholden to no group other than the people. Their support will grow slowly at first, but as soon as they gain national attention we'll see a type of revolution begin in the system. And when the election comes s/he will be there on the ballots, and his supporters will be running for Congress and winning. It will happen, we just have to be prepared to vote the right way when s/he shows up.
Don't loose hope in the USA just yet as a nation we have a pretty good track record of producing leaders when we need them the most, and I think after this last election the people are starting to realize that we need one again, that we need direction and that we are starting to forget who we are. Don't forget that the US was the first republic to rise since the Caesers destroyed the old Roman Republic, and we are still by far the most idealistic of any modern one. We really are still an experiment, Rome was republican for over 400 years before giving over to tyranny, when we beat their record maybe then we'll no longer be an experiment. I happen to believe that we will manage it, with our rights and our ideals in place.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Yes, they are a problem. However, our Constitution gives us the power to deal with it. Citizens are still allowed to speak out against corporate injustice. We have the fair right to a trial if we are wrongly terminated or discriminated against. We have the freedom to work and live where we want to, and the freedom to choose which products we buy.
We still have the right to arm ourselves - a freedom most other "free" countries have given up. By that measure, we are still the freeest country in the world. Dispute that if you will, but a Tinnamen Square incident would never happen here.
Corporations only have as much power as we, the free people of the U.S., choose to give them.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
For the longest time I dreamt of moving to the States. I no longer do. I'm quite content living here in Finland.
I don't claim Finland is the perfect society. High taxes, expensive gasoline and the weather could be better (society's fault?-P). Everybody complains that all politicians are assholes, but that goes pretty much for every country I've heard of (well, save for dictatorship, at least if one value ones life). Hell, it seems to me that complaining about the political system an essential part of being a citizen!
The same goes for the legal system. Someone thinks he wasn't treated properly (crazy/egoistic ppl are everywhere) and starts a rumour. Add the snowball effect. Here we go again..
But
I still think Finland is the place to be. We are a not-too-big high-tech society, which happens to be surrounded by beautiful nature and yes, we have best lager in the World ;) (I'm a Olvi fan actulally but it's worth mentioning)
Just imagine: sitting on your private sail boat in the beautiful archipelago of Turku, a pint of beer in one hand and a laptop with GRPS connection posting "First Post!!111!!1!!" on Slashdot...
Or if you aren't into that kind of stuff, well, go to Lapland during the winter: the sun won't rise for several days or weeks (depending on your location).. 24/7 partying / coding ;)
According to the Human Development Index for 1999, the best countries are Canada, Norway, United States, Japan and Belgium.
The HDI combines measures of life expectancy, educational attainment and income. No freedom but it can be interesting to compare freedom and development.
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
How the hell can a corporation take away your freedom? They can't. Only governments can do that. Yet you think more government is the answer...
I see your kind of flawed logic over and over. No corporation can possibly ever take away even one bit of your freedom.
Let's say we have a company called Big Evil Corporation. Let's say BEC is the worst the world has ever seen. Let's say they do every bad thing the law allows (notice the part about "law allows"). Let's even say they are a monopoly. We can even say Bill Gates runs it if that makes you think they are worse. Are you getting the picture? BEC is the absolute worst company ever.
Now... what freedoms have you lost?
You don't have to do business with this company. You are FREE to do business with others, start your own business, not do the kind of business BEC monopolizes, make BEC's goods (or provide BEC's services) for yourself, etc.
The only way you can loose freedom is when government steps in and passes laws limiting your choices. If your willing to invoke government in an effort to restrain the freedom of others (even if it's BEC) then you deserve to loose some of your freedoms too.
Let's face it, a company doesn't get to be BEC if it is not providing goods or services that LOTS of people want, however much you might disagree with their reasons for wanting it. It is precisely your attitude that prompts government to take action which actually decreases freedom, not increases it.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
Try the Netherlands....except speaking against certain groups will get you jailed. And don't try to look at Nazi materials on the Internet. Or own a gun.
But you can boink a 12 year-old while shooting heroin.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
The weather - bleah. Couldn't you guys annex the US or something? Or just California? Or conquer the whole country? I'd love to live in Canada, but the problem is that it's in the wrong spot.
-lx
What is patriotism, is it love of country or love of government? Are government and country the same?
I like america and the principles on which it is based on as a nation. I do not like what america has become as a people and as a government. Does this make me a enemy of america or does this make me patriotic for wanting it to change for the better?
Well, the founding fathers seemed to think that being patriotic meant that one should fight repression and wrong to make government right and when government grew too oppressive that one should overthrow that government and replace it. A little revolution is a good thing it seems as there were patriots before there was a country called the US or a government for it.
However, government is an interesting beast, it protects itself from internal threats more ferociously than it does against enemies of the government from other nations. The questions that we must ask as patriotic americans are, is the present government that we have the best that we can get? If there is something wrong with our government can it be correct within the system of that government? And has our government gotten so out of hand that we are obligated to overthrow it as good americans are supposed to do?
Yes, I'm a bit of an anarchist. But maybe being so is the best way for me to be patriotic, don't you think?
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
I voted. In fact, I voted for a number of candidates that lost, including Vice-President Gore. In fact, I believe he actually had 300,000+ more votes than the guy who is getting the office. My vote did not count. I live in a conservative state that went 60-70% to Bush. My vote couldn't have counted under our electoral system, which is intended to give low population areas disproportionate say compared to high population areas.
My vote was meaningless. However, it was not as bad as it could've been. If you live in North Dakota, your vote counts nearly 3 times as much as the vote of someone in California. You vote for 1 representative + 2 senators worth of electoral seats while a Californian (with about 57 or so electoral votes) votes for 1 and 2/57ths of an electoral seat when you spread it all out. Look at a map, by county, of which candidate won. High population areas voted for Gore, while the vast geographic majority or the nation, low-population rural areas, went to Bush. Pity, then, the minority voice of any state, for it is mute.
In essence, country bumpkins who probably don't follow politics unless its dictated to them by conservative talk radio shows shape the future of the nation far more than me, an educated college student living in a high-population area.
Why shouldn't I be apathetic? I've cared passionately about issues in politics ever since I was in middle school. I've debated, argued, and tried to convince people around me that there are serious issues going on in the government that will effect the rest of our lives. Have I made any differences? Maybe, in one or two people who would've been inclined to vote for the candidate that's most likely to take the right stand anyway. I've just given people who have made up their mind more reasons to vote the way they wanted and more reasons for others to simply think I'm wrong or to avoid politics further.
People don't care about facts anymore. The cornerstone of a democracy is the informed electorate. We don't have one anymore. Maybe we never did really, but history is not a thing that I can touch and see all around me like I can the willful ignorance of the people surrounding me. It's not without irony that our next president is quoted as saying the following about his opponent:
"The fact that he relies on facts--says things that are not factual--are going to undermine his campaign."
--New York Times, March 4, 2000
We laugh at it when we take it at face value, but GWB was absolutely right. Al Gore was hurt by the non-factual things in the campaign -- the subjective perceptions of the voters. American voters put far more stock in charisma. All of GWB's bumbling and digs at Gore's intellectualism only endeared him more in the hearts of the American people. You remember them. They're the same ones who always picked on the smart kids at school -- the same ones who laughed when those kids were tormented for success. America has earned the succession of loser presidents that it has had since the 50s.
People like myself don't have a say anymore. People like myself don't have a chance in politics anymore. It's not about how passionate you are about positive change or how informed and creative you are anymore. It's about how well you can smile and lie through your teeth about how much you love your fellow man and how well you will defend the things they all care about out of the goodness of your heart in spite of proffered money for doing the opposite. As long as you can encourage the uninformed to vote, and you've got the heart of those who don't understand what interests you really represent, you can win -- even if you don't have the most votes.
This is why I no longer care. American democracy is a lie.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
There are really only a handfull of nations out there where the citizens can truly force changes if they make the effort (without resorting to widespread violence), and despite the current state of the system, the US is still one of those nations.
Of course, the key words there are 'make the effort.'I have a question to all you Slashdot readers out there...
How many of you have actually gone out and demonstrated, tried to get into a real conversation with an elected offical about your views, in short, gone out and made an effort to change things......and how many of you spend your days sitting in your cushy chair writing slashdot posts about how every day you are losing rights.
Whining won't preserve your rights. Sitting in your chair writing Slashdot posts won't change things. How many of you (If you are a US Citizen) have gone out and done something real, and how many of you are /. hypocrites?
I whine and moan about how my children won't know freedom... and I have never done anything about it. I bet you haven't either.
It's the only place safe from becoming a victim of American foriegn policy.
Brian
Know your rights.
These are your rights.
Number one.
You have the right, not to be killed. Murder is a crime. Unless it is done, by a police man. Or an aristocrat (*cough* OJ), know your rights.
Number two.
You have the right, to food money. Provided of course, you don't mind a little, investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers, rehabilitation. Know these rights. These are your rights!
And number three.
You have the right to free speech. That is, as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it.
Know your rights. These are your rights.
-----------
Right to Bear Arms (most states have gun registration, gun cards, several cities curtail or prohibit gun ownership, or handgun ownership, I believe we have federal laws requiring background checks prior to purchase, many kinds of guns are banned, including "high capacity magazines" containing more than 10 rounds, (define high capacity), many types of auto loading rifles because they are civilian versions of military weapons, or replicas. Many new laws are currently being drafted requiring locks, or even electronic or biometric identification devices which prevent the gun from being fired by a non owner)
Right of Free Speech (yeah, go ahead and register an internet site called www.intelfiredmebecauseimover40.com, see how many high-priced corporate lawyers and conservative pro-business judges feel about your right to free speech)
Right to Record stuff on ReplayTV (for now, wait until the new hard drives come out that prevent you from recording certain things)
Right to download p0rn (um, ANY porn? kiddie porn? hey, you don't live in Tennesee, do you? Just wait until Bush Jr. and his buddies get ahold of Congress for four years, we'll probably see laws against downloading pictures of women without veils by the time they're through (oblique reference to the ultra-conservative taliban of Afganistan)
Corporations ARE evil - they are run by a system of rules and behavior that puts money-making at the top of the priority list, regardless of any other ethical, moral, or humanistic values. "fiduciary responsibility" is just another way of saying "I don't get paid to listen to my conscience" which sounds remarkably like the rationalizations used by pimps and gangsters. Immortal, faceless, immoral, soulless beings, worshiping at the altar of Mammon sounds pretty evil to me.
Just because Nazi Germany was bad, and Czarist and Communist Russia was bad, and most of Central and Southern Africa, and North Korea, or Communist China are bad, and all pretty terrible examples when compared against the US, doesn't mean that the US is good.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
An american friend of mine who lived in Denmark for several years and then went back to the states (since a family member became sick) told me that he wanted to go back to Denmark as soon as he could. I asked him why, since it puzzled me that he sounded so desperate to leave the US again.
"In Denmark people care about each other, in the US people care about themselves" was his explanation.
I live in Denmark and is very glad to do so. I see the US as a great nation, but no better than so many others. It bothers me to see americans talk about the US as if it's the "best country on the face of the planet". Americans seldom leave the states (at least thats my impression, judging from what I've heard (from americans)), so how do they know this?
/ Casper
Asking the Slashdot readers about freedom in the US is probably a pretty bad idea. If you look, you will see that America is a very free place to live- for white people, especially white people with money, and more specificially, white men.
Slashdot, being a site for geeks, is mostly going to give you responses by white men with money.
If you want the real story, ask some of the over 50% of black American males in prison. They make up over 80% of America's prison population, yet only 15% of the prison population as a whole.
Or you might ask the families of black men like Amadou Diallo, shot repeatedly, including after he had already fallen to the ground, because a white police officer claims that he thought Diallo was reaching for a gun, even though the only thing he had on his person was a small wallet.
Try asking Leonard Peltier, who has been a political prisoner for years because the government wanted a scapegoat for the killings of two FBI officers.
Or you might ask any of the blacks and hispanics recently set free because the LAPDs rampart division thought they looked like gang members, and framed them for crimes.
You could ask the people who lost poor family members in Vietnam while people like Bill Clinton and George Bush scammed their way out of going through political connections.
America is free, but only for a select few. The rest get screwed to serve those select few.
Then again, try to find a country that isn't just as bad. Europe has a few nice little countries, but if a big war breaks out in Europe, they will be prime invasion targets.
Canada isn't bad, if you can handle the taxes.
Australia looks nice, but isolated, and we all know about their government's attempts to censor all net access.
To wrap up, I'll paraphrase Ben Franklin: "[American] democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
New Zealand: Pro - It's a Nuclear Free Zone. Pro - Wide variation in climate (Surf on the N. Island and Ski on the South). Pro - No predatory animals. Pro - No photo ID's issued. Con - Spawned the 'Thompson Twins'. Australia: Pro - They drink a lot. Con - Spawned both 'Yahoo Serious' and Rupurt Murdoch. Conclusion: New Zealand
The U.S. is a lot like Linux. You can do pretty much anything. That's both good and bad. It's really a question of what you do with it. If you are lazy, you are probably better off with limited options like a MS product. It may not work all that well and have limited functionality but you won't have to think too much about it. If you are motivated, then you can handle the extra work that having more potential brings.
Frylock: That's not a toy!
Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
No self-defense for law-abiding citizens allowed either.
If it's against the will of the people, it isn't democracy.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
In all practicality, you can say that since in this coutry that deterent is non-effective, you can have to your guns to be a pseudo vigilante. And there is nothing wrong with that if you are strictly defensive in your use of them. But protection from ciriminals et al is a weak argument for the possesion of individual firearms, especially in coutries that have less obnoxious crime rates.
However, the argument that rifles are the people's freedom's teeth, should be valid in any coutry. Its their insurance against bad government.
Ever heard of something called a 'brain drain?'
Okay... Medical services cost money. People who perform medical services-- that is *doctors*-- expect to make a living. Furthermore, since many medical procedures require a high level of skill and preparation, perhaps a lifetime of study, doctors do and should expect to be paid very well. You can argue all you want about overpaid doctors, but just read up a bit and see what they have to go through, between demanding work and the pressures of being sued out of existence if they slip less than a hair's breadth with a scalpel.
You know what? I wouldn't trust a completely government run program to pay me what I'm worth, were I a doctor. That's one of the problems we have now with HMO's, and they're not even on the scale of a government. Any time you divorce pay from worth, and base it on need, you're in trouble unless someone, somewhere makes up the difference.
"This is a system that I would feel is the best possible," you say. But, are you a doctor? No, you just want. You want to be cared for. As if its a right of yours. Because you might die. Well who gives a shit, other than you and your family? Should a government with laws and guns force a talented person to perform acts of repair and therapy upon you for less in return than those services are truly worth? A doctor's good will only goes so far.
So you know what? When someone is underpaid and undervalued, and they see an alternative, they leave. Even if it is leaving their country. And, the most talented individuals are the first to leave. Thus, Brain Drain.
The price for universal health care, in the end, is a brain drain and a tendency for lower quality care. Period.
The best possible solution? Personal insurance. Why? Because poor health is usually an accident. I'm not always sick. In fact, many more people are healthy when one person is sick. So, if all of us pay a little bit into a pool, you can take it when you get sick and we are healthy. Now, since this is a business, there is overhead, and other talented people need to be paid their worth to run it. But in the end, your overall individual cost is less than constant medical coverage. And, pressuring HMO's notwithstanding, since these companies don't directly control the price of medical services (they just collect money), that price is controlled by the market.
Normally I never post unless there's only about 300 comments, but I'm breaking my rule due to this question striking SOOOOO close to home.
/keeping/ their power to /expanding/ their power (well, except at election time). PJ O'Rourke phrased it that a politician's income isn't money but power, and he will seek to increase his power income just as you or I would seek to increase our money income. And that any politician who claims he wants to reduce the size and scope of government is saying he's going to sneak up on himself and steal his own wallet. If the framework of a nation had no mechanism for corporations to lobby for favors, protection, etc, "corporate power" would be a non-issue. Why are patents causing problems? They are a government grant of priviledge, not based on a natural right (I oppose intellectual property in all forms, based on economic analysis). Remember when RAM prices shot through the roof for a while? Micron implored the FTC to impose a tariff on RAM imports because foreign vendors were supposedly "dumping" their wares in our market (which was of course bullshit). If the feds didn't have the power to levy tariffs, that couldn't have happened. "Tax breaks" for corporations and "the rich" (BTW, I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I believe the top 5% income-wise pay over 75% of total income taxes in the US. The poor and middle class pay so relatively little taxes, that ANY significant tax cut will, *cough*, "benefit the rich") wouldn't seem so evil if we put in perspective how many times more we pay in taxes than the founding fathers ever reasonably expected.
;) Russia is somewhat similar this way. If you look at their laws, you could barely tell their not still communist. But everyone ignores the government. The majority of the Russian economy is conducted on the black market. The small nation of Monaco, if I'm informed correctly, has no taxes. But it's a tourist country, so everything is expensive, and you'd have to learn French :(. And in fact, that's my biggest trouble, is learning a new language. Believe it or not, the US is actually pretty well in front when it comes to freedom among English-dominant countries. The UK has high taxes, gov't control of many industries, and Nazi gun laws (which its former colonies, Australia and New Zealand, have copied). Canada is similar, in that it's only a little bit worse (what with worse gun laws, higher taxes, and socialized medicine). I was sorta thinking Switzerland. Lots of English speakers, a long tradition of firearms, and the world's greatest banking system.
;) But I think we can all agree that leaving the country is more practical than waiting for /that/ to happen...
I share your fears. I've been pondering the question of fleeing the tyranny of the United Socialist States of America for quite some time now. It's amazing any of us today know what real freedom IS considering we've barely had any since the New Deal gutted the soul of America. If the Founding Fathers rose from their graves, they might recognize the geography, but the nation would be alien.
At any rate.
Remember to lay blame where blame is due. A corporation cannot strip any of our freedoms without at least the implicit cooperation of government. Only governments have the legal power to use violence against peaceful people, and so any time you lose a right, you lose it to a gov't. And a little historical reflection will demonstrate this to be the rule, not the exception. The prime concern of Machiavelli's Prince was not the welfare of the people but the maintenance of his own power. Modern subjects are far less revolutionarily inclined that 16th century Italians, so our politicians can shift their goal from
But that's not really the point.
South American countries strike me as being good options. On the face of it, they try to be as socialist as every where else. But pragmatically, their governments are so weak and thinly spread, that if you find yourself a quiet corner of nowhere to live (Banos, Ecuador, a wonderful little hot springs town, comes to mind...) you can pretty much live how you like. However, it's hard to get good 'net access in these countries
Of course, things in the US might get better before they get worse, if we say, elected a Libertarian president
MoNsTeR
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
Feodor Dostoevski, Russian novelist, 1821-1881
By this standard, one might be better off in Russia, even with its huge incarceration rate and multi-drug resistant TB epidemic in its prisons, than in the US.
Here's why:
In 1994 there were 14,300 victims in the jails at any time and that 290,000 males were victimized in jail every year, 192,000 of them penetrated. Once "turned out," a victim is earmarked for constant further assaults. With a repeat rate very conservatively estimated at every other day, and counting gang-rapes as a single incident, this gives at least 7,150 sexual victimizations a day in jails.
Nine per cent of the hetersexuals had been raped; 7.8% of them had been anally and 5.7% orally penetrated, but white heterosexuals were 2 to 3 times as likely to have been penetrated than black heterosexuals.
In 1996, released prisoners made up 17% (39,000 cases) of the total number of US AIDS cases and 13.1% to 19.3% of all people with HIV infection (98,000 to 145,000).
Russia and the United States lead the world in their use of incarceration. Russia jails 690 people per 100,000 citizens, while the U.S. rate is 600 per 100,000. The U.S. rate is higher than at any previous time, and it is 6 to 10 times higher than the rate of Western European nations.
The US incarceration rate has more than tripled since 1980.
A THIRD of the Russian prison population, about 350,000 inmates, will be released this year.
An estimated 4 million Americans are infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV), with between 20 percent to 60 percent of the nation's 2 million prisoners infected.
Seastead this.
There are several studies available that try to reduce this question to science; the best I've found are:
e con_free_2000/.
Freedom House (political rights and civil liberties): http://freedomhouse.org/ratings/index.htm.
Fraser Institute (economic focus): http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/books/
Also, the U.S. State Department does on on religious freedom: http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/irf/i rf_rpt/index.html.
When looking at these, do not neglect the methodology sections; you may or may not agree with the measurements and criteria.--
lairdb
"...and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys."
Ok, for the most part, California is "free" - but if you look closely at its laws, and what is currently going on, you will see it is rapidly becoming a police state.
Case in point: California recently enacted legislation (as of the first of this year) to drop the number of guns that may be legally registered from over 1000 to approximately 150. Colt Firearms said "Screw You" to various provisions, and pulled out their stock, and told gun dealers they could get refunds on the stock they still had.
Supposedly, this law doesn't affect private party transactions. But if you want a small, concealable gun in Cali - good luck in getting it legally. Same if you want a gun that can't be "locked" (ie, a trigger lock, with a physical key - not a safety).
Somehow the politicos over there think this will stop something. Murders? Crime? Who knows - at any rate they have thier heads up their arses like backwards ostriches.
Want a more free state? Try Arizona (though in Maricopa County, Sheriff Joe sucks big time - it sucks to live in a state where a county jail is listed on the top 10 Amnesty International problem jails). But California? Bah!
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Mention freedom in relation to file-sharing and patriotism, and 700 comments are to follow.
Maybe our heads are on straight after all. I just wanted to comment that I'm pleasantly surprised at the amount of intelligence I've discovered reading [most] of the comments under this article. Keep it up, guys.
As for my opinion, I'm also a bit worried about our increasing tendency to censor that which takes away from the big businesses. Remember, this government was created by the people for the people, not for big business. Someone in charge needs to get that through some important skulls...
there is an interesting cross story on kuro5hin.
Don't mod me up. I already have 50 points.
-no broken link
Apparently I got the absurd case scenario mixed up with reality.
Say, if you wish, I can take up a collection to send the fundamentalist USians to Ireland.
Ya spend too much time readin' /. and not enough time doing anything about the problems.
The system only works when "We The People..." people actually do something. Just because it's the land of the free don't mean you get to sit back and let everyone else moderate themselves. Sure you can't censor but if your neighbor is peeing on your rose bushes and letting his dog crap in your yard, don't expect the cops to just pop up out of thin air. It's also the home of the brave remember, so stop being a conspiracy theorist addict and fix what you think is broken.
Although if we all ban together and it still doesn't get fixed, hm, we'll get Malda to call them militia guys in MI.
aztek: the ultimate man
No sig for you!!
United States citizens are taught as children in public schools to believe that the US was the first free country and that it is still the freest country in the world.
This may have actually been true 100 or even 50 years ago, before the rise of uncontrollable federalism. Around the turn of the century, when the national income tax was passed, a US congressman was laughed at for suggesting that a 10% maximum be encoded into the law. He was mocked because nobody believed that a single American citizen would ever agree to give up a whopping TEN PERCENT of their income to their government.
But today, United States citizens pay around 50% or more of their yearly incomes to various taxes, including income taxes, sales taxes, automobile taxes, etc. etc.
Add in the costs of living, and very little disposable income remains, except for the rich. Americans are generating plenty of income, they just don't get to keep any of it. This is similar to slavery, although admittedly the living quarters are better. We do get private homes and cheap TVs, for now.
-- laws are the opinions of politicians --
-- laws are the opinions of politicians --
I didn't expect to see shite like this posted to the front page.
Q: Why are coprorations trying to take away your control of your own hardware and software?
... no such place exists.
A: Because the government hands out monopolies that back up with legal force the pretence that information has scarcity (a property only of physical stuff). This has recently become technically infeasible, and will eventually become technically impossible sans a police state. The corps likely don't grok where this is headed, they just want the old days back thanklyouverymuch. And they most certainly don't grok that what they're in essence doing is living on corporate welfare.
Q: Why are corps so geared towards idiots?
A: Most people are idiots, or more accurately behave like idiots. Yeah, most of the world look like dumb sheep - because they are hiding and repressing their individuality and brains. Won't get you laid, won't get you in the boss's good graces, won't make you liked by all those folks out there who don't want the boat to be rocked. Heck, you could get used to it, so now you're the one who doesn't want the boat rocking, lest you have to look in the mirror.
All those people out there, they're living second hand lives. They're a market - for nostalgia, or free lunch fantasies, for feel-good secondhand heroics, for white picket fences and good ol' christian puritanism. The corps are just feeding where there's food, so to speak.
Q: Why are corps such damned cowards over unpopular speech?
A: The state of the law makes it impossible for them to be anything else. The bigger the corp, the bigger the target - and the bigger the example to be made. Your elected officials are just itching to lean on them. You don't like that? Then why did you vote them in?
Q: The biggie: where can you go to avoid all this crap?
What you need is a country where the law is freedom and rights. Rights, not entitlements - the protection of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not a blank check drawn against someone else's work. You need a country where it's considered uncool to be a sheep. Where there's democracy, but it's limited so your rights can't be taken away. You need
But if you want the next best thing: a place that could become that, and is already headed in the right direction, well, you're already there. Welcome to the US of A.
Oh, and vote Libertarian next time, okay?
America is a beautiful country with more potential than any other place on this planet. We do however have some major problems. It's people like you that ruin this country. People that complain about the political process yet fail to do anything about it. When is the last time YOU read the constitution? That is the problem here. YOU have the power to change this country, except you choose to sit on the sidelines. If only 1% of all American's bothered to learn just a little bit about our political system and actually checked up on the voting records of our elected officials, we would have something infinitely better. Our founding father's created an amazing constitution, the framework of country. But that's just it. It's only framework. The people need to fill in the gaps. You are standing back looking and the framework saying that it doesn't work, yet the reason it doesn't work is because you standing back and looking at it. You need to step forward and become part of it! I doubt you even know who your representatives are, or what their stand is on specific issues. THIS is the problem with this country. So instead of bailing out, abandoning the problem that YOU are contributing to, get educated and get involved. This is for the people BY the people. I feel saddened that you don't even realize that you hold the key. Matt McMahon Baltimore, MD
Does anybody want to know why I still come to slashdot everyday? /Insert witty childish retort here/
Because everytime I see a "story" like this posted I about fall on the floor laughing my ASS OFF. Is this guy on crack? Perhaps. Or maybe hes just been ODing on way too much of "Jon Katz" brand proproganda lately. A combination of the two would seem to be the likely cause.
"Corporations dont care about our rights - wah wah wah" - "The Government is out to spy on us and track our every move blah blah blah". Bullshit. These are the same mega corporations that seem to recall computer chips on an almost daily basis, whose private corporate networks are hacked into almost more often than that, and who still after fifty years of research cant seem to produce a vehicle that doesn't require petroleum to run.
How sad is this? Very sad. Why dont you people get some grow some sort of balls and instead of running away from your perceived problems - try facing them head on. Everybody on slashdot is always crying "Boycott this - Boycott that" but within a week you'll always find a story saying "Buy it now - Buy it now" (DVDCA anybody?)
You people are sheep and nothing more. If Slashdot told you the world was going to end tommorrow as a result of some insane Roswell/MkUltra/Microsoft plot to take over the world - you would believe it.
The real conspiracy/problem here is the slanted vision of the world today that slashdot has presented you with. Most of you are dumb enough to take it at face value - a few of you don't and those of you are probably reading slashdot for the same reason I am.
Either way - take it or leave it. Just keep in mind there is more to the world than a bunch of pre-pubescent linux geeks who think the world owes them something.
Gam
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
Yes, thats right. We are actually a pretty good country to live in. Why do I like it here?
Some downsides exist
All in all it presents a great lifestyle here, sure there aren't as many opportunities as the US, but the lifestyle more than makes up for it.
Australia is a great country too, but they have much stronger unions, and some stupid legislation :) I'd prefer to live in Sydney over Auckland any day though.
Oh, and being in the temperate zone, we don't get the lows your are talking about, perhaps 0 C, and in Christchurch where I live up to 30-35 C in summer. Quite pleasant and not really life-threatening. :)
Cheers RedIguana
PS Yes I've travelled to quite a few countries, and have friends in many of them, including US, Canada and the UK. NZ still offers the best lifestyle.
You put your finger on an important issue here. Not everyone shares these priorities. In fact, when it comes to big business, priorities are almost inevitably reversed, and profit comes first. It's like driving a car - people feel anonymous and so are more likely to behave badly - little fear of repercussions or damage to their reputation. Corporations provide a similiar anonymizing shield for their officers, and the pressure to perform - produce profits - is often enormous. Given that the direct effects of a corporate officer's actions usually aren't felt by that officer, and you have a recipe for bad behavior that certainly isn't going to be in the best interests of customers.
So while ordinary people like us can sit around and say that human rights should come before profit, the reality is that the companies which are infringing on our rights do not, on the whole, share this perspective.
place to live for safety, freedom, and quality of life?
(ObDisclaimer about hating to sound like flamebait or troll) but really, only an American could say such a thing about their own country (let alone about America!)
I think those of us in RoW are well aware of the corrupt & shallow US political culture, obsession with material success & status, barbaric policy of executing black people (and keeping many of the rest firmly repressed, whilst claiming to be the land of equality and fairness for all), highest proportion of population in jail, etc etc.
Let me add that the several Americans I've met personally IRL and (mostly) on the net have been mostly intelligent, nice, probably good people. By shee, you must all get pretty intense brainwashing.
Haven't read the other comments yet but I'm sure others will have mentioned this piece on the Other Place. Interesting and largely flamefree comment from a wide variety of opinions. Let's see what the people have posted here on /. ...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
The fact that you can read about and discuss potential threats to your privacy is a pretty good indicator that you could do a lot worse. Given that businesses want to make a profit, they are always going to move in the direction that helps them maximize that profit. It is the place of government and the voice of the people to pull in the other direction in order to keep a reasonable balance. This equilibrium shifts all the time, but in general hasn't continued in any one direction, be it good or bad (and whatever you consider good and bad, someone else calls bad and good), for any sizeable portion of our history.
So businesses trying to make more money via any means necessary and people doing what they can to make this known and reverse the trend is just how this little country of ours works.
On the other hand I take the freedom to enjoy my and retain my health because healthcare freely is available to all fundamental, and find it difficult to concieve how a society which denies healthcare to some because they cannot afford it can be 'Free' in any meaningful sense.
Some freedoms, such as freedom of speech, are observed by all countries which could claim to be free. However even here there's differences - I personally would go along with the European view that Nazi and Rascist literature should be censured - because I consider the freedoms of minorities not to be hassled by such groups as more important than the rights of the these people to complete freedom of speech. Most Americans would seem to disagree, but I can see the merits of their argument.
What REALLY does bug me though is the assumption by many Americans that there is only type of 'Free' society and the US of A is the shining example to world. That really sucks.
How do we compare the tax rates when taxes are so nested in multiple layers that we can never truely understand exactly how much we really pay in taxes once everything is tallied up?
Think about it, I don't know about the rest of the world to be honest, but this is the frustrating thing about american taxes.
Here we pay:
social security, income tax, real estate tax, gas tax, sin tax, highway tolls, death tax, sales tax, import tax, corporate tax, license tax, etc...
Now, on top of that and the variations in each of those taxes for each individual we have the taxes we never see when we purchase goods, ie, the taxes that get passed on to us by the people that make the goods we buy and the people that transport those goods.
None of you can tell me for sure exactly how much of my income is REALLY taxed when you come down to it and consider all the money we give to our government. Give me back the money I give to the government so I can buy my own security, my own medical benefits, my own retirement, etc. I'm a better shopper than the government will ever be and anyone can buy what the government buys if they want it bad enough.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
So, the rich have the power to control who gets elected. They can buy their representatives of choice a seat in the congress. So, what does this mean?
Government control is a freely traded commodity.
As for positive rights, its a hack. Its a way of helping those people who the system has screwed over from day 1. Dont believe that since your 711 has a help wanted sign that everyone without a job is a deadbeat. How do they get to work? Where do they sleep? How many employers hire homeless people? Oh, and lets not forget that the majority of the people Americans enslaved by law during its beginning are still enslaved by the economy. God forbid we try to help them out.
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Post intelligently or don't post at all.
It's FAR from perfect, but we don't have military coups even when our election process is completely hosed.
Variations of this was heard again and again during the recent election fiasco. I seems many Americans actually believe that their country is the only one in the world who would not have a coup, riots in the streets, etc in such a situation.
How clueless!
But fear not. If you hate the Democrats, hey, they're gone. If you hate Republicans, they're damaged goods. With neither side having a mandate, your political activity might actually amount to something, about like the Shas party decides Labor-Likud deadlocks in Israel. Just don't skip the country like you'd quit a shitty dotcom. Stand and fight. On the techie front, do all you can to shoot holes in any pretensions to cyber-lockdown or corporate hegemony.
For the record, I live in Amsterdam. It's not bad, and the government is liberal on things most geeks might care about. Booze is cheap, while gasoline is expensive. Guns are definitely not allowed, though. Amsterdam, at least, has enough trouble with guns, what with a large gun-running bust last fall and the occasional Yugoslav mob payoff killing (one victim was a landlord, hooray!).
The bureaucracy is a hassle, with rules for everything. There is no unregulated space in NL. A few big drawbacks: The national security service (BVD) got their ISP wiretap law passed; cultural cleansing of squatters by the Amsterdam mayor to open up loft space for yuppies and webvertising boys; people staring at you a lot; Dutch people don't give you much chance to practice the local language. I've lived here 2 years and I like it a lot. I plan to stay long enough to win resident alien status, but I won't give up my U.S. citizenship. If you have serious experience in IP routing, serious web programming, or *nix, then you're hot here. The pay's not what you'd like, but it costs "only" as much as living in, say Adams-Morgan in DC or Montrose in Houston (my only basis for comparison). Tax is high (about as much as living in DC), but they don't blow the money on prisons or wars on drugs.
There is now and there will always be a tension between the interests of one party and the interests of others. People don't complain about this much when the tension is person vs. person, since one person is never a conspiracy. The minute government or a corporation is involved, however, the conspiracy theorists come out of the woodworks with the belief that there is a concerted effort to undermine their personal freedoms. There is no such effort. There is simply an ongoing ebb and flow based on the conflicts that arise in a normal society.
With respect to the progress of personal liberties, they have change--some for the better, some for the worse--but are on the whole the same as they were 10 years ago. More important, those liberties are now better shared by previously disenfranchised Americans than they were 10 years ago.
It is true that you need to be vigilant about personal liberties. But being vigilant does no mean:
We are looking for somewhere that is temperate to live with a decent technological advancements. Any ideas? I am primarly scottish, she is Irish, however I don't think that either of these countrys could support our careers.
If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank
5) Internationally, Americans are considered ignorant, rude, bossy, and vain.
...
Contrast with Canadians, who are considered internationally as polite and friendly;
There is no exaggeration here. I have many friends that have travelled to countries abroad (especially Europe) and the best advice they gave me is to keep a Canadian flag visible at all times. The amount of contempt for Americans in Europe is beyond belief in some countries.
I guess being a "bully" doesn't pay off all of the time, "eh"?
----- rL
Right now, government charges what they want because you can't move somewhere better. At some point in the next 5-10 years, more and more people's business will be conducted on the net. For example, I do website development. I could perform my job functions pretty much anywhere, if I could get a good net connection. If I can work anywhere and make the same amount of money, why would I choose to live in a country that taxes such a large portion of it away?
--
PaxTech
Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. -- Diderot
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
We never had a true democracy, just a Republic loosly based on the old Roman Republic. We elect representatives, they break promises to us and then they either get re-elected or voted out of office. Corps pay for their campaigns, and then want some control/power in exchange. So bills get passed and such and then the kickbacks come into play.
;)
Is the USA really that bad? Could it be worse? Like Thailand or Mexico where the economy is real bad and the government is corrupt. Maybe if you had the money, or saved it up for 10 years and learned the local language you could live in Mexico or Thailand like royalty if you give money to the right people. That is, until your money ran out or someone backstabs you.
Maybe Canada is more to your liking, just a bit up north. Or maybe the UK, just slightly north and over the big pond called the Atlantic Ocean.
Or what about Greenland and Iceland, if you don't mind the cold a bit. Or head south to Australia for 90 degree weather.
No matter how bad America gets, there will always be a place that is worse. There may even be a place that is better; however, no place is Uthopia on this planet. Every country has their own problems, and if you move there you have to deal with them.
Andy Kaufman talked about an island called Caspia, but said it sank into the sea. Not sure if it was real or not, but maybe that was the last place on Earth that was a paradise?
can you please give english translations? not all of us know latin or whatever the heck that is.
Anyone in the know care to comment? I've heard lots of good stuff, and the country/climate seem to fit my tastes. Would love to hear more about the quality of life, freedoms, etc...
Regards,
ehintz
Some one smater than I am said. The most vigilant are the woried and paranoid. It is people like you, the worried, who are willing to get up off their butts and make sure that freedom continues to thrive in the US.
Your question proves to me that you are the kind of citizen the US needs to maintain the freedoms we have. Please stay.
One thing though... freedom and saftey are almost always opposites.
Hey, I worked in US for a bit just outside the capital area. You call that freedom? You get watched everywhere you go it seems. Security checks for public monuments that are more stringent than what I get at the airport back home.
Canada, I feel safe. Not only from crime, but from "Big Brother" or whatever you wanna call it. Is the government watching my back? Ha! Don't know and don't care because I know nothing will happen of it.
Yup, I feel FREE here (not as in beer), I can do and go wherever I want and nobody really bothers me.
Look, if you are used to living in the USA, Canada is similar. Except nobody's after us, and we're a laid back peaceful lot, so Da Man has no reason (or money) to keep an eye on everyone. That and we managed to teach our kids Metric. We don't live in igloos. Really.
(Hey, but if you come up, leave your guns and pissy beer down there, eh?)
Economy is one of those things that just happens. It goes up, it plumits down. I disagree. I believe that Alan Greenspan has done a remarkable job on the state of the economy since his inception into office in 1987, the economy has almost constantly improved. I think that our economic situation right now, if it were to be credited to any one body, should be credited to the hard work of mMr. Greenspan and the rest of the Federal Reserve. Of course, I also believe that no one organization should be given credit, rather, it should be acknowlegd that the hard work of American companies to produce affordable, high-quality products, and the staggering rise of computer technology (wheeeeeeee!!! Job scurity!)has produced an environment conducive to growth and prosperity.
Voting Libertarian is the only way to make yourself heard on the issue of "Losing Freedom in the U.S."
-K.
It hasn't been for many years. Everyone knows Canada is the best country in the world in which to live. Sure, they have their problems, but the UN can't be wrong 7 years in a row can they? (Well, they probably can, but it's still a nice gesture).
Mmmmmmm. Floor pie!
The US has no nationally established church; some states used to have them, but they were dismantled by popular demand in the early 19th century. Therefore, the only religious institutions that survive in the US are the ones that can command genuine loyalty from their followers. And some of these institutions have enough followers, and enough organization, to be a political force.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
I'm more concerned about his treasonous behavior with regard to China than I am about where he plants his wick. I'm more concerned about all the coverups, all the scandals. All the Arkanside.
Hay thar.
Now, let's address your concerns.
The major political systems here and abroad, are republican systems parliementary systems or monarchic. These are all more alike than not. (If you have to RUN for office or STAND for it or get knighted for it, its still the same. Its NOT democratic. Get that foolishness right out of your head.)
And I suppose you have a solution to this problem? You don't? - I then suggest you read this article.
Corporations will justify anything for the bottom line. Corporations have absolutely no morals, no conscience and neither heart nor head. They don't care, they really DON'T CARE about how many people get killed, maimed and ruined by their corporate lack of conscience.
Let's begin by checking what a corporation is. A corporation is a body, formed by people, that is authorized by law to act as a single person. So a corporation is basically a group of people. If those people are immoral then the corporation will be immoral and vice-versa. Many of our fellow residents of Earth are immoral and evil, but I don't believe the majority of shareholders of big companies is evil.
Let's, however, assume that the owners and executives of a given company are immoral (evil?) and don't care if people get killed etc. Who are going to stop this big bad company? The consumers, of course! You must remember that you, the consumer, also have responsibility. If you buy products made by company you find evil, then it is your duty to stop buying products from that company. This strategy has worked pretty well over the years. Nike, for example, has improved the working conditions in it's factories because of public outcry. Shell now has a human right commissioner and most ads from that company state how nice the company is to the environment and to it's worker, just because of a "little incident" in Nigeria.
Corporationism can readily weigh profits versus the volume of lawsuits resulting from injuries caused by the products of shoddy workmanship.
Some corporations do this. If you don't like it, don't buy products from that company again and get your friends and family to do the same. Show that you care.
Corporationism can readily sell crack to kids while forcing them to fuck for food and shove me and thee to wage-slave jobs in the "maquiadoras" by rationalizing that they are merely "filling a need."
I don't know where you heard this. Selling crack to kids is illegal, no matter if you are a corporation or an individual. And I don't see much difference in an individual selling crack and a corporation selling crack. At least, the same company would have a hard time breaking into other markets than the "crack market" because of public opposition. Would you buy hamburgers from Mc'Donalds if the company also sold crack?
The internet is being dismantled by people who want to stop paying anything to produce any content but make you pay everytime you access the same old content, over and over, because its gravy, all gravy.
Now, I don't think all the free content on the Net will just disappear just because some corporations will decide to charge for content.
Invented by a Canadian - true.
But the U.S. plays it really well, I'll grant you that.
To be perfectly honest, i find it strange when people whine about this or that problem in US. This is the biggest benefit of our country - if you don't like something, you have the power to change it.
"The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
Hostilities in the MidEast predate any American President. I am sure, at best, this accord will be a temporary bandage.
I think that the US has long ago stopping being the place to live for safety, freedom, and quality of life. Look at those three points and you will see that the US is quickly falling behind...
Safety: Lets just compaire this to Canada for a quick moment. In the US it is relativly simple to own a gun. A majority of households in the US have at least one gun in them. If you compare that to Canada where it's quite hard to own a firearm, and very few households in Canada have guns in them. It's been proven over and over again that having a gun in your home will make the chance of a accident happening MUCH higher, and that accident has more chance of happening then you needing that weapon incase of a B & E into your home.
Freedom: Kasreyn mentions that the corporations are getting more and more power within the US economy, I's like to point out that is exactly how a market economy works. If I remember correctly not too many years ago the US was in a cold war with Russia about which economy was better... I personaly like how Canada's economy works. It's a mixed economy and it seems to work rather well, as both the people (government) & Corporations have a say in how things are run. (most of the time).
Quality of life: I'm not going to get into this in much detail, but the UN has picked Canada as the best place to live for a couple of years, I think this is all that really needs to be said. I personally think Canada is a great place to live, and plan on sticking around here for quite some time.
Anyway, Comments are gladly accepted. :)
-Eric
I never said there were no good sides to sharing. OBVIOUSLY sharing is good. What I actually said was that "forced sharing...is the antithesis of freedom".
Note the adjective "forced" a property which, in itself, provides none of the benefits you list. Also note that the forced aspect is antithetical to FREEDOM. It may very well be GOOD, but it's not FREE.
--
MailOne
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
How is that America's, the country's fault? It's the fault of the people who went along with it and the people who could have stopped it but didn't. Pepsi has passed no laws, they have stopped no one from forming militias or worshipping Baal if they want to, they have not usurped any power reserved for the government. I agree with what you said, but a crime must be attributed to the committer.
Why leave? Well, for one, our rights are being frittered away. At work, the Consitutional rights we have to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are not recognized. We are not free at our jobs and are serfs to our bosses. We have no control over ourselves at work, which I think leads to the high levels of depression the nation is experiencing, as well as workplace shootings. The worst thing is that since we are so wedded to our free-market ideals and since many of us still love business, then this isn't going to change. Capitalism is like an abusive husband - it may treat you really well at times, but you just know that you'll get smacked around again before long, and one day, it just might kill you.
As we lose power over ourselves at work, we are also losing political power. The democratic rights that we fought very hard over 350 years to gain we are now pissing away through ignorance and complacency. America isn't perfect, and while problems will never go away, that shouldn't mean we ignore them. Corporations rule our country, and that means that neither you nor I nor any associations we form will have any sway over our government.
How do we fix this? The answer, ideally, would be through democratic action, through organization and political action. Instead, I see this country creeping towards fascism. Notice all the posts here from people extolling the Second Amendment the the way to guarantee our rights and freedoms. That's a very telling thing. It used to be that we had some sense of civic virtue, of public good, that would carry us through. We thought that we could take to the streets or use our vote to fix things. Perhaps that was a bit naive, but it did bring many successes in the 1950s and 1960s, to name one period of many. Now, we are turning to violence, or at least the thought of it. That is not a good sign.
I say fascist not just because of the love of violence, but the rabid anti-leftist attitudes many in America hold today. I often wonder if I am the only person in America today who is not ashamed to call himself a liberal. It is one thing to disagree with liberal ideas, it is quite another to blame the demise of the nation on them, the way that has been done lately. You also have a large group of white males (though by no means all) who are very threatened by America's diversity. These people will not react well when they are in the minority. I also have a feeling that once America sinks deeper into decline, that these people will become increasingly vocal and try to turn the clock back in a number of ways. Remember, that is the circumstance that brought Hitler and Mussolini to power, as well as Thatcher (who though not a fascist, did have some overtones of that sort).
So, should I leave America? I am reluctant to just give up, but I also don't want to stick around when things get ugly. Where do I go? Australia? Canada? The UK? Europe? I hear Ireland's great. But they all have their own issues.
I think that, within 200 years, we will see the triumph of older traditions over those we see in America today. I believe that in places like Europe, or China, or India, among others, there is a deeper sense of history, none of this silly "invent society as we go" business we see here. At the same time, America is the modern Roman Empire, and though the political USA will eventually die, cultural and ideological things that are American will live on, just as many Roman things survive today. But the death of that political USA, like the death of both Roman Empires, will not be pretty.
In the meanwhile, I think this century will see an American Diaspora. Many Americans will leave the country for greener pastures, getting out of the worsening situation here. They will go to places with old traditions, and will be shaped by them, but will also bring along their American ways and ideas. It will be an interesting mixture.
Where, again, to go? The most ideal place is to the stars. But I don't think mankind is headed out that way for a long, long time. Space exploration is a dying thing, which is sad, but it cannot last when we as a people place profit and instant gratification above our higher ideals and ambitions.
Most of you who read this will probably think that I am wrong. I am certain that I am not and that, like Winston Churchill's deeply unpopular criticisms of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the course of future events will prove me right. I wish I would be proven wrong.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-John Lennon
I was chatting with a girl from China the other night and she actually scaried to tell me about religion in China...When was the last time you were scared for your life when you talked about something casually over the internet?
From a legal point of view, military officers, including the Commander-in-Chief, are subject to the law. The US Constitution (article 1, 8, cl. 14) empowers Congress "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." (Perhaps some legal wacko will deduce from this that Congress has no right to regulate the Air Force, and so Clinton, in a fit of pique before he leaves office, might call in air strikes against the Capitol and the Supreme Court. :-)
From a practical point of view, if the President's armed forces are sufficiently loyal to him, then they would follow his orders to kill Members of Congress, the Supreme Court Justices, and my little dog Toto. However, that's true of the armed forces of any country in the world.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
On the other hand, look at the foreign country of Japan: some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Look at how much (read: how little) violent crime there is. All this with a culture saturated with violent and sexual manga, much more media saturation then North American culture...
Libertarianism is as good a choice for people who are hurting, as it is for us fat cats. State and federal government nannyism, and protectionism is often just as damaging for those who are being helped as it is for the rest of us who are paying for it. The minimum wage is supposed to help the poorest workers make more money. In reality it forces companies to lay off some of those lowest paid workers so they can afford to keep on the rest. It prevents companies from hiring people with very limited skills who WANT to work, even for limited pay. Minimum wage PROTECTS un-competitive industries from the threat of companies that DO have access to cheaper labor, and forces us all to pay higher prices. No!! Not everyone is capable of achieving an equally comfortable or even secure life style. Government can't give it to you. If unemployable people can be as well off as hard workers, then hard workers are going to quit working. The hall sweeper shouldn't make as much as the engineer. Libertarianism says that the Constitution should be strictly enforced. We want the Fed Gov't to provide national defense. We don't want our Gov't to go off gunning people around the world because we don't agree with them. You talk about "safe neighborhoods." Why are some neighborhoods unsafe? Here are a few reasons: Cities have criminalized gun ownership, forcing otherwise law-abiding citizens, who only want to protect themselves, to break the law in order to get an "illegal" gun for protection. Thugs who have guns, run free because they know there are not too many others around to mow them down if they get out of hand. Our Country has criminalized drug use and possession to such an extent that in neighborhoods where there is a lot of drugs, most people are AGAINST the cops, because the cops are the ones that came and arrested my brother, father, uncle.. Since drugs are illegal they are expensive and dangerous and uncontrolled. Expensive drugs force addicts into criminal behavior in order to afford the habit. Regulation creates Monopolies on Health Care and Medicines. Only a limited number of doctors are allowed to enroll in Medical Schools, due to limits and regulations on what a "Medical School" is. Only those with the "official accreditation" can practice medicine. This year it cost me $500 to have my 7 stitches at an Emergency Room. 12 years ago I could have gone to my family doctor and had those 7 stitches for $50. The best kind of system is a SELF REGULATED system. A reoccurring them in libertarianism is that a Federal Government is not capable of regulation most things very well, and that a SELF REGULATED system, while it will also have it's own problems, will be cheaper and better in the long run. Why doesn't America have the best Elementary and High Schools in the world? Because our Government's have created Monopolies. These Gov't Run Schools ( Monopolies ) don't have to do a good job to keep getting customers. They CAN get real bad, and you still have to send your kid. In a more Libertarian system, if a school was bad, parents could put their kids in another local school, or start their own school. The bad schools would go out of business.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-B.Franklin
You mean taxpayer-supplied, available at the whim of Government healthcare?
The kind where doctors can go on strike (France) or your healthcare system can run out of money and start rationing (Canada)?
Well, I guess we won't resolve this particualr religious issue today. Suffice it that Atlanta is the greatest city in the greatest country in the known universe, and I'm having a great life!
668: Neighbour of the Beast
you are free to not enter into contracts with those big bad corporations...
... For now. If the corporations had their way, nearly everything we experience in a day would come complete with an implicit license agreement. For every word you read, every song you hear, etc., it would be understood that "you may not record, reproduce, remember, and/or repeat the words, lyrics, meter, tune, or any other linguistic or rhythmic characteristics of this work." One can just hear L. Bob Rife screaming at the top of his lungs, "Dammit! They don't have any right to that information!"
--LordEq
Tho' your promise count for nothing
...you're quite right. While I'm at it, theoretically speaking, communism as Marx put it sounds absolutely gorgeous, too.
That said, theory and practice are oft two completely different beasts. Human nature or what have you...
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
It always amazes me that so many US citizens are so bind and believe all the crap your media is feeding you.
I moved here from Australia and was really surprised to find my freedoms practically non-existent. You have all the usual Western freedoms on paper, but for all practical purposes you might as well live in China - there is little difference.
The main difference is that here your freedoms are limited not only by government but mostly by commercial organizations.
Capatalism is at fault - it completely stifles competition, leaving all the power concentrated in a relatively few multi-national companies.
It is a sort of 'tragedy of the commons' in disguise.
The quality of life is poorer here than any Western country I have visited (only 5-6). The quality of goods and services is terrible. Businesses only care to milk as much money from consumers as possible - they are no longer moral entities that care about the society in which they operate.
Consumers have no choice and no power. Citizens are force to be consumers at every turn - even education costs money!
(alas that is increasingly true in Australia of late too).
Can't even watch TV or listen to the radio without advertisments brainwashing me to part with my money (unless I pay a cable/sat company to get ad free programming)!!
I'll never forget the first time I experienced an unsolicited caller at my home trying to sell me magazine subscriptions. When he mentioned that this is the land of the free I immediately laughed. Only to stop myself as I realised in amazment that he was deadly serious!
He didn't seem to grasp that his government was responsible for putting him in a position of having to go door-to-door, essentially, begging for money! Including assulting my freedom to be undisturbed in my own home.
There are no easy solutions of course. But perhaps Capatalism has been taken to an extreme because it is an ideal identified with freedom in this country. Perhaps just putting the brakes on it a little will help a lot.
(i.e. make businesses more responsible for the societal consequences of their actions, and maybe limit the size of companies. Why do companies need to just get larger and larger - richer and richer? - ask what for.)
-- end rant --
/..sig file not found - permission denied.
One more thing...
Being Canadian, I'm quite pleased that the government allows me to say no to drug testing in the workplace if I choose to do so. The fact that so many American corporations require drug testing sickens me to no end, and I find it appalling that your government does not protect your freedoms more than this.
Drug testing is obtrusive and digusting. At the last company I worked for, I was requested to fill out a form giving the company a right to ask me for drug testing. The only reason I was asked this was because the company was based in the US. I refused, and could not be forced to sign such a form.
I mean, what the hell? Do big corporations want to post people in my home at night to make sure I'm not having any sex that might be offensive and reflect poorly on the company? Do they want to monitor my personal relations to ensure that I am not involved with people in my spare time that they do not approve of?
So much for rights and freedoms.
v
I just came home (Atlanta, USA) from a trip to the U.K. (former home). While there I met up with some friends of friends who announced themselves as committed socialists.
I had an interesting conversation with them, and discovered their main point to be:
"We believe everyone should be clothed, sheltered, and well-fed. We don't trust the free market or charity to accomplish this. Since we distrust humanity in general so much, we're going to enact a government that has the power to redistribute wealth to accomplish the things we think are good."
There. That's their socialism. What it reduces to is the human urge to make people live the way you want them to live.
It happens in two major ways: religion and politics.
Religion: Live the way we want you to live or we'll hurry you on to our vision of hell.
Politics: Live the way we want you to live or we'll jail and/or execute you.
And there's no escaping it.
You asked for recommendations on where to live? Stay where you are, since you can't currently escape humanity. The best you can do is proselytize. Which may make you an interfering bastard too.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
How can a corporation infringe on your rights unless the government gives them that right?
.. I just want to make money. After all, it's not as if the people can get their gas somewhere else. And it's not like they can go without it!
Often times, government gives corporations the right to infringe on the rights of citizens through inaction. Let's say that I own an energy company, and that I am the sole supplier of natural gas to a certain region. Looking at the weather report, it seems that the weather will be 20 degrees colder than normal. As a shrewd businessman, I decide to triple my prices. It's not as if there is any shortage, or any supply problems
Here the government infringes on the rights of its citizens by not taking action and allowing the company to engage in such outrageous tactics. That is to say, it infringes on the right of its citizens to pay a fair and equitable cost for its energy based on market conditions and operating costs and to not be price-gouged by greedy suits out to line their pockets with gold.
I realize that many of the Libertarian bent would suggest that those who freeze or starve to death in such conditions do so because of their own actions, and that their passing would represent the natural order of things. However, reasonable people recognize that the right to equitable energy prices is not at all the same thing as the right to "free food" or "free healthcare." The role of the government is to protect its citizens from all threats, both foreign and domestic, and an energy supplier who tried such a tactic would be the epitome of a domestic threat.
What libertarians (and big-government liberals) don't like to hear is that there is a definite, but limited, government role when it comes to corporate control. The control cannot be heavy-handed to the extent that it interferes with the ability of the corporation to function, but at the same time, corporations cannot be completely unleashed to do whatever they please. History has shown us that this more often than not leads to disastrous results.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
What power scramble? They already have the power! Say what you will about Ralph Nader, but he's got the corporate issue nailed solid. They hold all the keys.
I'd like to hear you say that from a wheelchair or a mental hospital, which you landed yourself in by your "own fault" of being in front of a moving car or something...
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad, in some way or another" - Doctor Who
Which CEO ordered people to "go out and poison the town's water supply"? (None.)
That's why you never hear of them being sent to jail for it.
Now, there have been _accidents_, but accidents don't have the level of _intent_ necessary to make a criminal case.
You'll never hear it from your friendly neighborhood leftists, because leftists lie.
And just as an aside, what does putting CEOs in jail do to enhance anyone's freedom anyway? Maybe you also think that if a CEO loses an arm, you'll automatically grow a 3rd arm?
Is it just me, or did the Florida fiasco remind anyone of the Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy in the Hitchhiker's Guide? Some dottering old fool with no real opinion on anything.
Yeah, it's probably just me.
It's the government that can seize your property and break down your door in the middle of the night based on nothing more than a rumor that you were involved with drug trafficking. It's the government that wants to make sure it can read all data traffic. It's the government that seizes a hefty percentage of your (and my) income every year. It's the government that presumes that anyone using or carrying large amounts of cash merits suspicion as a criminal, and that wants to put the banks in the business of monitoring your financial transactions and reporting anything "unusual" to them. The government can seize your property and pay you what it cares to, or declare your property a wetland or habitat for a supposedly endangered species and thus render it worthless to you and unsaleable. Much as I despise Microsoft, they've yet to do any of these things to me.
You're so far off track it's amazing.
I happen to live in Windsor, Ontario, but work in Detroit, MI - so I get to experience both cultures every single day. I also get to pay both sets of taxes (although a deal between the governments mean I only pay the normal mount of Canadian tax, it's just that most of it goes to the IRS instead of Revenue Canada.
As far as taxes go, my average tax bill has been roughly $1000 CAN over what my US taxes were, and all of that has been Ontario taxes, most noteably the "Ontario Fair Share Health Levy". Given the reduction in tax rates this coming year, I expect that my 2002 taxes will come out mostly even. So much for "overtaxed"
Standard of living? I've lived in all of the largest Canadian cities, and a lot of the smaller ones, and NOWHERE have I seen anything like some of the slums you see in inner city America. Even the worst parts of Montreal and TO have NOTHING on Detroit, Chicago, and Philedelphia
Canadian freedom of speech has been addressed by others better than I.
If you want to see idiots on major highways, go visit Florida. Bring an extra air bag.
Don't EVEN get me started on Customs agents. I cross the border twice every day. The Yanks seem to recruit from the ranks of the Criminally Surly, whereas the Canadian side is quick and painless.
Health care? I had to visit the Windsor Hotel Dieu Emergency room about a month back, and I waited a whole 5 min to see the doctor. Paid not a dime. No complaints.
Weather? Come on. You can die of exposure anywhere. You're reaching now....
The ONLY things good about working in the US are the stronger currency and cheap gas. The US banking system could suck-start a Harley. I can cash a cheque at any branch of a Canadian bank in seconds, but the US banks - independant to a fault - will hold cheques from other banks to up to a month, and there's nothing at all like Interac in the US. The US government beauracracy is nothing short of byzentine - I never thought I'd have anything good to say about Revenue Canada, but next to the IRS, they're positively delightful. And don't EVEN get me started on the US court system.....
All you have to do to learn to TRULY appreciate Canada is go work in the US for a while. There isn't a day that goes by where I'm not glad to be Canadian.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Ahem... 1st society is based SOLELY on the social contract I.e. rules of civilized behaviour. Such as I don't steal your stuff because I don't wish to have my stuff stolen. As for me, I am middle class. I am there because I WORKED for it. As for corporations, I take a strict interpretation as to what powers they should have. Many of the founding fathers did not like the idea of corporations, calling them eternal citizens, which over time would gather power unto themselves. I would support reform in the IP laws to protect corporations "property" for a VERY short time at which time it should become public domain. As for believing that educated and tech literate are the norm, no I do not believe in such impossible goals. I simply believe that we are born with the inherent rights to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness, NOT the guarantee of happiness. In my world it would be up to you to support the downtrodden if you so chose, but only those causes you believed in, not those force fed to you by washington.....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I enjoy it here. Though, I like snow a lot, so I would like to live in Sweden or Norway. My wife does not like the Swedish and Norwegian languages though.
It is very hard to get a handgun in Denmark though, and we do pay a high tax. However, we (in general) feel that the benefits we enjoy are worth it.
Scandinavia is nice. Come visit sometime.
Australia and New Zealand are other interesting options as well (I'm a New Zealander)
You trade a little more tax for better health and a lot more personal safety.
Still - I tend to agree with what some people have said in this discussion: it can be disheartening when corporations abuse their powers and governments do little to stop them.
The problem is not that governments dont care - often they and the general populace do not know what issues are occuring in the IT world. The only usefull solution is to go forth and educate.
You can leave for another country (and from my travels in both the first and third worlds I wouldn't live anywhere but NZ and Australia) but ultimately the problems you are avoiding remain - and given the way politics everywhere is becoming more global, you may find that the same issues come back to haunt you.
In essence, I think you should fight rather than run, and a first step in fighting is figuring out how to let other people know what is going wrong (whether it's the DeCSS trial or MIAA or DMCA....)
Your choice.
Once again Adam Smith saves the day.
Oddly enough, Ireland is not as bad on this point as you might think. The age of consent in ROI is the same (16) regardless of sexuality, whereas here in the UK it's still 18 for gay men and 16 for heterosexuals.
I still wouldn't want to live in Ireland, but that's more for cultural reasons.
--
Xenu loves you!
Does the audience out there honestly feel less free now than they did 10 or 20 years ago?? The only place a lack of freedom ever enters my life is when I have trouble finding drugs, and is that necessarily a bad thing?
> If you have something different to say, you're
> told to go elsewhere
I'm sorry, but if someone doesn't want to listen to your viewpoints, you don't have the right to corner them and blast it in their face with a megaphone. The administrators of information channels certainly do censor information; if they didn't, not only would those channels be completely overloaded by all those wanting to put their own slant on life, but they'd find their customers leaving in droves.
Of course, those channels may be subverted by interests wanting to limit the spread of bad news. IMHO, this has been the case with network news in the United States. But when the media is censored, it becomes less attractive, and opens the possibility of a less-regulated newcomer coming along and eating their lunch. Look at what's happened lately, with the introduction of the Fox News Channel.
Yes, there are only so many channels available on cable television, and it's possible for ALL the channels to be subverted. Thank goodness for the internet. Whenever one source is dumbed down, expect people to move elsewhere. Even the normally liberal networks recognize this; look at the difference between the information made available on CNN's website versus the pap they show on television.
If you want a forum to publicize your ideas, you have it. It's here. Now. Make it available, advertise it, and if it's interesting, expect people to read it.
http://hmofix.shambala.net -- an idea of my own. So far I haven't gotten much interest; but you don't see me bellyaching about it.
I never seem to have mod points when I stumble on a good post like this..
--
PaxTech
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Your comment is weird. You are judging Norway on things you would find in the US. Of course coke and McDonalds are more expensive in Europe. Those are American products. That doesnt mean that eating well costs more. Having been to France(Not Norway but still) and the US, I can honestly say that eating and drinking well is cheaper there. Its like youre saying "Its more expensive to live like an American in other places than the USA"
Unfortunately, I could not find all five studies. I was able to find this one.
--Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Am I missing something, or did no one mention Amsterdam? I don't know of any country in the world where peoople are more truly free.
Slashdot is not a scientific sampling of society; as such it is not necessarily representative of society. If you have a specific concern, you should explicitly describe it.
It seems like corporations have no desire other than to strip us of what few remaining freedoms we have, and the government is doing nothing to check their power scramble.
When you say, "what few remaining freedoms we have," you make it sound like you think you are in a concentration camp or police state. That would be an extreme attitude that has little bearing on reality.
It appears that you don't like the courts' decisions regarding property rights (those are the Slashdot articles that I've recall that have anything to do with corporations and court action). Have you ever heard the phrase, "There are no easy answers, only intelligent decisions"? Just as you and I have rights, so do corporations and those who finance record labels. Yes, sometimes people have used the courts to get something that was legally theirs, when it appeared that there were some odd ethical situations (such as suing others for copyright infringement when one's own work is based on copyright infringement). However, government cannot run on the basis of ad hoc feelings of right and wrong; if there were no standard for behavior, society could not function.
What I'm wondering is, just how bad IS it? Is the United States still the best choice of a place to live for safety, freedom, and quality of life?
Violent crime in the US is at the lowest level in decades. Unemployment is extremely low, inflation is low. George W. Bush has been elected President, and the Republicans hold the majority of the House and Senate in Congress.
Maybe you would be happier somewhere else, but I doubt I would be. BTW, I've visited Canada, Mexico, Spain, France, Italy and Israel.
I used to be all patriotic and really I believed that...now I'm not so sure.
I used to believe people who said they used to be one way, but now have second thoughts, but now I've been on Usenet long enough to think most people are just trying to hide their agenda when they say such things. "Cynical" ... yes, that's the word.
I've been keeping my eye on other nations as places to live, and tallying whether they are cutting down on their citizens' freedoms, as well as whether they seem likely to be in any wars in the next 50 years... I'm personally getting tired of living in a nation where apparently no one in the capital city has read its constitution, or gives a damn. Where everyone elected to high political office breaks the oath they all take, to uphold and protect that same constitution.
Do you have any specific violations of the US Constitution in mind, or are you just using a dramatic word image for the effect?
I'd love to hear what my fellow Slashdotters have to say on the subject. If not the U.S., then where should I go?
Now, there's a wide-open invitation!
Please, no national biases, give me some actual info about places worth living. I'd like to get some ideas on this NOW though, so that if I decide to leave I can get out before doing so becomes a problem. (Did I mention I'm probably too paranoid about this?)
How about this; virtually every developed nation on Earth will be in some sort of armed conflict or face some sort of national crises in the next 50 years? The people in undeveloped nations, of course, will simply starve to death (except for their armies, but you probably wouldn't qualify).
If you don't like my suggestion, there is another option. You could work to make your world a better place. One way to do that is to learn what is really happening (from MANY reputable sources), learn what the laws really mean, and be careful with your facts.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
As for freedom, looking at the cabinet of our new president (largely corporate or corporate-friendly managers), I can hardly expect it's going to get any better.
Corporate Power is on the rise; it's no longer the government being big brother, it's corporations buying power and using the system to their own amoral ends. While there's something to be said for corporations (I work for one too) and their value to society, they have exceeded the point of being controlled by regulations to any significant extent.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
You're speaking from an American point of view; for some reason, many Americans cannot understand _why_ Canadians want to pay tax for a healthcare program that helps people like heroin addicts and homeless people.
Frankly, I can't believe you can't understand many Americans' point of view as to why government social programs are so abhorrent.
Personally, I don't think people move out onto the streets and become addicted to heroin because it's fun, or because there's nothing better to do. Usually, these people have more serious problems than a mere heroin addiction.
Their choice to start using herion was their choice, not mine. And their herion addiction is their addiction, not mine. Why should I be forced to pay for someone elses choices or addictions?
I'd like to think that if I was having such serious problems that I turned to hard drugs to alleviate the psychological pain of what was going on that someone would be available to help me break free when I was ready to do so.
And who will pay for that help? You would think that you should take care of your own problems, so you would pay for it. But somehow you seem content with the idea of government taking money from those people who are NOT wasting thier lives on drugs, who are trying to earn a living, who are working to support thier families, and who generally owe nothing to drug addicts they don't even know.
People make mistakes; life is about learning. I will make mistakes in my lifetime, and I'd appreciate it if people were there to help me. I'd like to be able to do the same for others. A heroin addict is not a depraved lunatic; s/he is merely a person that has made some wrong choices, and needs help.
And I would appreciate it if someone was there to give me free food whenever I got hungry. After all, no one should go hungry, right?
It's the heroin addict who made the choice to become a heroin addict, and s/he should have to pay for making that choice. This is the very definition of responsibility. I guess in your mind you think the government should force me to pay for things I don't want to pay for and pick up the slack for people who feel like the best solution to their problems is through heroin.
You might prefer to have your fancy cars, but I'm quite content aiming away at something so commercially shallow and helping my fellow man, thank you very much.
How insulting! The implication here is that the only thing I have to spend my money on is "fancy cars" and that I'm not concerned enough about my "fellow man" because of my own greed. My car is ten years old and I plan to drive it to its grave. I am a homeowner. I pay my bills. I raise my family. I save money for my retirement. And, believe it or not, I have problems too. But at least I am responsible enough to take care of my own life. And perhaps if the government wasn't taking my money and feeding it into its many failed, backward, ineffecient, vote-buying, income redistribution schemes then I would have more money to give to charities. As is, government takes my money to give to drug addicts and homeless people who can afford beer, cigarettes, and cable tv.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
safety Sorry No. Go down and have a look at the 'murder' columns, shows a value of deaths per 100k. US ends up w/ double digits with countries like the USSR, Latvia & Brazil - Drastically higher than sub 2 values of star performers like Canada, Belgium, Greece and Japan..
p lanet scenario that is our current future).
freedom Sorry No. Have a look at the Corruption Index (Scroll to Table 1), American Imperialism (and here), McArthyism.. I wont bother with the links: DMCA, Marijuana Prohibition, Prostitution, Collusive Monopolies (RIAA/MPAA), The Cuban Embargo, Kent State Massacre, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bay of Pigs, Iran-Contra Affair, Watergate, Assassinations of John/Bobby Kennedy & MLK, Invasion of Granada, The War on Drugs, Internet Censorship in Schools/Libraries, Consumerism, Work holism, Invasion of Dominican Republic, Gulf War, Systemic Racism (weak gay rights)... etc etc
quality of life Sorry No. Canada has the highest Standard of Living on the planet - 7 years running...
I went to Chicago for NewYears eve to visit some friends. On the way home we heard a news reporter 'lead out of a story' by saying "...and after all; we are the richest and most powerful people in the world." What I began to think is that Americans have begun to treat their 'democracy' (*ahem*) like a Religion. There is no debate. They have enjoyed a very good 150 years - and like all successful civilizations; it will eventually end. If America didnt have such a large piece of 'virgin' North America to exploit for natural resources, and did host a World War (or two) Im betting the world would be a very different place. The 'success' of America dosnt prove the 'rightness' of Capitalism - so get that out of your head. America's 'success' is not success at all! (See adbusters.org about consumerism and mindlessness). America would do itself a favour and learn a little collective humility. Surely the last election has taught you something...
The system has been horribly corrupt by politicians and business people 'on the take'. Their is no longer anyone in Washington who intends to lead Americans. To help America lead and become better global citizens - and try their best to help set a good example - and take examples from those who are already doing good. No person on this planet should be without the rights described in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the US Constitution (or similar documents written or yet-to-be written). Like it or not this is a Global Village and we should be working together for the good of us all.
I refuse to become cynical and jadded. People will respond that this is 'The Real World' - to that I suggest people decide what we are choosing to make this 'Real World' become? Like it or not our collective action/inaction everyday sets the course for the future. We need to stop the 'present' America from setting the course that it is now (and using arms/propaganda to force others into capitulating). (I wont bother with the globalization/imperialist/enslavement/end-of-the-
Please American PEOPLE do something about your government.
Excellent question, even if some think it was ridiculous or made the wrong assumptions.
In America like anywhere else, freedom is tied to money, but I believe the percentage of people above the critical line is greater here than other countries. If you are a Slashdot reader, I'm assuming you have enough money for a computer, probably a job, etc. You aren't in a ghetto situation, where the police officers assume you are a criminal, or they don't show up in time, leaving rule by the strongest.
Our Constitution and courts reign in the worst of those who oppose freedom (on both the left and the right). For the most part, you can do as you wish, as long as you don't do it publicly. You can do quite a bit publicly, as long as you are willing to fight in the legal system to secure your rights. If you are that type of pioneer, more power to you.
What we may not have is freedom of the mind. While I'm typing here in Slashdot, exercising my freedom of speech, there is an anoying little banner ad for Compaq. It flashes every few seconds, in a red that contrasts most of the page - in other words, it's hard to ignore. I ignore these all day, but they have to be hammering on my subconscience. Every day I'm confronted with advertising trying to appeal to my baser emotions and instincts: in the newspaper, on the web, on TV, on billboards, on the radio, in my mail...
We like to think these don't affect us, and many of us are savvy media critics. But look around you, and see if you've bought into the notion that you need to buy things to be happy. Ask how long it would take to pack up your things, if they would fit in a backpack, what you would do if it all disappeared. Because we now believe that items will make us happy, we need a larger income, which means we have to work, and work hard. It takes a lot to save up for that Beowulf cluster.
With that, at least 8 hours a day now belong to someone else. Is that freedom? Most of us get 2-3 weeks vacation, while Europeans get a month or more. Is that freedom?
Even when we have become desensitized to the advertisements, they still color the mass thinking. Politics is no longer about the best candidate, but the best looking candidate. I could found a better president-elect, even if I was restricted to the Bush family, but George W. sure is pretty!
This is the great irony - our nation's success is due to a capitalistic model, which allows private life and certain freedoms, but the tools of capitalism (advertisements) slowly sap our free will and ability to exercise that freedom. The biggest struggle in this country is not against an oppressive government (or even oppresive corporations), it is the fight to get back your own mind.
If the US were no longer the "best" country, or "number 1", how long would it take us to notice? I'm willing to bet that it would take us (in the US) a long time to notice, and that our pride would get in the way of us noticing. That said, how can we be sure that we still are "number 1"? Maybe we should start thinking about this now, before the day comes when we finally realize it, and it will be too late to do anything about it.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Not wishing to be insulting to Americans, or start a flame war, I'm genuinely interested in knowing what Americans (in general) think of the UN. I've got the perception that they mistrust it and see it as a foreign, interfering body trying to dictate their national interests. Much like some "Euroskeptics" feel in the UK, and most of the world feels about the US. Is this right? How does that contrast with people from other countries?
1) The United States has the worst government in the world...if you get rid of all the others. 2) Corporations already have more power in the world than some smaller countries. With the current merger rate how long will it be before they start catching up with larger countries. Who has more power in the world GE or Peru?? In my opinion the only reason to belong to a country or governmental system is for protection. Most corporations feel no threat from anyone in the world except their competitors. There was a time when doing buisness in another country was very risky, you were just as likely to have your goods stolen as you were to sell them. A country could protect you and hence you paid them tax (protection money). A good example would be the shipping industry. When there was an every present threat of attack from a rival countries, corporations needed countries to protect them. Now a days that the US pretty much protects EVERYBODY, and with no real threat of attack, almost every ship I have seen is registered in some podunk country like Panama, which has the lowest per ton registration fee. In other words corporations don't need governments anymore and they realize this, the general public does not seee this, mainly because the corporations have the government do their nasty dirty work, by paying off politians, hence the government looks bad. Seriously if a big corporation wanted to clear cut the whole rain forest all they really have to do is hire enough mercenaries to take over a large chunk of Brazil. The reason they don't do this and why it is infeasable is that there would be a world wide public out cry. So they do it with slight of hand by taking it piece by piece through the government and the government let's them because they know they are lucky to be getting something, anything from the corporations. Disclaimer : I am NOT a tree hugger. I will now get off my soap box
Doesn't Albania already hold that position? See _Eat the Rich_ by PJ O'Rourke.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I'm a Canadian. I've been living in the United States for over five years. I don't like how the United States is devolving, but as long as I can make "Net" more money than I can in Canada I will continue to work here. I say we milk the United States for all its worth and then go to our safe homea, our pockets lined with the money of the United States. I see so many parallels between the decline of the Roman Empire and The modern Western world it scares me. Home may end up no better off.
Some information
(taken from RTMark).
What that means is that Corporations, originally entities created by citizens to better society, have been given the same legal rights as human beings. Why is this scary? Because they have far more power and far less accountability than a human, and a much greater desire to profit at any cost (if Darwin was a economist, he'd have realized that corporations are more likely to to survive if they develop "killer instincts").
It seems to me that the greatest oppresive force in the world today is the corporation. While the US is allowing corporations to gain power, the problem is global. It doesn't matter where you live, unless your home happens to be in a Nation that opposes things like the WTO. Corporations are attempting to rise above national boundaries and laws, so you are going to have a difficult time hiding from their effects. I suggest moving to a powerful country like the US, where you can vote. But where ever you are, make your voice heard, and take action. Action, as in boycotting corporations which act against the best interest of humankind, or (if you live in the US) supporting this proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution, which is an attempt to reverse the 14th Amendment.
The United Nations committee on ....whatever, has for the last 9 years named Canada as the best place in the world in which to live. It's citizens have more freedoms than americans, ie. the government can't tell them where they can travel. They have national healthcare and education is subsidized so anyone can afford to go to university.
Values have shifted or more to the point are being shifted. It is interesting to look at things like the impeachment of B.C. in light of what was said by his own party before the trial began. Just as it is interesting to see the many times that B.G. and his company bold faced lied as well, but also faced no consequences for their actions.
Court cases, half the time, are not argued about whether or not someone did something. Instead the defense does their best job at pointing out loop holes which do not directly relate to the issue at hand. I was on such a jury and it took the better part of the day to straighten out what our purpose was because of the curve which most of the jurors had followed listening to the defense.
At the core, the system design is great. The problem exists in the abuses of the system. Unfortunately, as the founding fathers pointed out, this system will not work for an unjust people. There are people who function above the law because a significant portion of people actually get away with the same thing and as a pot are not about to call a kettle black.
Until the american people refocus their values and hold their politicians, judges, lawyers, etc. to the same standard, the system can not help but to fail. It is like a computer program receiving bogus data, it can not help but yield a wrong result (correct based on the input).
The shift in focus/values is being orchestrated by such entities as political parties and big business. They are using means which are not on the radar or right and wrong for most individuals, i.e. what is wrong with role-playing a trial? Nothing if the purpose is strictly to analyze your communication effectiveness and logic. Everything if you are seeking to produce a result which is not based on the facts as much as it is based on pushing people's buttons to yield the result you desire.
In a place beyond time and space, in a land far better than this, look for me there...
...then perhaps we have a misunderstanding of terms. You seem to value the freedoms of expression and association, cite examples of when those freedoms were taken(by liberal administrations) then mention that you want a more liberal govt. ?!?!?
Canada being more liberal is attractive?
I don't follow. Without using the terms "conservative" or "liberal", please describe the features that you would prefer that a govt. have, and those that you would rather not have.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Really? Is that what it boils down to? Freedom of captilism? That is alright and if your quest for life is in the almight dollar, I am not claiming to be high and mighty and willing to spend the rest of my life in poverty to prove my point, however what is freedom of person and politics as opposed to a fatter pay check. Even as matieralistic as any other Amerikan I would have to say that freedom is a small price to pay for a little less cash. I live alright here, no real issues, but if I can live a little more free, less worries on a tighter budget that seems like a pretty small sacrifice.... Have we really gotten this commited to money?
If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank
Hi. I fully understand your feelings about moving away from the US. Living in a country where the president-candidate with the most votes doens't get to sit in the white house, choosing a president which hasn't been outside the states more than a handfull times, choosing a president that didn't care for politics until a few years ago.
Move to the "old world", Spain, Denmark, France, you will end up in a country which spents more money on education for the average person, than what the states spent on it's population. Good luck!
Try moving to Canada and let their government take care of you. See ya back here and all patriotic again in less than 5 years.
ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!
I would suggest that you not look to somewhere, or someone, else to ensure your freedom. Don't look to a piece of paper or to politicians to help you stay free. Look at the graphic - it says "We the People." Not "We the Government" or anything else. We're just people, and to stay free you have to MAKE your freedom. The only freedom you have is the freedom you make. The only justice is the justice you make.
Make your freedom. Destroy that which is confining. Undermine that which is restricting. Become principled. Eschew the common culture. Learn how to use weapons. Learn how to monkeywrench. Learn how to eliminate that which inhibits your freedom. Only then will you be on the path to freedom. Otherwise, you're just another sheep, subserviant to others.
And most importantly, don't infringe on others freedoms. If all of us just adhered that alone we'd never even have to worry about the rest.
This guy isn't the same one who wanted to know if he could get the same salary for a much easier college degree, is it?
So let me list the groups of posters that have responded to this inane question:
1. Nationalistic posers with an inferiority complex
2. Yokels that have screwed their lives up beyond repair and are now mad at the US gov for not fixing it for them.
3. Napster users
4. Drug users
5. Very few intelligent and honest people
6. Me
You know, I hear a LOT of people where I live talk about how the US cannot compare to their original country of birth. Canada is better, England is better and yet they cannot answer me the simple question of why they currently reside in the US and not their homeland. They don't want to tell me that it is because they stand a better chance of making a successful life for themselves here then wherever they did come from.
These posts make me laugh, all of these people are saying "move here and this is what the government will give you or this is what you can do that is illegal in the US!" All except the opportunity to make yourself into the most successful person you can be.
And lastly, if you are even considering leaving the US for such a ridiculous reason as "Wah! My freedoms are being taken away!"...go. Go now and never look back. We are better off witout you.
ps. Props to Bill Clinton for making the United States even more hated and vilified by the world at large than before.
If all the people who are worried that freedom is going to slowly disappear leave the country, there will be no on left to fight for freedom and the "bad" guys will win.
Now I could argue on who the "bad" guys are (I blame polititians more than corporations, they just want to maximize profit) but that argument is for another time.
America is a great country, although it's losing it's luster. Maybe we are too concerned about making money to focus on other things like freedom. Priorities like "let me own 20 AK-47" are more important that someone secretly spying on your phone calls, or checking your e-mails, or.....(you fill in the rest) Any form of gun control is shot down (Brady Bill for example, 3 day waiting period to own a handgun) yet the FBI is getting it's Carnivor (sp?) system through congressional hearings mostly intact.
Back to my point. STAY! FIGHT! RESIST! but if you want to make a back up plan (incase we lose) that is definately prudent.
Remember that what goes around comes back around again, and that no great empire has lasted forever. Keeping that in mind, the American people should be more conscious of what their tax dollars are doing, specifically in the arena of military. Take a look at what is being done to the children of Iraq by the so-called land of the free:
d ef ormities.htm
http://www.wakefieldcam.freeserve.co.uk/extreme
http://www.azzam.com/html/iraqhome.htm
Take a moment to remember all of the nations colonized, raped, and abused in the name of "democracy." If you're serious about injustice, then you would take your degrees and use them to improve the world around you.
The fact of the matter is Americans are not ready for a real war, or a real time of struggle. The minute Americans find out for example that they can't have a simple shower every day, let the looting begin. Years of individualism, selfishness, and capitalism has destroyed any hope Americans have to work together for improvement. When challenge comes to Americans, Americans will turn on each other.
When the slaves become your masters how will you answer? And don't fool yourselves into believing that voting is of any use. How can you contribute to a backward system, when a true and wise man's vision would be to destroy it?
Where will you be when it all falls down? I'll be as far away as possible.
Not quite true. Japan was voted as #1 for one year but then they lost it back to us because of polution and overcrowding.
--
--
Todd's Law: All things being equal, you lose!
"Had" being the operative word in that sentence. I have nothing against Americans in general, but out of all the 1st world countries I can't think of a more depressing place to live. I'm sorry but a country where it is your constitutional Right to carry a machine gun for the purposes of self defence, and believing everything is OK with this is a country with problems. As a result America has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. Not a month seems to go by where we don't hear about another school massacre. Have you noticed how you never hear about incidents like this in other countries? I wonder why that is?
Also your love for sueing people. Just last month someone signed my guestbook threatening to sue me. Sure I think it was a joke but you really do take it to far.
I could go on, but I think enough people are already bashing America, and the worst thing is you don't seem to realise.
In a more idealized society, where such crime was less likely, there would be little use for defensive firearms. When the "founders" of the US constitution envisioned the right to bear arms, they were not thinking of criminals swarming the streets that civials would need to fend off with guns. What they were concerned with was Big Brother and Co.
As a solution for the abundance of crime, increasing police numbers, or toughening penalties wont do anything(short of becomeing China). So the individual is left to fend for himself until the Government finds out how to make legal life more attractive. (legalizing drugs? Raising the minimum wage to the living wage?)
So there is an argument based upon the current crime situation for personal firearms. Its a secondary argument to the political one though. (If the system were doing its job, etc)
Don't be silly. Corporations can in no way take away your freedom. Only the government can do that. Corporations can take away your choices, but how in the world would a corporation take away your freedom?
From the Tao Te Ching:
People tend to vote for politicians who promise to "get things done."
The things that the government(s) "get done" are the source of more problems, sometimes even more severe than the original problem.
Yet, people will still turn to the government to correct the new problem.
The growth of government into tyranny is probably inevitable, given the factors above.
This will remain a problem until the mindset of a citizenry evolves to the point where they realized that the best course action for a government usually involves doing Nothing.
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
We do not have free elections in this country as long as the electoral college exists. There is absolutely no reason for anyone in my state who is not a right-wing republican to even go to the polls in a presidential race. Logic might dictate that: as long as you're gonna have a wretched electoral-based system, you might at least divide those electoral votes proportionately among the top winning candidates -- but nooo-oooo-o ... it's winner-take-all in my state. The entrenched party bosses don't trust the will of the people; they need to keep the deck stacked in their favor. But, Dave (I'm told), we need the electoral college to protect the interests of the smaller states. Well, I'm from Nebraska. You have my explicit permission to dump it. It is only serving the entrenched 2-party system.
How can anyone take our criticism of other peoples' elections seriously? I remember people guffawing at the old-style Soviet elections, where there was often only one candidate appointed by the party for a given office. Frankly, I don't see a hell of alot of difference between that and what we have now.
I don't know if it is different elsewhere, but once upon a time in my state (Nebraska) we were allowed to vote for party "electors". Somehow, sometime, when no one was looking, the parties changed the rules and decided to have them appointed directly by the good ol' boys in the smoke-filled-rooms. This, of course, ensures that we'll be stuck with an ideologue instead of a thinking individual. And politicos who rig the system in this manner still have the balls to wonder why there is rampant voter apathy.
Countries fall when governments lose their legitimacy. I desparately hope we can reclaim ours.
Has any country ever tried to tackle the problem from the other side -- putting a financial disincentive on the corporations' involvement in politics? For instance, put a tax on corporate campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures. Ideally, this might reduce the amount that corporations spend on politicians and politics, which might make the personal contributions more valuable to said politicians.
You are aware that the USSR wasn't communism, right? I never purported anything Marx said to be even remotely feasible; that said, I still think it's a lovely plan for a utopian society (would you rather have your psx2 or would you rather sleep well at night knowing that your neighbors and their kids aren't slowly starving themselves to death because of an imbalanced distribution of wealth?) but, as you correctly point out, human nature's a bitch; same goes for capitalism.
Not everyone gets off on the same foot, and most would rather step on those below them than give them a hand up. In the vacuum of human nature, either capitalism or communism or pretty much anything else sounds wonderful. But in practice... well. If you don't have any (valuable) goods, you're disenfranchised.
Upshot is that in capitalism, at least people ostensibly have an incentive to work hard. Too bad the rewards aren't always (rarely?) commensurate with the effort.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
My, you're a caring individual. Who said anything about punishment? Is it really punishment to help other people instead of pointlessly hoarding material goods? It sounds like you're doing well for yourself, high taxes or not.
Money is merely a tangible representation of work. That's it, that's all.
Those who have worked, have money. Those who haven't, don't.
I don't mind helping someone who tries. Charity begins at home, not through misappropriations of my work or the hijacking of my paycheck.
It's not like people CHOOSE to have a mental illness or addiction.No, that's right, it wasn't a choice to do that first line of cocaine off the toilet tank.
Sadly, I did a stupid thing back when I was in high school, and it qualifies me to speak freely about addiction. I was working on an old car with some friends of mine, was offered a cigarette, and knowing the dangers, I took it anyway. I've regretted it ever since. And I still make weak excuses to myself as to why I haven't quit. I bear the costs of my addiction, as wasteful and stupid as it is. But, because tobacco is still legal, it's not as crippling as an addiction to an illicit drug.
However, I used to work in the professional sound, lighting and video business - "technical staging" is the inclusive term. I've worked on many big-name rock concerts, and many times been exposed to good quality cocaine and heroin and lots of peer pressure. And yet I've never done it - I always turned it down, initially because it was illegal, later because the stuff scares the hell out of me.
More recently, I've turned down opium, ecstasy and crack.
Not everyone's smart enough/has the education to have "a fair chance at success."That's right, not everyone is smart enough to be successful. Similarily, not everyone is tall enough to be a basketball player. And those of us who *are* tall enough to basketball players but who lack the co-ordination are especially at a disadvantage.
I therefore propose that we impose a tax that will be used to pay all tall people who lack co-ordination the same amount as a professional basketball player, since it's not their fault that they're not capable of making the same amount of money as Michael Jordan.
Where do you draw the line? When are socialists gonna figure out that life is unfair and get over it?
As for education, no, I have no formal education. I'm a high school dropout who was able to eventually convince his high school to relent and give me a certificate. (I missed an important English Writing credit because I refused to write an essay on Shakespeare. At the time, I was writing a column for Popular Electronics magazine and had editorial demands on my time, but the teacher wouldn't accept that as a demonstration of my writing ability.)
And yet, despite the lack of formal education, I do okay. I design radar equipment for a division of Litton, run the LAN here in our office (including a Linux web/mail/DNS server) for 17 users, and administer an airport flight information system that Litton owns.
Education is not a demonstration of intelligence; nor does it open half the doors that proponents of higher learning feel that it does. Case in point, we've all encountered inept computer "professionals" who have every community college diploma that can be bestowed, without even being able to get Windows 95 installed on the Pentium 133 in the corner.
Further, I present as an argument those who possess such absolutely useless degrees as Bachelors of Arts in English Literature or other comparably real-world-useless basketweaving courses.
Yessir, a lack of formal education is often an asset. My boss likes my outside of the box thinking - it allows me to come up with new ways to improve systems and designs, cutting costs and increasing performance. And I like the fact that I'm not in debt for a piece of paper that I would just hang on a wall anyway.
I don't buy your claim to the perils of a lack of opportunity in education, and I've already dispatched the concept of providing for people based on the individual features which make us all different and unique as human beings.
Sounds like you'd love the U.S., so why don't you move here?Rest assured, I *do* love the United States, and I will proudly assume the responsibilities of American citizenship.
P.S. Why is it all the assholes check back to Slashdot every five minutes so they can defend their greediness to the teeth?Because we enjoy shooting down those who would erode the fiscal benefits which we have earned through years of toil. While you (plural) generally make it an easy task, it still has its rewards.
I post anonymously so I don't have to see their flames in my inbox. There's no harm in that.Post intelligently with valid arguments and realistic viewpoints, and, no matter how controversial the topic, the mailbox signal to noise ratio remains high. And it always includes lots of content that can be summarized as "you know, I hadn't looked at it that way".
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
I've struggled with dystopia (the core belief that things will get worse rather than better) and it is quite painful.
the recent laws protecting monopolies, IP, and copyrights have basically stripped us of the hard fought "fair use" clauses we had -- not good.
now add corporate welfare (american corporations are VERY well taken care of by law), a country that worships greed, power money and sex...
well, it's ugly. my personal belief is that things should get better for all people over time. But the current crop of laws, and the large corporations who serve greed and shareholder over customer...its just a bummer.
10-15 years ago I was positive cancer would be gone by 2000, that fusion energy would be up and running, homelessness and the stigmata of mental illness would be largely gone...but two aquantainces killed themselves before xmas...such a waste.
but what do we have? a fairly strong economy, yet an incoming president with little care for humanitarian, ethical or social concerns, a supreme court hanging on the edge of radical conservatism, a nation nearly evenly divided between liberal and conservatism.
I still hope for the emergence of a humanitarian/social ethos somewhere on the planet, at some point in my lifetime (which will work its way to world utopia) but the last two years, as well as the election, have dampened my hopes.
The greed, anger, ignorance, hate and indifference of the average american (particularly males) continues to horrify me. sigh.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
You goit, of course America isn't the best place to live for freedom, democracy etc. and it hasn't been for a long time, if ever. Most of western Europe is better. New Zealand and Australia are better. Hell, I'd feel safer and more "free" in Japan. Simple fact is, you Americans have no justification for all this "isn't it so great we live in this great free democracy and we're all free and happy and prosperous and we can shoot our guns whenever we want" when you have more people in jail per capita than anywhere else, where you execute more people per capita than China, where you have virtually no public health system or welfare safety net, where spending on the millitary and the drug war are through the roof, where you demand over-zealous trade protection from the WTO just to SURVIVE. The rest of us are laughing at you, you realise that? We giggle everytime you mention justice, thinking of all the wrongly sentanced people your president-elect has joyously put to death. We laugh at your concept of "Freedom" when the man who would have been your vice-president had things turned out differently makes comments along the lines of "People in this country have freedom OF religion, but not freedom FROM religion." and where others push to have flag-burning made a capital offence, and teen drug users locked up on barges on the Pontomac river (can't remember who said this but I can find out). I see little difference between US and Iran, except its a Christian Fundamentalist State rather than a Muslim Fundamentalist State.
-"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
The problem is that it is too late for our current government and laws, but yet too early for revolution so what we are stuck with is a slowly degrading set of freedoms that have degraded enough to piss off 15% of the population, but not yet enough to piss off more.
What is comes down to is that we keep sacrificing small parts of our freedom for "safety" thinking that just a little more will do it. If that's true then why was the Assualt Weapons Ban passed in 1994, most of those weapons were already regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1968. What about civil forfetiure? I think drug users are one of the dumbest life forms, but I believe civil forfeiture is an even more immoral wrong, and that's who it applies to most.
We've been sacrificing freedoms since the twenties and thirties thinking we could create a better and more safe society when all we've really been doing is trying to protect ourselves from the dumb and irresponsible. The people too dumb to save money for themselves (the New Deal, Great Society and the like) and irresonsible (NFA, Assault Weapons Ban, Speed Limits!) are just part of the problem.
What is your IQ? Take a look around, what is the IQ of the people you're friends with? If you're on Slashdot, chances are its high, as in 120+. Now, go to McDonald's, Arby's, KFC, Taco Bell, or the gas station. Give the person working there (choose someone who is not a high school student, students are just working a part time job) simple instructions as to how you would like your food. See how often they fuck it up. That's $5/hr labor, that's average intelligence. That's an IQ of 90-110. Scary, isn't it?
And these are the people who have discovered that it is much easier to have the government provide for them instead of making it for themselves. I read a quote in O'Reilly's book, "Why do we have to pay for it with taxes? Why can't the governemnt pay for it?"
Where does the goverment get its money? Taxes. And there a lot more people who make a little money who are willing to vote to take a larger chunk of the money the sucessful bring home and give to themselves through entitlements, a product of the New Deal and Great Society programs foisted on us by DEMOCRATIC prezs. These are the same people who will give aid to someone making $11,999 but won't give a dollar to someone making $12,000. Those people are told to quit their jobs and then the government will *give* them everything they need.
It's time to sit back and wait. The revolution is coming, not soon, but it is coming. And just like during the riots in LA, the liberals will find out why waiting periods to buy guns are a bad idea.
Its a well known fact that Canada is the freest country in the world, on top of being voted the best place to live.
There is a country today that has no single governing body, and yet it is recognized as a single nation still. This country is in Africa, and it's name is Somalia.
Child mortality rate is unknown, but is estimated to be several thousand percent worse than it's closest competitor.
The grass isn't greener there: it's mostly a desert with a few lush regions near it's limited number of waterways.
There are no taxes.
There are no government health programs. Hell, there isn't a recognizable health program at all (except for the field medics in each of the local warlord's entourages).
Business is great (according to the business owners quoted in a recent Detroit newspaper).
Business expenses include paying local warlords or mercenaries for protection.
There is no gun control. Anyone can own a gun. If you don't, well, there isn't much of a backup plan.
Drugs were (are they still today?) the major cash resource. Great place for computer hacking stoners.
There is a college in the Capital. Not sure if any brave souls still operate it (it was heavily damaged from mortar fire when I was there). However, this is a moot point if they have not rebuilt any of the grade schools leveled by mortar fire prior to the NATO peacekeeping force (please tell me if you went to that college recently on a foreign exchange program).
Don't go digging up the land. You won't like what you find.
I could go on, but I'm not sure how anything else compares to the above. After all, many of the issues above were discussed in the US's recent elections. About 60% or so of the US population proved they did not want to be like Somalia by casting their votes. Does that mean the remaining 40% do? If you are part of the later 40% and have useful skills to aid the Somalians, are you planning on moving there anytime soon?
The U.N., most of whose members are one-world-government advocators from countries that have no running water, have not rated Canada #1 in terms of economy, quality of life, justice, rights, or any other USEFUL metric. It's in "human development." Yay. We're overtaxed, in a crap economy and ruled by a dictator, but we'll hand out welfare to any smuggler or murderer who burns his passport before landing on our shores.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
What are you talking about? I avoid even travelling to the U.S. when I can help it. As for moving there, most Canadians hesitate despite the lure of higher salaries. Why? Because of the high crime rate, lower standard of living, and no universal health care. But most of all because most Canadians can't stand American attitudes and ignorance.
... in a war who would win" comment, why do Americans always feel the need to threaten war on everyone? It's like a schoolyard bully who always has to prove how tough he is, because he feels inferior to everyone else.
As for the "defenseless neighbour
And, if you knew how to read, you would have noticed the many Canadian comments re: basketball stated it was invented in the U.S. but by a Canadian. But considering the poor state of your education system, why should we expect you to be able to read properly, let alone know anything accurate about other countries?
You go into the next shop you see, take some stuff and then go tell the owner the same story when he tells you to pay for the stuff.
Then when you drive on the road, which has been built with taxes, being happy that at least a few people stick to the traffic rules by themselves and the others because they don't like being caught by your tax-paid police force, you're happy that you have a job, because there are people who'd buy the stuff that your employer makes. That's because there are still some people left who have the money to pay for that stuff. In a country where working people pay enough taxes (like 25 to 50%) people can feel secure that even if they fall sick or get unemployed by no fault of theirselves, they won't starve to death, so they actually have some time to enjoy their lives and buy the goods that help them enjoy it.
Paying taxes is not a choice, it's just paying for the goods that you get.
Now of course you need to keep an eye on what politicians are doing with your taxes.. but if they have no tax money to spend at all, what good is their power? The only thing they can do with their power is to use it for the good of those organizations that are still interested in it (what would you do if you were a politician and you the public is largely a bunch of uninterested lamers? wouldn't you look for people that actually appreciate you?) which are the big corporation that could use some help from people with power.
The only thing you can do about is to make sure that governments actually have some money to spend that they can be held accountable for: public money. Or in otherwords, taxes...
As an european and leftist in my opinions - though working in very capitalistic business - I would never like to live or raise my children in America. The freedom offered in the US isn't the same freedom which I'd like to have. The freedom in US - and ok, in growing number of places - is mostly freedom to run your business and get rich. Those who succeed in this game have their freedom, the rest of the people are much more limited in their freedom. What do you do with the freedom of expression when you can't make yourself heard? Or when you can't express yourself because of education that your parents didn't afford? With freedom of movement without no way to move? With freedom of opinion when your opinions are fed to you by multi-millionaire-owned TV networks?
Fidel Castro, one of the last surviving voices which speak against US imperialism (ok, now I'm being too dramatic) makes some very interesting points in his interview in Granma Internacional. Maybe it is worth checking out, just to get some perspective for things.
One: Unreliability. Private enterprises can and often do fail. In contrast, government construction efforts cannot fail. That's why you don't see private enterprise building bridges or giant dams- you simply can't quit if your funding runs out, or you go bankrupt. Travelling in space is, I think, something that cannot be allowed to fail, and therefore, it should be managed and funded by the government.
Two: Undesirability. When I browsed your website I was reminded of the previous era of exploration, beginning in the 15th century. Companies like the East India Company (both Dutch and English) left a horrible record of abuse in Indonesia and India. On a more practical level, look at Sir Walter Raleigh's failed Roanoke Island colony. At the same time, government-sponsored explorations generally met with much more success, while at the same time creating room for private enterprise.
Just a few things to think about.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-John Lennon
And what about the rest of you? How can this be moderated as informative? It's hilarious!
Don't pass unconstitutional laws and ignore the fact that they're unconstitutional.
IF it makes sense to restrict the sale and ownership of weapons (and you give some rather extreme but IMHO convincing arguments that some kind of restrictions are needed) then go ahead and change the constitution. There are provisions for doing that. There are precedents.
I know I'm a wacko nutcase because I still believe what I learned in Civics class is a good idea. The constitution should take precedence over laws. When the two conflict, the constitution wins. If that doesn't make sense, change the constitution.
But I know that this is the real world. Such things don't happen. In particular, the tenth ammendment doesn't really exist any more:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Yeah, when was the last time that was used effectively to stop the growth of the federal government?
To email, do the obvious.
We are fairly united on the federal issue, i.e. severely limit the fed's power to only those things mentioned in the constitution. All other powers are reserved for the states and the people. And that is where we start to differ. You will find many of us on both sides of issues like abortion, however we all pretty much agree it should not be a federal issue. Myself, I am not against environmental laws i.e. toxic dumping etc. But believe it should be handled by the state or county. I would favor limitations on corporations, i.e. shortening itellectual property laws to three or four years or thereabouts. Labor issues should be dealt with by organizing unions, etc just like it started out with in the 30's The basic premise is not to do away with all government, just shift the power closer to the people..... Anyone else?
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I believe that the only way in which Canadians get free healthcare (I am one, but I'm not quite clear on this) is if it's something you "need" as well.
Apparently Canada's much more liberal in its definition of "need". =)
Kasreyn, investigate the Swiss system (see Initiative and Referendum) and see if it is close to what you seek - it still has some stupid things but it's a start. During my investigations of basic constitutional principles during the composition of South Africa's constitution (the liberation movement unfortunately yielded to the apartheid/right wing/corporate powers and instituted "representative" democracy which resulted in them eventually selling out to the World Bank, IMF, WTO...), direct democracy (DD) was immediately appealing to me.
If it wasn't so damn hard to learn a 3rd language I'd consider putting Switzerland ahead of New Zealand (were the Greens are growing *within* the "representative" system) as a new home.
> If the grass is greener on the other side... Use fertilizer
The problem with this is that some systems have made themselves immune to reform, try to successfully run for president in the USA without accepting bribes inside the institutionalized corrupt system. I can understand when one feels helpless to affect change in such a milieu.
In response to the jingoist posters who like *their* representative systems, I'd like to explain my view of direct democracy.
> representatives, and I truely believe that they are
> trying to do what they feel is best for the people [...]
> They are trying to give people what they want.
> -- Christianfreak
If totalitarianism is on the right, and anarchism on the left - then the USA flavor of "representative" democracy is diametrically to the right of center where DD is on the left. The DD idea is that, instead of politicians being voted into power (by those not disillusioned by "representative" democracy) and telling people how they should live their lives, people themselves decide on issues and who should execute their will.
I won't mention the S or C words, wouldn't want heads to explode.
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted to govern himself. Can he, then, be trusted to govern others? - Thomas Jefferson
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it. - Eugene Debs
--
mrBlond
CowboyNeal for president!
"Hit any user to continue."
A right is an injunction against others (including the government), an official recognition of freedom. A political right is an injunction against government, exclusively -- the government is forbidden to interfere with your actions as they are described. For example: free speech means the government can't prevent you from voicing your political views; but as your employer, I could damned well decide that you can't use my equipment to broadcast them. Build your own company, buy your own equipment, and spout off all you want.
Getting heard depends on the voluntary cooperation of your audience, and therefore upon your ability to attract their ear. In the political arena, this means having earned access to tools for mass communication. Perhaps your library card has allowed you access to a library computer and here we are, enjoying a heated debate with a limited audience. Or perhaps you've a website you've constructed (or paid to have constructed) that allows you to reach a respectable audience with your ideas. To joust for office, you will likely need to nurture relationships with others who share your political ideals, and who have the means to place your ideas before an interested electorate.
But there's no way in hell you or anyone else is going to have the "right" to be heard as long as I, and others like me, can simply not listen to you.
-B...
I was about to respond to this post with an explanation that it may turn out I might get shot by some average idiot walking down the street. At least I don't need to worry about being gunned down by my own government in broad daylight in front of the rest of the world... then I remembered Waco... shit
> and happiness is a warm gun. As we all know. Yes. And look where that feeling got John Lennon. I'm sure five shots to the back were real happy and warm.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-John Lennon
And Wolverine is Canadian(although he left Alpha Flight and now works with the X-Men in the States also!)
Kinda like many of Canada's hi-tech workers.
South America more free than the USA? At least in the US, you can be fairly sure that when you exercise your right to vote, you will not be machine-gunned in the streets.
Russia? Of course everyone ignores the government! It's the mafia that run the place.
As for Switerland, just remember, that isn't your gun in your house. It's the government's gun. And if the gov't finds out you've been using it in a criminally irresponsible manner (ie. carrying it in public, taking it out of the triple-locked gun case without filling out forms in triplicate), they will come to your house, break down the door if you don't open it, take your gun away, and very possibly prosecute you.
And, one final point:
If the framework of a nation had no mechanism for corporations to lobby for favors, protection, etc, "corporate power" would be a non-issue.
You're right, corporate power would have become a non-issue long ago, when it became absolute. If there were no mechanism limiting the way in which corporations lobby governments, the Marlboro man would have bought you, me, and your sainted aunt Emma from the government years ago, and put us all to work in the tobacco fields on bread and water.
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
I'll assume you've never worked for a corporation before. You require a bit of enlightening, my dear.
Corporations can and often do take away your freedom, as well as your privacy. You have zero freedom of speech at work. You can criticize the government all you want and call Bill Clinton a rapist (as many right-wingers do) and suffer no consequences. Now if you criticized your corporation and called your CEO a rapist, you'd be out on your ass real fast.
Corporations routinely monitor employee's e-mail as well as their web browsing. Even though our government does this too, they have to do it covertly, because if it were openly acknowledged, people would have a fit.
Corporations take away your rights to breathe clean air and drink unpolluted water. That right might not be constitutional, but it's an equally important one, I think.
Corporations do not allow employees the freedom of assembly. If you try to organize a union or go out on strike, then you are subject to be fired. Same thing if you blow the whistle on illegal activities. Our labor laws have no teeth.
People too often think corporations have less power and influence than the government. I cannot begin to tell you how wrong that assumption is.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-John Lennon
> Americans might be under attack from colossal corporations who have the politicians bought and paid for. But in Canada we get to be under attack
> from our own government, who, exept for one day every 3-5 years, gets to impose their socialist policies without any fear of opposition.
Hrm. It's been a while since I was north of Washington State, but last time I checked, I thought Canada was located *in* America. You know, the continent America. The country to the south of you is called the USA. (We're a bit like the old Austrian-Hungarian Empire: a nation without a clearly identifiable name.)
What did you lot do? Dig a canal from Puget Sound to the Atlantic & give the land north of that ditch a new name? All so we could call ourselves ``Americans" without confusing those Europeans & Japanese? (Who, truth to be told, would prefer to ignore the USA & go back to looking down on each other.) What a nice thing to do: you truly are a civilized folk.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Absolute freedom mocks at justice. Absolute justice denies freedom. - Albert Camus
--
mrBlond
CowboyNeal for president!
"Hit any user to continue."
To anyone who sees a better life elsewhere (no matter where in the world you are now), stop complaining, pack up, and go.
You would be happier.
And if you happen to be someone who's been living in America, voting to make it more like the rest of the world, I would be happier. Just go. Let there remain on Earth one place where one can live, pursuing his own interests, benefitting from his own labors, not interfering with his neighbors, not opening up a vein for the government suck dry, and not forced to be his brother's keeper. If America becomes like the rest of the world, there will be no hope of such a place, ever.
-B...
Well, I can't offer too many hard facts, but I can offer some info based on personal experience. However, as others have mentioned, you really need to decide what is most important to you - freedom, quality of life, safety - it would be tough to have all 3.
Australia - I'm Australian, so I'm biased, but I think Australia is a great place to live. Various problems with government, but good infrastructure and quality of life (and great weather..) Taxes are high though, similar to that of Canada as far as I know.
Japan - where I am now - lots of fun, but not if you don't speak the language(or aren't willing to work hard to learn). Personal safety is good, but freedom and quality of life vary greatly depending on what you're used to. Americans (the USA/Canada type, I guess) would probably find it a little cramped, unless you're lucky enough to live somewhere other than Tokyo or Osaka.
Singapore - great in terms of safety and, to a good extent, quality of life, but suffers a bit in terms of freedom. Not as bad as everyone seems to think though. Taxes are really low, great infrastructure, easy to travel to other SE Asian countries. But HOT! All year round..
Hong Kong - I was there for a few years before and after the handover to China. Fun, exciting place, but crowded. Still lots of freedom, safety isn't too bad, quality of life is like Japan - depends a great deal on what you're used to.
All boils down to what you really want - as someone else said - safety, freedom, quality of life - pick any two...
"They are to protect you from the police, the DoD, the CIA, etc... in short the freedom to bear arms was created as insurance against bad goverment. Its basically to help enable revolution more easily, should it be needed."
this is completely incorrect. your misconception seems to be a common one, however.
the right to bear arms is only afforded to "a well regulated militia". "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
the 2nd ammendment is designed so that the state can balance its power against the federal government. it has nothing whatsoever to do with personal gun ownership and many supreme court rulings have upheld this.
You must be one of those people Alvin Tofler told us about... Wow, and to think you lurk in a place like Slashdot.
"each person has only as much freedom as he or she can personally enforce. Guns ... are an effective means of doing so, which is EXACTLY why ownership thereof is specifically allowed in the Second Amendment"
this is not true and is a very disturbing train of reasoning.
the right to bear arms is only afforded to "a well regulated militia". "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." that's the 2nd ammendment, in case you're unfamiliar with it and it seems that you are.
the 2nd ammendment is designed so that the state can balance its power against the federal government. it has nothing whatsoever to do with personal gun ownership and many supreme court rulings have upheld this.
there are 2 possibilities. a world with guns and a world without. i vote that we move towards the latter.
The other Shaltenak's jupelberry shrub is always a more movey shade of pinky russet
Couldn't agree more.
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
This was the first thing my english teacher in my first semester in highschool said in our first class (first class in highschool), only he said:
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man, teach him
He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool, shun him
just my €0.02
Things aren't perfect here, but we have a small and under-funded military. WHEN things get too bad, the reasonably well armed public can shoot all the politicians and we can start again.
I don't know what everyone else is into here on Slashdot, but if you are into libertarian issues and the like, I think the best country to live in would be Hong Kong. The government there is virtually non-existant. It used to be ruled by British elites, which due to policies didn't interfere with the country. They basically sat around and drank tea on what little taxes were given to the citizens.
Now Hong Kong has went to China, and the policy has pretty much been the same, the government has not done anything and has let capitalism do it thing. I'm thinking of moving there for at least a short while sometime in the future and starting up a business if I can find the money. I hear you don't need much to get started in Hong Kong, all you have to do is have an idea.
Reminds me of the once great capitalist country that I live in.
The only influence the Green party and Nader had on the Democrats were to enrage the democrats enough to make them threaten greivous bodily harm upon Nader on live t.v. right after the election. One party official stated that he would "strangle Nader with my bare hands". I always thought that threats of that nature were deemed investigatable events to the SS in america.
I don't think third parties and independents have as much power as you think they do in america. The only change next time will be that the democrats will pay attention to third parties that get any noteriety and they will squash them with slanderous ads left, right, and center. They have too much money and power to concern themselves with the likes of Nader and other individuals.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
Cananda is a Certified Socialist Nation now so you can expect high taxes which means the government now has more of your life energy to grow on. A few months back Cananda tossed one Dr. Laura off the air because she said things that were offensive to the state. Basically when Cananda did that, they overturned the right to free speech. When free speech goes, so do the rest of the rights.
So, where is a freedom luvin fellow like yourself go? Not many places left. Sealand is probably ideal but they are at capacity. Texas actually might be a nice choice. Texas is not a country but they have managed to maintain some freedoms. You could also do like L. Ron Fuckin' Hubard and live on a boat in international waters.
Good luck, mate.
Humm, be in a very large country that is very cold most of the year. And then of course you have to do with Quebec a large part of the country that wants to break away from the rest of it (but the country refuses to let them -- some freedon) and also a country where it is legal to hunt whales. No I'm not bashing Canada, I'm trying to be funny... sorry if I offended anyone.
Nibs
Go ahead. Move to fucking Canada, you fucking hippy. I hope a moose eats you.
It's really hard to quantify what 'freedom' means in any objective sense, however I would propose that there are some imporatant measures:
1. Rate of unemployment. How free are you if you cannot tell your boss to "take this job and shove it"? Unemployment rates in most of the rest of the world are double at least what they are in the US. This is both a huge quality of life and personal freedom issue.
2. How free are you to spend the money you earn as you see fit? The US has the lowest overall taxation rates in the western world.
3. If you come up with a new idea, how free are you to try to exploit it? Despite the perception on this forum that the US is dominated by large corporations, the fact is that the US is by far the world leader in the creation of new, small businesses. It is known for a fact that almost all the US employment and economic growth comes from the establishment and growth of such small business.
4. What is the level of opportunity? In the US it is the best in the world. I have many friends who immigrated to the US because of the simple fact that they believe that hard work is rewarded best in America.
There is a REASON that 80% of Nobel prizes are awarded to people working in the US.
5. How does the Constitution shape up? While the US constitution may have a few flaws (the lack explicity guarantee of privacy is perhaps the worst), it is also one of the few constitutions that such strong guarantees of freedom of the press and of freedom of speech.
6. What is the stability of the nation? The US is the oldest Republic in the world. How can you be safer?
7. What is the level of the diversity, and how dynamic is the culture? In many places on earth people from diverse cultures do not get to participate fully in society. While the US may not be without problems in this area, there is a city not too far north of where I live where there are there over 100 languages spoken. The cultural fusion that has gone on in the US over the years denotes a freedom of expression beyond that of any other nation. This result dominates the creative media (music, TV, film) to the extent that many other nations must pass laws to prevent their own culture from being overrun.
8. Social ossification. In much of Europe there is a real stratification in society. This is just not a factor in the US. The US society is much more of a meritocracy - which is why we have a sharecropper's son as our president. What measure of freedom does that imply?
bullshit - its the bottom line at all costs.
If the average American is anywhere near as confused & smug as you, there is no future in the USA.
A right on paper is useless until upheld in practice. (A'la poll taxes, literacy requirements)... with the whole Florida thing..which was extremely retarded(hand counts should be banned)...
So you bring up the ways in which Blacks' rights were denied, and then suggest denying another right (to a fair election).
Do you have the right to have your vote count if you're in a county with inadequate voting equipment and staff?
legally, yes
practically, no
And you even want to change the legality of it!! I'm sure you can rationalize this contradiction to yourself, but in doing so you only become more evil.
...America works extremely well. We have a mainstream media that perpetuates misconceptions about the way the country currently works, and obscure a fair amount of crucial pieces of law from the people. Case in point, chances are you have no Constitutional rights, and neither does the Bill of Rights apply to you. (Never mind that the 14th Amendment was never lawfully ratified, see documentation here, here, and a State Supreme Court opinion here. The Supreme Court has not yet made a ruling on the validity of the 14th Amendment's supposed ratification, to the best of my knowledge.) United States citizens are bound by adhesion contracts, exchanging their rights for privileges and benefits that can be changed and revoked at will. Most of them are acutely aware of this situation as applies to their Social Security benefits, many of whom realize that they'll never see their payout. A waiver of these benefits anulls the contract, of course, and then one is free to do whatever one likes, provided there is no injured party. An essentially baseless currency is problematic, but there are those who intentionally deal in gold and barter. An increasingly misinformed citizenry is depressing (most people thought that Clinton's womanizing was worthwhile news; I'm more worried about this), but it's nice to know that when they finally push people too far, they'll eventually do something about it (although thanks to the amazing advances in modern technology, never before in history have so few been able to oppress so many with so little). All things considered, the States are a great place to be. They afford more freedom and opportunity than most other places I'm aware of... for those who understand how stuff works.
[Shameless plug: For more on this stuff, head to my page. I've got a write-up and some informative links under Sovereign Citizenship.]
Bill, president of Billville.
Three reasons: 1. Vegemite 2. Coopers Ale 3. Sport (Rugby, Cricket, etc)
47 Meelion Dollars!?! I'm the cat!
Well, You're looking for a serious alternative...
Try Australia, here are a few reasons:
1. Australia became a nation, not by revolution, but by a referendum which united the colonies of Australia as one Federation (100 yrs young this year too)
2. Australian society is built upon the principle that everyone deserves a "fair go", and you will find (on the most part) Australians to be a very generous and friendly people.
3. Australians can criticise and call our politicians "bastards" without too much bother (What would happen if someone did that at a meeting with the US President?).
4. Australians are very relaxed and layed-back, but have a reputation for determination and perseverance (you want something done, get an Aussie to do it)
5. A "free" public education system (including universities). I would never have been able to afford to go to uni unless it was publicly funded (and I would never have recieved and honours degree). This is one area I have absolutely no qualms about paying my taxes for: someone to get a good education.
6. Voting is party-preferred, and if they needed to recount, they would (all our votes are manually counted in approx 24hours for ~10 million or so eligible voters)
The only real problems we have are:
1. Lack of decent prices for bandwidth.
2. Our government wanting to screw up our public health care and education systems (so they work like the US), bunch of wankers that they are.
3. The Aussie Dollar being worth about 56 US cents (though for you coming here that's a good thing)
4. The Crocodile man - We are really really really sorry to produce that tool.
All in all, It's always good to know that where you live is known as "the lucky country" - I hope it stays that way.
Dan
A corporation is a body, formed by people, that is authorized by law to act as a single person
When thousands of people act on behalf of a corporation it is no one person who is acting 'evil or bad'. The problem lies in the motivations, what people are forced to do to feed themselves. They are compeled to act on the corporations behalf to further its interests. There is no debate what the 'interests' of the corporation are: profit. Always.
The consumers, of course! You must remember that you, the consumer, also have responsibility
The worlds transnationals are all alike - what the hell are you thinking? There are none that I would consider moral and just. Literally zero. Besides, capatalism ends in collusive monopolistic mega-corps all acting to preserve there collective best interests. They will collectively oppose anything that may force them to become accountable and responsible.... I suppose youve never heard of RIAA/MPAA?
Shell now has a human right commissioner and most ads from that company state how nice the company is to the environment and to it's worker
Are you on drugs? So they put some asshole in a title and shove propaganda down your throat and you think all is well? You think they have changed one fucking bit?
Would you buy hamburgers from Mc'Donalds if the company also sold crack
Could you stop them if they did? And would the other 90% of sheeple in America continue to buy McDonalds b/c they cant read/dont care? Would you let these same people set the co-ordinates on the Space Shuttle???? no - why should we just let the sheeple-mob steer us all into oblivion?
The internet is being dismantled by people who want to stop paying anything to produce any content but make you pay everytime you access the same old content, over and over, because its gravy, all gravy.
you didnt address his point: That big business will simply change/buy laws to extend copyright so they dont have to create new content... and force everyone who does out of business...
Big American Corporations have WAY to much power and WAY too little public accountability. I dont want to 'vote with my dollars' - this simply allows them to predicate their 'money is the only thing that matters' system - fuck that: I want business to come to town-hall style meetings and be accountable to the public, you dont satisfy the public - your out of business (or something similar, I may not have the right mechanism - but you get the idea...)
I'm not from Australia originally, and I've lived in the USA, Canada, and several European countries, but none of them comes close to Oz for Freedom, Safety, and Quality of Life.
...
Oz Compared to the USA
My government doesn't tell me which countries I'm allowed to holiday in.
Or what brand of cigars I'm allowed to buy.
It didn't ask me my political affiliations before it allowed me to come here to live.
And the police don't point a gun at the back of my head when I'm pulled over for speeding (yes, this happened to me in the USA)
The USA has 6 times the murder rate, and 20 times the imprisonment rate of Australia. I don't have figures for homelessness, but a walk down the street of any US city would indicate that's also way higher in the USA.
How any country with over 2% of its population in prison (as opposed to Australias 0.1%) can call itself "Land of the Free" is beyond me.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
Lol... the Princeton Professor asking Mel Lastman to "Stop the Toronto Seal Hunt", or George W. Bush congratulating Prime Minister 'Jean Poutine' on his re-election...
Remember, W. has his finger on the button...
-- "Is this death or is this Ohio?"
Greatest % internet saturation in the world
A real kind of football (rugby) where all those pads and helmets are banned and there is no stoppages
Clean Air
Ruled by women
Unique software houses
Low crime
A MP in paralement who smokes pot in the debating chamber and wheres a hemp suit. Go figure
It seems like corporations have no desire other than to strip us of what few remaining freedoms we have, and the government is doing nothing to check their power scramble
Actually, corporations are unable to strip anyone of freedoms. It's those in favor of big government who wish to strip you of your freedoms (and who have the power to do so), and it's the American people who are doing nothing to check the power scramble. Not all citizens, of course, but a good number of them.
<PLUG TYPE="SHAMELESS">
The Libertarian Party has more information about protecting your liberty.
</PLUG>
nor canada or usa a very free to live on.
Canadians have ego but they have nothing to be proud of. They didn't fight for independence if they did not withdrew during anywayrs was because they were espendable, and the royals in england just keep pushing them on. and they have royal crap all over their land. 1985 the queen of england sign their freedom they got bored of you.
USA is much better but its people are not very smart they have to import brains to keep it going, but then the children of the brains are asimilated tobe like the rest of the country.
but if you want good freedom or all go to the bahamas or to south america. If you have money there nobody will bother you. And you can do whatever you want.
TheSHAD0W just plain scares me. TheSHAD0W has developed an entire world view based on their beliefs that doesn't make any sense. Because of this, TheSHAD0W has to be paranoid about everything, especially viewpoints that don't match TheSHAD0W's.
For instance, look at how TheSHAD0W misinterprets the poster's statement. It's not about forcing other people to hear what you have to say. Suppose you're an environmental activist with in depth knowledge of current problems. Fox News Channel runs a series of shows on those problems (hahahahaha!). FNC will most likely not ask you to come on, ignore your offer to discuss the problems, or berate you on television for being an anti-property-rights, anti-business pansy. That's what "If you have something different to say, you're told to go elsewhere" means.
Then TheSHAD0W becomes increasingly incoherent. Just what "Bad News" has been censored by the "liberal" networks & spread on Fox News? What is the difference btw. the info on CNN's website & what they show on TV?
Now here's the best part. Check out TheSHAD0W's idea for fixing healthcare. TheSHAD0W thinks that if we let the HMO's take over worker's compensation & life insurance, they'll have to provide better service. (This is too funny, really, how long did TheSHAD0W think about this?) If a company provided both health care and life insurance, their customers would be royally screwed. Because the company would have to pay the life insurance eventually anyway, why would they want to provide better, more expensive care to keep you alive? Also, if they had to provide worker's compensation, their health care would be integrally tied into making you go back to work. Is there something I'm missing?
TheSHAD0W would be a lot funnier if I didn't think they would do anything and everything to maintain the dominance of their particular slant on life.
Well, I think most comments here is not what Kasreyn asked for. He/she asked
..I am only saying that everybody should
;) But others need more, a sportsman need
;)
..I think it is good that we
:) And a happy new millenium.. ;)
for information and comparisons with other countries, and as little national
biasis as possible.. None of any earlier posts that i have read has managed
to do that. I will try that as best i can to "answer" Kasreys "question".
Ok. I live in Sweden (northern europe, if you did not know that). Before I
say anything about sweden i wish to clarify some things;
1) "Freedom" is a too vague word to use. Can one define "freedom"? No, i
think not, it is a word that is highly subjective, and some people think
some things are "freedom" and others think that other things are "freedom".
Therefore you can never say that "this country is "free"", or "here we have
a lot of "freedom"", bcs everybody does not have the same definitions of
"freedom".
2) Depending on fundamental views on the "human value", and fundamental
beliefs, different people think that different countries is "the best". Eg.
If you believe that a human that does not have a job "is lazy"; "it is his
"fault" that he has no job", or that the poor people has only them selves
to blame for their situation; then USA maybe is your choise of "the best
country".
3) The example in "2)" was verry "rough", when one "choose" wich country is
"the best", many more factors play a part. You cannot look at 2-3 things and
then decide "this country is the best". You have to look at many different
aspects.
4) When some people here compare USA and "the rest of the world", they say;
"China has much tougher regulations, Sweden has much higher Taxes,
russia has bad environment, bosnia has a bad governmnet, in USA your vote
are counted; USA must therefore be the best on earth".. That is "bad"
reasoning, one cannot compare "the worst" thing of every country with usa,
and then say that usa is "best". You have to compare all the benefits and
drawbacks of all countries with all countries. Further on, a statement like
" is the best country", is a subjective view (se "1)").
5) Sweden has not 60% tax, we have different taxes depending on how much money
you earn. Starting at 32% when you earn up to 200000 SEK (20000 USD) year
to 52% when you earn above 400000 SEK (around those figures, i am not 100%
sure on the exact figures) (40000 USD).
6) I do not think america is "the most equal country" in the world, between
males/females (as one earlier said). Many european countries are more equal.
7) Everybody can "fail" in creating his/hers life, EVEN YOU!.
8) Before I start talking about what i think is good and bad with sweden,
and why i think so, i will tell a little about my political alignment and
a little about my "valuation of the human beeing":
* I am a "communist"; I think that all humans on earth are "worth" "equally";
with that i mean that everybody should have the same changce of making
his/hers life a good life. I am not saying that everybody should get
"exactly the same amount of money", communism is NOT about that (and it is NOT
about taking all your assets either).
get as much "money"/help they need to fullfill their lives. Everybody is
different, but also equal in the same time. Everybody have different needs;
some people (like I) is happy with enoufh food, warm house, fast computer
and a fast internet connection..
more food, and access to training equipment, maybe an artist needs "expencive"
music equipment, and a scientists need plenty of "funding, etc etc.. ; wile
person A) can work hard, has worked har his/hers entire life, has built up
an own company, and is fairly rich, person B) can not work that hard. Today
people that are "different", people that does not meet the "demands" from
the society today are simply ignored, and "left behind".
* Whats important in life is not how hard you work, how much you "produce",
etc, whats important is that YOU have a nice life; that YOU are happy. We
only live once; life is to valuable to be wasted on living after what is
requierd (go to school - work hard - retire - die).
Anyway, I would prefer a country with a communist system. Much like the
open source community acctually; Everybody does what he/she likes/does best,
and share everything he/she produces with his/her fellow human beeings. It
works today in small scale, and it could work in a large scale if only
everybody really wanted this system. I believe that someday in the future
we will either have a "utopia" system like this, or we have exterminated
ourselves.
Since there are NO communist countries in the world, today, and
there HAS NEVER BEEN. (Thats true, no matter what any dictator or western
government says). (the dictators wanted to be "popular" amongst people by
saying they was communists, and the western governments wanted the communists
to "look bad"). Just read the communist manifesto (Karl Marx), and compare
with eg. soviet and china, you will notice the big differences.
So, in the world today, i do not think any country is "good",
but i do prefer some over others. I have not lived in any other country
than sweden and france (only one year), also i have only been to Finnland,
Norway, Denmark, England, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Hungary,
Slovakia and Austira, so I know little about living in other countries.
(although that depends on what you compare with "everything is relative").
Now i will start with the bad things of Sweden (bad things relative
to other countries, not relative to "semi"-utopia)(like utopia, but possible)).
* We have monarchy. Ok, not real monarchy, since the king has even less
power than the average citizen, but the "idea" of monarchy is bad..
* The government has decided to privatize state-owned companies, such as
our telephone company "Telia", etc etc. Also they have got this new "crazy"
idea to privatize hospitals, etc.* The wallenbergïs have too much power.
..hmm.. I think that is the bad things i can figure out. Many people here
think it is bad when the taxes are high, i dont.
But if YOU have a other "valuation of human life", then you
probably consider high taxes a bad thing..
(all citizens of sweden) are cooperating and together we paying things that
everybody has benefits of/uses. Eg. Free hospitals, free schools, roads,
powerplants, great social security net. etc. If you think that high taxes
are bad, ask your self this; "do you really need all those extra money,
dont you allready have everything you need as it is now?"; if not; then
think about the poor people that does not have anything. It could have been
you out there on the street!!.The good things:
* We are well educated, thanks to our fairly good school, and the equal
standard between them. The differences in quality between different schools
in different cities is verry small.. Almost everybody goes in "public schools".
There are a few "private" school for extremly rich people or christian, etc etc.
There is strict regulations about what different cources should contain, etc.
Everybody has the same right to all educations.
* We have a high technological standard, almost entire europe has everything
that america has (sometimes more(eg. the computer and/or internet density is
higher in sweden than in USA).
* We have high taxes. (i have already explained this).
* We have little war. (after all, america is involved in more wars (the last
30-40 years) than most european countries). Sweden has not been in a war
since sometime in the 18th century. (NO, we was not in the WWII).
* We have strict government regulations on chemicals and medicines.
"läkemedelsverket" conducts extensive testing on all chemicals and medicines
to make sure that everything is harmless to humans and the nature.
* If you loose your job, you are still entitled to "basic needs", such as;
food, house, car, TV, video, etc etc.* We do not have software patents.
* It is allowed to download MP3ïs and copy software (for personal use,
commercial copying is strictly forbidden).
* Our former state owned phone company, Telia (now the state only owns 75%),
is offering high-speed DSL internet connections to almost all citizens of
sweden for 25 USD / month.
* The state owned residential buildings, are verry cheap to live in,
even in stockholm centrum.
* 95% (or something close to that figure) is a member of a union of some kind.
The biggest union, LO has over 3 million members. The trade unions make
sure that everybody gets their fair salary, and is not "used" by the employer.
* It is ease to start a business company and managing it. Altough the
"profit tax" is 52% and the social fees is 32%.
* There is NO "slums", etc etc, like the ones that you can see in america.
* There is verry few poor people.
* There is verry few extremly rich people. The population is verry "equal"
in terms of money and assets. (But it does exist rich people, the Wallenbergs
own verry much of the sweden industries, and then there also is Ingvar Kamprad
(IKEA),one of the riches mans in the world).* And more..
It is verry hard to "compare" sweden with other countries. Or for that matter
compare any country with anyother country.. In northern europe, the governments
have for a long time had much power. Since it is the citizens that elects
government, the country is more or less "ruled by the people".. In, for
example usa, the government has less power, and the private industry more
power, wich means that USA is less "designed" after what people wants, and
more designed for "business leaders".
I believe Capitalism is the biggest threat against democracy. Yes, the
government has power over the companies by their regulations, etc. BUT
the companies are not ruled by the people, they are ruled by the people
that has "money".; In capitalism you buy your power. The most fair, and
democratic system, would be "democratic planned economy"; the people
choose the business leaders.
Anyway. I have probably drifted from the subject here and there, but i hope
that you still found some useful information in my text. I hope that everybody
that reads this starts thinking little more of whats really important in life,
and if the world we have today is a such a good place to live. Shouldnt we
instead create a world wich is truly good. Just think about some of the bad
things of the world today; There are millions of people starving, there are
billions of people that does not even have a TV, there are billions of people
that are severely undereducated, there are heavily mass unemplyment, and there
are verry high demands of many products. ; if there is both production capacity
and demand for products, then there MUST! be something wrong with the system
we have today.
Thanks for reading my post.
A lot of this disscusion seems to be people sticking up for the country they live in. Isn't this just he point? Americans have mould their society the way they want it - as have the Dutch, the Canadians and the French. And while I'd much prefere to live in a society without guns (oh by the way many European police forces are not routinaly armed - which tends to mean that less criminals feel the need to inforce their 'personal rights' with there own gun) and with a free health service, if we wanted to we could change the country I live in (Britian if you care) into the '51st state' if we want to. That's our freedom.
I think partly my point is that thw type of society depends we have depends on if we believe in the worst of human nature of the best. It seems to me that american government is baised on the assumption that everyone - particularly thoose in power are trying to get what they can for themselves - while a more canadian style government is based on the assumption that everyone is working for the common good. Of course the truth is somewhere in the middle (as always). I know what I'd rather believe - BUT that I would rather belive it does not make it right! This is (I believe) the problem with all ideologies.
Two words: "raiding parties"!!!
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Im sure this is redundant, but the only way to be assured of getting privacy is to go live out in the bush, grow your own food, have a cow and a few chickens, have no contact with the outside world and become a smelly ferrel.
Does it go on forever?
you forgot (us vs. germany):
:-)
;-)
:-(
:-).
- better food, beer, bread, coffee
- can drink alcohol on streets
- can buy any spirits at the gas stations 24x7 and not during special hours in liquor stores
- no death penalty
- no guns allowed
- no guns allowed
- no guns allowed
- in eastern parts of germany you better avoid idiots named skinheads. a shame for this country.
- more than two mayor political parties
- more measures against the pollution of the environment: e.g. paper, glass are seperately collected, it's forbidden to keep the engine of your car unneccessarily running. costs also for electricity is higher.
- poor people are richer and vice versa
- traffic penalties are the cheapest in europe and cheaper compared to the us (which is imho not so good)
- but somehow mean speed checks (you won't realize the car at the curb taking a picture from you)
- society isn't prude (breasts in tv ads or even political magazines are normal)
- but being gay isn't tolerated as much as in the us
- prostitution is allowed
- school education is also better
- children aren't brainwashed in the first and later grades that germany is the best country in the world.
- better public transportation and shorter distances, so drinking and going home is not so much of a problem in the metropolitan areas
- but (public) transportation is more expensive, therefore faster
- you actually have very often bicycle lanes
- easy banking: nobody pays with ancient checks, everybody uses wire transfers which don't cost 10-20 bucks, but 5-15 cents
- telephone is cheaper: calls from germany to us cost with the most expensive provider ~9c, with the cheapest one ~4c.
- cell phones are cheaper and the reception is better
- quality standard of apartment is higher, plus you have a three month notice period instead of a one year lease. ever tried to get a apartment in the us with a basement for storing your junk, or a bigger tub than for your babies? or a ceiling higher that 8 ft.? all this is standard in germany. downside: you have to paint the apartment after or before you leave.
- somehow ancient immigration rules or working permissions for foreigner compared to the us, but things got better.
- climate is more wet
well, you cannot get everything in your life. and life's too short to check out every country in the world
what makes you think going anywhere is going to make things better. Being an expatriate is not all it's cracked up to be.
;-)
assume for a minute that you DO in fact leave the country. does this mean what the US does is not going to impact your life at all? nope. quite the contrary. being that the US is the most powerful country in the world (can you honestly argue the power point here?) ANY changes they make will be reflected elsewhere. Do you think that if the US were to get involved in a war that you would be safe in France, or Brittain (btw - i mean WAR, not skirmish).
you ask about personal freedom? do what i do....fuck secularity. I'm obeying my own laws. most of these are in accordance with my country's current laws, but many of them are not. For example, i have been told that i might be thrown into prison for the use of marijuana. I don't care. Marajuana is not morally wrong, economically, or socially wrong (at least by my standards) - and so, i continue to do it.
don't recognize IP if you don't want to. I certainly don't. Use napster. Technically, it's illegal...it's been illegal for a long time. That doesn't stop millions of americans from using the service. Lest you forget, it's not "really" illegal if everyone's doing it
why do you think i'm still smoking weed with impunity? (knock on wood).
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
...libertarian to me.
Look up the L party line and see what you think.
The only reasons that I support Reps when there is no LP candidate are because they are generally in favor of a smaller government and are generally strong on national defense. Those two features also happen to be constitutional. I think that the feds should mind their own business, which appropriately enough, does not include my business. While a smaller govt. is not exactly what I'm after, it's closer to my ideal than what we have now and a smaller federal govt. means a de facto less powerful and less intrusive one. I really don't give a flip about whatever family values the pres. or any candidate exhibits, since I have my own and no campaign is going to change them.
I think that you'll find that there are many more people that "are" libertarian compared to the number that "think" they are. There are a lot of folks who consider themselves Reps and/or Dems who have personal "platforms" that match that of the LP much better than those of the two majors. Why they don't vote that way I don't know. Perhaps if they did, then the USA wouldn't be working within a two party system.
Read the constitution, really. It can be enlightening. You'd think that it would be required in all of the government schools. For some reason(?) it is not. After that, surf over to Amazon and have them ship you a copy of The Federalist Papers. Come on out of the closet and join us. There is afterall a certain prestige associated with thinking, acting, and voting along side of the 99th percentile rather than with the crowd.
Cheers, here's to anticipating the next election!
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Canada all the way, eh, hosers!
The Avro Arrow is something we can be proud of. That thing would stand up to some of the more recent fighter jets. And here's something to think about -- after the AA was cancelled, how many of our engineers and mechanics and what not went to work for NASA? Was it the Canadians who put the first man on the moon? Someone should tally up how many Canadians went to NASA to work on that.
-kidlinux.
It's interesting, levies on blank media are not something that particularly concern me: pay your 23 cents and get on with your life. Besides, we in Canada are legally allowed under the copyright act to copy any musical work for personal use. When I saw that a week or so ago in another slashdot comment (with a link to verify it) I was very impressed and happy that my country has not disappointed me in this respect.
On the other hand, I have a very hard time swallowing our firearms laws. To tell you the truth, its not necessarily the fact that we have to register our firearms, its the fact that all handguns are at least classified as "Restricted", and therefore you must have them locked up tight at all times, and can only use them at registered shooting ranges for sport purposes only. No self defense anywhere in that. In addition, many many firearms available in the US are outright banned here. That is where my problem is.
It follows a common theme I'm finding in this discussion: there is a tradeoff with every country you consider. I have just about no doubt whatsoever that North America is the best continent in the world. I just can't decide whether Canada is better with high taxes and universal health care, or the US is better with the War on Drugs but constutional right to bear arms. I hear Mexico is nice too.
The US has been invaded numerous times, mind you not with much sucess, but enemies have been in our territory. Pearl Harbor being the best example, there was also one battle durring World War II fought on an island in Alaska (the name escapes me). There were also German submarine landings in America durring WWII. There was one on Block Island, Rhode Island (where I vacation). If your ever by the mouth of the Connecticut river, you'll see pill boxes meant to repel German U-Boats. This doesnt include all the international terrorist attacks, which could probably be considered a small invasion.
- *Normality Is The Root of All Evil*
Preface: I see the problem (from a historical perspective) to be intimately intwined with these areas. For brevity I wont go into the whys, but instead just list the problem and suggested fixes.
1)Freedom of Speech- The internet is America's last great hope. Sadly it is already going the way of newspapers, radio and TV. They were free until they were business, then the regular joe got cut out. My best solution is a "National Ad Tax." It would be easiest to apply to TV and radio (public airwaves). It might work on the internet, but would be more difficult to apply to the print mediums. Even if it stays with ads on the air waves, we (the people) could round up a pretty penny. All money gained then is spent on FREE universal broadband access. A computer in every home and a gigabit connection in every pot. If you examine the money spent yearly in advertising on JUST the airwaves and then take 10% off that (lets grab more, so what if Michael Jordean only gets $5M for his commercial) you should find that the yearly payoff is enough to maintain and implement this idea. Costs us nothing, liberates everyone (each individual gains as much "free-speach" as any corp) and you get a sense of fullfilling your civic duty while watching Junk Yard Wars. Problem areas- The internet becomes the Post Office (not so bad since B. Franklin would have been Pro-net if it was around then) and the government regulates (censors) reflexively for protecting the children and national securiy. These are both Bogey-Men, don't be fooled. This idea works better IMO, if it's coupled with open source crypto and p2p file sharing.
2) New bill of rights - When was the last time we got a new right? There is no constitutional basis to the right of privacy (it's inferred). Let's put the right to privacy in writing, keep it simple, make it broad. There's other rights that need to be addressed also. The right to control your DNA (how it's used, recorded and disseminated), the right to a free READ (DeCss and linking to drug pages, it'll be a felony soon), Clone's Rights (im serious), Crypto, anonomimity, and others (wanted to keep this short). Probs- Lawyers. Lawyers should not write these rights. Niether should corps. It should be kept in simple language, short and sweet like the first 10. It's broadness/vagueness (benifit of the doubt?) should give the edge to the people and limit the federal govt. How? I don't know, maybe a petition system like in many state elections?
3) Drug war- Must end. It's MUCH cheaper (check the numbers) to allow complete legalizition (similar to the dutch) and provide free universal drug treatment, with quality controlled and taxed pharmecuticals than it is to provide the necessary lawyers, judges, jails, narcs, agents, border patrols, and whatnot. I haven't examined the numbers but I'm pretty sure that the drug treatments could be intirely financed by drug taxes. Further the fact that drugs are illegal makes them expensive which is directly related to a large % of thefts/robberies. The #1 reason we should end the "War" is because the emense profits go directly to some of the most vicious and violent people on the earth. A lot of them in our own government. This money (along with that from corps) is the number one source of corruption in our government and those abroad. The only realistic probs i can see with this is that they'll never allow it (not with billions at stake), Kids (they ruin everything), the government would be a pusher (observe lottery ads and deduce the future).
4) Education- We are uneducated. The money we save from ending the drug war should go to education. I don't think it should go to regular schools though (New, crystal slop bucket Willy?) they're a bottomless pit. However, the drug war is costing us $5B+ and we can take all of that and put it toward a system that educates and teaches skills. I don't know what that system would be (feel free to talk amongst yourselves) but my vote would be toward a system where you can take ANY class at ANY school. After the class you would take a real-world test (if you took a welding class you would have to do some profressional welds to demonstrate you actually learned something). If you get a B or better then we'll pick up the tab. Less than that and you foot the bill. Like I said, I don't know the best way to set the system up, but there needs to be a system where people can get all the training they want for free as long as they aren't wasting money. I believe this is critical because it's skills that allow a person to remove themselves from poverty. It's skilled labor that gives unions it's muscle. Just from what I know about computers I can get a living wage job anywhere in the country. Most people can't, they're trapped in an economy of poverty. How's a brother going to meet his responsiblilties flipping burgers? Problem - drug war needs to end to provide the funds and a system of checks and balances needs to be develpoed to minimizes fraud and waste. Here's an after-thought for saving money on education in the meantime: Books are very expensive and comprise one one the biggest expenses for a school system. The public at large could purchase the rights or commision the writing of numerous textbook topics and release them into the public domain. How many text books can you fit on a palm pilot (or a knock-off)?
5) Living Wage/ Guaranteed Work - No one should HAVE to do more than 40 hours a week of honest work to survive. Crime exists because it PAYS. Honest minmum wage work fails to provide in comparison. I don't have any ideas on how to fix this other than by creating a labor shortage (by eliminating unemployment through guaranteed jobs) and providing the universal education mentioned in the previous idea. By giving workers a stonger negotiating edge the standard of living can be rasied. Problem-economists are going to say I'm full of shit. Maybe they're right, this is probably my least thought out idea. However, I stand by my view that a minimum wage job should at least be able to pay for rent and food with EVERYONE who wants to work, able to find a job.
6) The Rich-Poor Gap: I'm not talking about millionares. Hell, if you have $40M then more power to you brother. I'm talking about the filthy stinking dirty rich. I'm talking about the 5% that owns 90% (or whatever the numbers are now). Let's make a list of the richest 5% and tax them (yearly? with the census?) for 5% of everything they have that's not in a charitable foundation (B. Gates would probably get off the hook). If they try to take their money and split for Brazil, then we should take Half of their loot (and the house) and call it a divorce. Call it the 5% tax. Too much for you? Unamerican? Then let's call it the 1% tax. That's a vote of 99 to 1! That's better than Al Gore's Black vote. Even if we went so far as to create the 0.1% tax and tax only the wealthiest tenth of a percent of the nation; we would be making BIG$$$.
7) Multi-Nationals: Represents one of the largests threats to a free society and may be the easiest to fix. Their achilles heel is profit. Eliminate corporate welfare and tax breaks, turn around and give those benifits to small businesses. This would allow local shops and start ups to compete against the corporation's economy of scale. Smaller businesses are more responsive to the communities they are in and in the long run hire more people at roughly the same wage. Mom&Pop stores won't have to worry when Mega-lo-Mart moves to town since uncle sam has leveled the paying field and has the entrepenuer's back. Another thing is that corporations derive thier existance from various charters and laws. Change those and change change THEM.
6) Patent's, Copyright, and Trademarks- I have no idea how to fix this. None. The original principle was to foster innovation and the exchange of idea's. Not to provide a cash flow to the pimps of artists and engineers. I'm talking to you AOLTIMEWARNER and SONYCOLUMBIAVIACOM (I think i mixed up my media conglometes, too lazy to check)
7) National Security- This is bad. Do you know how many terrorist bombings there are in America compared to those caused by Joe Six pack? Very few. Some dog got its head blown off a few weeks ago by a tennis ball bomb. Before that some dude got his leg blown of by an internet psycho. That's just in town! The only domestic terrorist bombings I can think of is Oklahoma, The UN building, the unabomber and Waco. There have been more attacks on the public from our own government (read up on confirmed US biological warfare experiments) than from a foriegn power. But we have to keep secrets because "the bad guys are out there." We have to catch drug dealers, we have to catch spys. Bullshit. Our government can't even keep our best A-bombs secret. They can't stop drugs on planes what makes you think they can stop bombs? National Security is less about keeping secrets than about controlling information. Actually, it's more about control. The espionage Act, The Sedition Act, Trading with the enemy act, and ect. are all about what the government can do and you can't. They sound necessary and sometimes they use them for good purposes (like RICO) but you need to get into the way-back machine to understand that they came about to provide the means for the government to control information. A simple partial fix is to declassify ALL materierals 20(10?30?) years old. If there's info that's really that dangerous it could be reclassified (though some system) with a note on what it is (like "This material pertains to Uranium Processing") until 20 years rolls around again. There are things that are classified that shouldn't that we have a right to know. What happened to Kennedy? What's this Roswell shit? Why is John Lennon's FBI file suppressed? Why are things from WWI still classified when everyone is dead? What's the scoop on Poppa Bush's cozy relationships with Saddam and Noriega just prior to both invasions? Don't even get me started on COINTELPRO. In order for a free society to work the people making decisions (ultimately us) MUST have access to ALL information available. The Hobgoblin of National Security is used to scare us into complacency and keep us from information we NEED to know. BTW, all this declassified info should be scanned in and web available to allow searches and cross-referencing. All govt docs should also appear on the web as it's created. No more secrets. I firmly believe that our founding fathers (except for Adams and his fucking Alien & Sedition act) understood that the free flow of information is the bedrock on which a republic is founded. Support the constitution: HACK! CRACK! LIBERATE!
8) Fusion Power- The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. The universe is literally made from the best fuel available. I believe that with the current level of technology, WE ARE ONE APOPLLO PROGRAM AWAY FROM FUSION POWER. We did it for the A-Bomb, we did it for the genome, and we did it for the moon. Let's do it for free energy. I can not overstate the importance of a fusion project. I'm aware that we are spending a lot of money on this already. Let's spend more, and let's develope it for people, not for profit. Everything in society fundamentally breaks down to energy. When energy is free, the values of all materials drop considerably and the number one factor of an item's MINIMUM cost becomes the labor involved. The reason we mine ore is because it's cheaper in terms of energy to do so. With unlimited energy you can mine dirt. you could make everything out of titanium or exotic alloys that are unaffordable now. Gold and other minerals can be extracted from desalienated seawater that will provide water to places that need it, like the mid-east. Pollution goes away because now you have the energy available to use less-effiecnct nonpolluting systems as well as the energy to break down garbage to its chemically pure components. Food becomes vastly more available and cheaper (free?) because you can manufcture soil and grow underground. Living space pressures and political oppression become moot in a world with fusion power because the intire solar system would be cheaper to colonize (the largest cost to space travel is the energy to get there). That's a lot of space, and we're sure to develope intersteller travel before we fill it up. Having a vast unexplored frontier rich in resources has historically been shown to be a good thing (hedge: there's no indians in space). Fusion power will eventually be developed. That's a fact. The concern to Americans is WHO HAS IT? If it's the multinationals - we're fucked. Fusion should be a not-for-profit-enterprise. Let's develope it and then give it away. Let every third world country build one. Design the system so that the GigaWatts/$ ratio is as high as possible and then cover costs through power distribution. Rent the line, and all the juice is free. Some folks my doubt me on this. Especially if you think I'm wacked from my previous suggestions. The proof is in the pudding though. Look at the instances throughout human history where we developed a new power source. Slave labor, oxen, gravity, water wheels, steam engines, coal, fossil fuels. Each instance where a culture developed a new power source was promptly followed by a revolution in technology and culture.
Anyway, I'm ranted out now. My apologies for the stream of consciousnes format, i wrote this in one sitting. If you like the any of these ideas, repeat them, tell a friend! If they suck, improve them! Get those memes circulating! We can't fix this mess without an idea of how to do it. And we can't get an idea without a system to freely and equally exchange ideas where the best idea wins.
On top of all that, as one astute /.'er pointed our Constitution doesn't even give us the right to own property!
What is in a constitution should be a moot point anyway. Consitutions are like training wheels for a country; they're good in beginning to keep you from falling, but if you leave them on to long they'll do nothing but hinder you. When modern French, America, Britain, and other countries started to emerge from the monarchies the constitutions served to make sure the newly acquired rights of the people were observed. Now that the nations have matured the constitutions aren't protecting anyones rights, but instead clogging up court systems with frivolous lawsuits. The constitution says no cruel or unusual punishment therefore prisoner X can sue the government beacause he got smooth not chunky peanut butter.
Canada didn't even have a constitution until the 1980's, however we seemed to get through through the first 115 years without any major problems. Only the last few have been made difficult due to the introduction of the constitution at such a late of the country's development.
Once upon a time there was Rome the best place for living in. It was ruler of the World - a safe and stable home. But then...
The only thing we can be sure of is that nothing is really sure. I've seen a whole state imploding myself: East Germany.
There where many people believing in the system. For them it was their safe home country. Bad things only happend beyond the borders of this country. They didnt really care about the other parts of the world.
Then the whole government collapsed (not only because there where also people revolting against the system, but also because of economical and political influences from outside - the Soviet Union was going down and so on...). For the believers their whole world was breaking down.
And now i'm asking you: When you trust in the system you are living in, how can you be sure you are not going to make the same mistake these people did? There is more then one truth and more then one best system... There is more out there then "Kosovo or Russia".
I dont want to talk about the living quality in the US - I mean it's a general question we all have to deal with...
Bye,
Duncan.
I know this is probably troll bait, but the US was never really the best place to go if you wanted to be free. We pay a lot of lip service to personal freedoms, but have never really practiced what we preach. We held on to slavery long after most countries had abolished it. We had Jim Crow (and still do, in practice) until the 1960s. We still have a small propertied class that controls more than 90% of the wealth in the country. Yet Americans refuse to think in terms of class distinctions. We've been fed that bulls&*t line about America being a classless society for so long that we believe it.
Maybe I'm just bitter, but when the Supreme Court gets to select a president, it does a lot to disenchant you. Hell, if we really believed in freedom and democracy, we would have direct election of our presidents, and probably wouldn't have a drug war...
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
"The EU has equal rights laws, which they actually apply."
you mean like germany and the netherlands which pay additional money to breeders to have more kids? ['kindergelt']
imagine if the local sewage district paid money to butt-fuckers to produce more 'children' so they could justify the expansion of the sewage plant...
they want more germans and white europeans so they don't have to import all those smelly ferengis' from turkey and africa to clean the toilets and pick up the trash on the streets.
of course the us of a has its own version of 'kindergelt' we calls it *welfare* down in the 'hood, where whitey's tax dollah be payin' for welfare bitches to have lots of kids so's we can fill all dose prisons mr and mrs whitey amerika be buildin' bigtime...
da homeys in da 'hood still don't get it, do they?
"...can you imagine a BEOWULF CLUSTER of these? That'd be some serious power!"
the glory of martyrdom is little comfort to the martyr, and that all the right-wing anti-government gun heroes are dead?
randy weaver, waco, etc.
who operated the weapons that killed them?
the United States Government.
did the poor innocent childlike civilians have weapons to defend themselves from the Big Bad Fedril Guvmint?
yes; in fact, they had more weapons than people to aim them.
despite large stockpiles of munitions, are they not still just as dead?
yes, they are irrevocably gone bye-bye.
technology has moved on, my friend. George Washington & Co. may have been able to use their one-shot rifles to scare off the Redcoats, but you modern folks don't have a chance. if the U.S. government ever really becomes so evil that they begin to mass murder their own people (again, remember Waco?) there will be nothing you can do against tanks, laser/heat guided missiles, and a satellite grid that can read the list of cities on your ok computer concert tee-shirt.
it's over.
you lost.
you're already dead.
now either put your "freedom fighting" where your mouth is and go shoot some "guvmint baddies" or get over it and spare us your whining.
---
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
Cuba.
No. Just the bitches.
Karma: Good. I'm hoping in the same way as pizza is 'good'...
Clinton's biggest flaw was the somewhat human and personal failing of cheating on his wife (Reagan also had an affair when he was Clinton's age). Bush perjured himself in front of the Senate during Iran-Contra by lying about his presence and involvement at key meetings (and then pardoned everyone who was scheduled to testify against him when he became president). Reagan and Bush both compromised our national security by selling guns to our sworn enemies, imported illegal drugs into our country, took actions that were specifically denied them by both the Constitution and the Congress, then lied to us about it when they got caught.
While this doesn't absolve Clinton by any means, I just get tired of the moral double-standard that I see Republicans applying to Clinton.
I understand your concern, but your fears are slightly misplaced; corporations don't give a rat's ass about your rights, one way or the other. What they care about is making money. Period. It just so happens that as we move to an information economy, making money has become more dependent on information, which is why your rights come into play.
You really think the solution is to move to another country? Ha! Perhaps you've heard of globalization? Or do you not think that multi-nationals effect rights world-wide? To paraphrase Paddy Chayefsky ala Network "There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today."
Governments today are largely pawns of the corporation... why? Because corporations have money. And where do corporations get their money? Other corporations... and you. If you really care about your rights, if you really care about your privacy, then get involved and make a difference. Do the only think that will have any impact: vote with your dollars . Elections are bought and sold and the only thing that will affect real change is hitting corporations in the bottom line.
The world won't end in darkness, it'll end in family fun, with Coca-cola clouds behind a Big Mac sun.
You mentioned Hollywood glamorizing criminal activity. Do you really think that Hollywood influences otherwise good people to go bad?
So you are saying that people are naturally bad, and the present situation is the best we can ever hope for?
Individuals must still shoulder their own responsiblility, but as a society, there are things we can do to reduce the chance that someone becomes a criminal.
Keeping families together, and giving them to opportunity to escape poverty is a good start. Allowing every child with the grades to get a college education is another. (college tuitions need not be the overpriced monstrositious they commonly are either) Increasing respect/requirements for educators is a good change. Right now they are treated like scum.
Anyway, i think weve strayed too far...
I'm telling you guys, I'm been looking high and low for several years now to get the hell out of here. Anything that is remotly good is getting bitch slapped by the US into submission. My current idea - Let's get a group of pipe hittin' geeks together and take a clandestian boat ride down south and TAKE OUT CASTRO. Then we take over, proclaiming a libertarian society!
The Good:
Casto deserves it.
We can get about 10,000 'recruits' from Miami. (20,000 if we use pictures of Elian)
Beautiful resource rich land.
Unwired area. The sky is the limit to build up an Internet economy.
Close to the US for trade. (Though they'll embargo us...)
Close to carribean financial centers. (To help get around the US embargo : > )
The Bad:
Spanish speaking.
Current populus is mostly brainwashed. (But then the US is too)
The US will have a cow. We'll have to be militarily prepared to fend them off. One word: Nukes (Low grade ones). Only solution unfortunatly; the only thing these punks in DC respect.
Hey I'm about | | this...it's been a shitty week anyway. Who's with me?
There are enough little 13 year old D00dz in chatrooms across the internet embarassing me as an American by claiming that America is a better county because it can nuke other countries, we don't need them on /. too. Not that you're a d00d. :^)
Just because we intervened in a war doesn't give us the right to act however we want, wherever we want. I get really sick of action movies portraying Americans as tough macho guys, behaving rudely towards anyone from a foreign country, and then defending themselves based on some other American (obviously not them) who fought and died in a war because it was simply the right thing to do.
By this logic you should be legally allowed to obtain mines, missiles, tanks, and rocket-launchers. We might be going down a slippery slope to include nukes as well, but you get the point. The government is probably more restrained from intruding on your rights because of moral/ethical/social reasons than because of any actual fear of your little non-automatic rifle there.
Usually the two are difficult to tell apart, but I do mean the UN because there are things that only the UN will do, for legitimacy reasons. Example (albiet extreme): Which, given the current conditions, is likely to form the kernel of a hypothetical One World Government? Answer: Almost certainly the UN. For the reasons that is the answer, I choose to pick on the UN.
For another example, I expect that any large-scale international IP agreement (which is in very real danger of occurring and curtailing our freedoms) would come from the UN, even if initiated by the UN.
I'm not quite as pessimistic as my original post sounded... but still, there's a lot of things the UN could do that would screw a lot of countries up, and have significantly more 'legitimacy' then a US-imposed treaty/international law could.
(PS: I'm amused some moderator saw fit to mark that original post as 'troll'! If that's a troll, then so was every legitimate answer given to the question!)
Have you ever tried to "be more politically active?" I see people do it regularly, and they get arrested for it. They don't violate ay laws, but they stage protests which the cops don't like and get beaten and locked up. Then they just throw them back on the street a couple hours later so there's no record of an arrest, and no charges made, so the people have no recourse against the cops. Fun.
Simply voting does not count as being politically active. It's an agreement that the side with more votes is right and is utter bullshit.
It's perfectly safe to be as politically active as you want as long as you're aligned with a major party or lobbying group, but if you don't represent somebody who's in power, well you don't really have all the rights you're made out to have. You can flame my ignorance all you want, but I see this stuff in the flesh in my day-to-day experiences and you can't make it any less real.
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I seemed to have hit a nerve there. I will accept your insults (i.e. mental instability, hypocrisy) with a smile/maniacal grin since I was guilty of doing the same to the original Poster. However, I must respond to your other comments:
:-)
Yes, generalizations about Americans are overdone, just as they are about Canadians. I should have been clearer in my statement. It should have read "Because of the [perception of] the high crime rate, lower standard of living" etc. No, not every American is an idiot criminal, but the crime rates are higher in the U.S. as a whole when compared to Canada. This is likely due to the larger cities and larger population, but the perception of more crime there exists. And the "right to bear arms" issue doesn't lessen the perception of the U.S. as a potentially dangerous place to visit.
The ignorance generalization largely comes from meeting Americans and having to continually correct bad assumptions about Canada (e.g. heavy snow all year round, an inferior health system due to socialism, etc.) Everyone I know has had to do the same in their dealings with Americans, so it leads to an overall view of the U.S. as fostering ignorance about other countries.
I stand by my assertion that the U.S. has a lower standard of living, based on the U.N. voting Canada #1 in living standards many years running. I would never blame the low standard of living on immigration though! Immigration strengthens a country, not weakens it. I find it interesting you blame "foreign peoples" for your country's difficulties, as that usually denotes a discriminatory attitude.
I agree you should be proud of your military, as it is a world leader and likely the world's strongest. I was merely pointing out that many Americans rely on their military strength to make an unrelated point. Yes, the U.S. could likely crush the Canadian military, but how does that prove that "Everyone knows the US is the best country in the world to live within"? Everyone does not think that, no matter how many armed forces and guns the U.S. has, and it's a dangerous attitude to have.
I think the Canadians on the board are trying to emphasize the strength of Canadian ingenuity. That basically covers anyone raised as a Canadian, despite where they ended up in their adult life. Maybe it is trying to have it both ways. But my point was to correct the original Poster. If he had read some more posts before making his statement, he might have noticed the Canadians admitting basketball was invented within the U.S., not within Canada.
As for the "Canada, pure of spirit" comment, I have no idea where that came from. Can anyone out there explain it to me? I personally prefer not to live in ignorance. That goes for any factual inaccuracies I may have made here as well.
And yes, I was a little touchy myself.
If those people are immoral then the corporation will be immoral and vice-versa. Many of our fellow residents of Earth are immoral and evil, but I don't believe the majority of shareholders of big companies is evil. "
Here is the difference.
If a person is evil (say jeffrey dahmer) and kills a few people AND he is caught, he gets tried criminally and is either jailed or killed by the state. If on the other hand if a corporation is evil (say firestone) and kills a hundred people nobody gets jailed or sentenced to death. The reason for this is twofold.
One is that the corporation is more then just people it's an soul-less immortal being with rights just like you and me. Unlike you and me though it can not be killed, jailed or tried criminally.
Two the people who summon such beings and serve them do so because the being also serves to insulate these humans from personal responsibily. The humans use this being as a shield. This way these humans who ordered the corporation to kill hundreds of human beings (with souls) can escape the death penalty or jail time.
The corporation being is the greatest tool ever invented for avoiding personal responsibility.
Not all corporations are evil but all of them are soul-less and immortal. As such they are immune from judgement by god (or whoever you see as the creator) and have no moral compultion. They are outside of any moral judgement by either a higher being or even the society at large. They can not be threatened by eternal damnation and if they ever get critisized too badly by the citizenry they just move to another country.
War is necrophilia.
How disturbing. After all, the guy is supposed to be a raving Commie loon, or _something_ that's massively 'unAmerican' and therefore not to be respected in the least. To read his views on this country and have them making very good sense is extremely disconcerting.
But no more so than "Speeches should be short" -Fidel Castro. (doh!!!)
If you don't like the rules that a corporation expect you to follow, then quit. You are free to do so. No corporation can, with the threat of force, make you do anything. Your freedom can only be taken under the threat of force.
If you criticize your boss and are fired, how has that restricted your freedom of speech? You can say anything about your boss (well, almost anything) and you won't be put in jail. Your company may fire you, but of course that is their right, as you don't have a "right" to the job.
Corporations can, as I said, take a way choices that you might want -- i.e. the choice to speak freely about your boss, or not have your e-mail read -- but they can't take away your freedom. Again, only the government can do that. Corporations don't restrict your freedom to assemble -- assemble away! You won't be hurt or put in jail or anything. Just because that action has consequences that you don't like doesn't mean you aren't free to do it. Of course you are!
I'd love to see the reaction in the US if Illinois or New York tried seceding.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
The issue isn't that we disrespect basic human rights. The issues is that we believe that the right to make a profit is a basic human right. Look at the Declaration of Independance: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
pursuit of happiness == pursuit of profit. In short, greed -- the motivator for a great many bad things, yes, but also the primary motivation behind most of the good in this world as well.
My right to pursue profits is every bit as important as your right to privacy. Not moreso -- but every bit as much. I don't infringe on your right to privacy, you don't infringe on my right to pursue (not gain, just pursue) profit. If I *do* infringe on your right to privacy while exercising my right to pursue profit, the government stops me. What's so hard about that?
And once again, let me reiterate that I only have a right to pursue profit. The recent tendancy of the government to step in and permit corporations to trample on individual rights because they'd lose their profits otherwise disgusts me. I'll make no attempt to define or defend a right to gain profit -- merely to pursue it.
[going off on a tangent here... if responding to this post, please focus on the above]
However, don't think I necessarily like corporations. I don't like government involvement in the economy -- and the limited-liability protections corporations are given represent a very high level of such involvement. If the taxes the government reaps due to the improved economic conditions afforded by increased investment encouraged by limited liability make up for the costs, then it's a Good Thing -- but could as easily be handled by private insurance companies taking the same money the corporate tax does now (if it's profitable for the government, it would be profitable for a corporation). These insurance companies would then be motivated by greed to ensure that the companies they ensure don't screw their investors. Wallah! You've got an unharmed economy but with a thinner government on top.
I don't want to sound like a stupid offtopic troll, but Iceland *is* in North America tectonically. Interesting factoid. I guess it's not fair to blame all the geography mishaps on Americans after all.
/. before. Amazing. Anyone know the record for replies? Or is this it?
More important than that, this article is getting more replies than I have ever seen on
-----
Still shackled to the shadow
Corporations have also burned people to death (a noteworthy case in which seamstresses burned to death or leapt out 10th-story windows because the corporate policy was that all doors to the workplace be locked from the outside to prevent malingering). This decision to lock the doors from the outside was entirely a business decision: the seamstresses were not consulted in the matter.
It is... odd, that your argument of the virtue and harmlessness of corporations _entirely_ depends on the government involvement brought about specifically because of the abuses of corporations and Big Business: in particular, you seem entirely unaware that corporations in the past could and did hire gunmen to kill those who opposed the corporation. Want to thank someone for stopping that state of affairs? Thank government: no lesser force had the faintest chance of doing it.
If you'd like to bring _back_ a state of affairs where corporations can basically hire private armies to kill anyone that opposes them (hint: if it happened in the Third World, would you have heard about it on the nightly news?), I can only say that I would have to consider you an enemy.
My old boss spoke one day of what he referred to as "The Price of Freedom" in Canada. I already read about high taxes, socialized medicine, potentially lame gun control, etc, all of which look like bad points to someone used to lower taxes, private hospitals, and the 2nd Amendment.
But think for a moment where the money goes for these things. We don't hear (too often anyway) about the Prime Minister of Canada taking pleasure trips, though he and MPs may fly free between Ottawa and their home consituency. What we do hear is money put into health care (in spite of what Stockwell Day (CA) or Bill Blakie (NDP) says), money put into paying down our debt to other countries, comparably decent police and fire services paid for by governments, subsidized public transit so people who can't or won't own cars can still get around without paying a fortune... I could go on.
Even in a comparably conservative province like Alberta, I was able, with not much of anything, to get a two year tech diploma paid for via student loans (finally paid off, yeay!), to find a job with government sponsored resources, use gov't supplied computers and fax machines to generate Resume copies, attend gov't sponsored courses on job searching, and it only took me a month after graduation to find that first job.
Some people day God helps those who help themselves. Up here, Governments help those who help themselves. I doubt I'd have the same success in North Dakota, Washington State, New York, or anywhere else in the US of A.
This month I got my tax package for 2001. I'm in the upper tax bracket for the first time in eight years of career work. I work for an American firm and get paid in American money, but still live in Canada and pay Canadian taxes. And I'll be happy to pay those taxes to the same gov'ts who helped me get started in the first place.
Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
These are the people who fall for pyramid schemes, who do all those things we read about and laugh. The government *can* do a better job of planning than these people
Bullshit.
Was that clear? Let me make sure you understand my point: BULLSHIT.
This sort of arrogance really, really irritates me, mainly because it is soooo common in the college-educated population. We spend years in school, studying hard and hanging out with people who do the same, then we get jobs where knowledge and brain power are our stock in trade. Employers pay us these large salaries to do nothing but learn and think. Obviously, we must be smart. Heck, we even have the dollars to prove it. With all of that knowledge that we have accumulated, obviously we're much better prepared to plan and handle our own lives than the common plebes <sniff>. And, in fact, we must be much better at it than they are. Heck, they aren't even smart enough to get a job where they make decent money. If that doesn't prove they're incompetent, what does?
Get out in the world a bit. Spend some time with some auto mechanics, garbage men, mail room employees, waiters, fence builders and truck drivers. Force yourself to get past your irritation at all of the stupid things they say, in fact keep at it until you realize how irritated they get at all of the stupid things you say, with your complete lack of understanding of their world (or, some might say, the *real* world).
What you'll find out is that they get along just fine, thank you, and while you may think some of their decisions are foolish ("Lotteries are a tax on stupid people"), you'll find out that they think many of yours are just as stupid ("Anyone who pays $30,000 for a car has more money than brains, and people who'd pay someone else to change their oil are just dumb").
Everyone makes good decisions and bad decisions, but, excepting for a small percentage of people who are really mentally handicapped, everyone, even those of well-below-average intelligence, are perfectly capable of managing their own lives, and...
*AND*...
THEY KNOW THEIR NEEDS AS *NO* *ONE* ELSE CAN! Not only that, they will spend more time worrying about their own situation than anyone else will, ever.
Rein in that snobbishness, and try asking people what they want, what makes them happy, what makes their lives complete and enjoyable (well, better find some ways to ask that don't sound so silly). I think you'll find that the answers are so varied and often so at odds with your own answers to the same questions that you'll have to admit that they are much better qualified to make their own decisions than you are.
Ask yourself: Would you like it if Marilyn vos Savant (just to pick a random person with a high IQ) were to take charge of your life, invest your money, give some of it to charities, choose your doctor, etc. all on the basis of a study of what people "like you" want? What if she worked really hard at it and was really sincere about giving you what she really thought was best for you? She wouldn't have time to actually ask you, of course, except through periodic phone polls ("Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or...").
Now replace Marilyn vos Savant's intelligence and dedication with vote-pandering, contribution-collecting politicians who make broad rules, attach a set of ad-hoc exceptions and compromises that are needed to collect votes for passage and then hand the whole mess over for implementation to dull and uncaring civil servants who can't be bothered to work even bankers hours. Sound good?
Give people some credit, even the most stupid are generally pretty darned smart when it's their own self interest at stake. There are exceptions, of course, but but overall the best-equipped people to decide how individuals should live (and spend) is the individuals themselves.
--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The kind of issues I'm thinking of are the ones you refer to when you talk about "The recent tendency of the government to step in and permit corporations to trample on individual rights because they'd lose their profits otherwise." The intellectual property arena is just one area where corporations appear to be increasingly supported by government in "pissing in our drinking water": damaging the public domain by being allowed to impose undue control over their "intellectual property".
[Side rant: I'm not against profiting from the fruits of intellectual labor; however, I am against a society in which innocent citizens are punished for the paranoia of value-subtracting middlemen who are watching their sinecures erode with alarm. The vaunted free market should be killing those middlemen off like flies; instead, the government is helping to legislate their continued existence. Long after these middlemen are gone, we'll still be dealing with the dangerous laws which they helped to create.]
And any workable plan for reducing government without introducing a brave new world in which corporations own us body and soul, is fine with me. I do question, however, whether the current insurance industry is capable of doing anything particularly more efficiently than government. Perhaps one day, when the existing insurance infrastructure has been replaced by fully securitized instruments which are traded on open insurance markets (sorry, been reading too much of The Economist), but right now the industry is too closed, too old-fashioned, and too slow-moving, and too spottily capitalized to provide good solutions to anything.
i am christian and this is what i want to see. a seperation of religion and politics. it doesn't work out too well when you have god-knows-how-many religions in canada. plus, do we really need a government to put more pressure on its citizens to know what christianity is? haven't we as christians done enough to keep shoving bibles and other religious crap into peoples faces already?
Let's take this back, a bit over 200 years ago. In brief: The American Colonies believe (correctly or not) that they're being oppressed by their government, which, although powerful, is in England all the way across a big ocean. This dispute leads to war.
The colonists win the war largely because many of them own their own guns, so they can mount an effective defense against their government.
In the country they create, they make sure (in language that seemed obvious to them at the time, despite the confused muddle their descendants later make of it) that just in case the new government ever gets as oppressive as the old one the citizens can mount a defense, everybody has the right to keep whatever kind of weapons they like, especially guns. The Founding Fathers realized the dangers inherent in such a policy, including some children accidentally killing themselves with weapons left in drawers (instead of being carried by the owner at all times, which they thought was the sensible way to keep a gun) -- they believed that, horrible as this certainty was, it was far less than the terrors imposed on all children growing up under an oppressive government.
Okay, back to the present: In America, despite the crippling of this vital Constitutional protection, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is still a strong part of the culture. Meanwhile, back in England, the people once defeated by an armed populous still take a dim view of citizens having the means to violently overthrow their divinely-ordained rulers, no matter how oppressive those rulers become.
Is anyone really surprised at this?
Quotes from A Man for All Seasons
wow, there are a lot of replys ot this post. i think this is pne of the longest threads i have ever seen, if not the longest. I wonder what the slashdot reocrd is?
-- free as in swatantryam - not soujanyam.
When I fly my small aircraft thru Canada, enroute to Alaska, I am *required* by Canadian law to carry a suitable rifle onboard my aircraft for survival use.
So, do you have any trouble with this when in American airports? In my limited experience, airports are the penultimate in anti-gun parinoia/precautions. (Ironic, isn't it?)
-X-
Quotes from A Man for All Seasons
no war since 1515 (they lost against the french)
rich country
high salaries (higher than in the US)
beautiful mountains
only drawback, small country... But, you can still travel, right?
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
Before anybody goes off the deep end, I'm not a theology major and speak from a largely Judeo-Christian perspective, because that's one I know. I also don't really care what two people want to do in their own homes as long as they don't force somebody into it or try to jam their views down my throat. Discussion is good and healthy, but screaming "You're a frigging bigot" just because I don't happen to be gay, or black, or a one-legged hobo with ears the size of an elephant is not discussion; it's plain old intolerance for somebody who's opinions don't match with your own.
Now that that's outta 'da way...
Put quite simply, Marriage is a religious covenant and should not be the realm of any government save a theocracy.
Most offensive, to me at least, is the fact that a religious idea requires a license from the government.
/tma
----
I have lived in the US. Twelve years. I now live in France since twenty-odd years. I have read in this string of topics a lot of nonsense, quite a bit of ordinary patriotism and a few downright ridiculous remarks. Is the US the best country to live in ? Well, if you're not packing your stuff on the back of donkey to go to Canada or Mexico, then it's not that bad. But there is one thing that makes my hairs rise : somebody here said "you only have the security you can enforce". WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE YOUR VIEW OF SECURITY ? Have you been trained for that ? Have you been sworn to serve and protect ? Have you been educated in the proper use of lethal force ? No. You do not need all that to have the right to kill someone. Not in the US. I do not expect to change anyone's point of view, but I have to say : as long as America is giving away the right to kill, children will die. As long as the 2nd amendment will not be revoked, innocents will die at the hands of maniacs "enforcing their security". Stop the nonsense, give weapons to those who KNOW how AND when to handle them : the police and the army. If no one else had guns, no one else would need them. And no one can argue with that.
Live in the UK, it's great because you can still speak english and the rest of the culture is very similar to america. The real advantage is that the government here are OK and are not as intrusive as in the US. On the downside - it rains all the time and no broadband access(but that should be fixed in a few years). Finally if you are looking for a place with great computer opportunities than try india.
If a person is evil (say jeffrey dahmer) and kills a few people AND he is caught, he gets tried criminally and is either jailed or killed by the state. If on the other hand if a corporation is evil (say firestone) and kills a hundred people nobody gets jailed or sentenced to death. The reason for this is twofold.
Also whilst the person (or group of people) are awaiting trial they may be subject to things such as curfew, having to report to police, being held in jail, etc.
Even though it's quite possible for the state to "kill" a corporation this simply does not happen. It's also quite possible for the corporate status to not apply where criminal acts occur and prosecute the people concerned.
Sorry; I didn't mean to be such a meanie. Please don't sue me for pointing certain things out.
I'm not going to claim Fox News is less biased than their competitors; they have a markedly more conservative slant on the news. Your hypothetical activist might be invited onto a show to debate more conservative viewpoints, and he might indeed be given an uphill battle to fight. Or yes, he might not be invited on. CNN or CNBC would be more likely to show him in a better light, and that's where your activist should look to peddle his opinions. If you don't like Fox beating up environmentalists, watch another channel.
News "censored by the 'liberal' networks"? I've seen a few examples, mostly about the Clinton administration and other politicians. The editorializing between and during newscasts is certainly different. As for CNN's website versus its broadcasting, there have been several stories, prominent on their website, that have received little or no attention on the television show.
As for my ideas on healthcare, I thought about it for a while. If you don't think having to pay out a $100,000 insurance policy in a month, rather than in a year of five years, would be no incentive for an insurer, then I suggest you ask an actuary. And you're right, if a company is providing you both medical care and workman's compensation, their care certainly would be aimed at getting you back to work. That might mean prescribing a more effective medication or performing an operative procedure. It might mean the company would claim you were feigning sickness; but that's no change from how it is now. My suggestions don't fix all the problems.
Finally, on my being paranoid about everything, I'm not the one claiming "they" would do anything to maintain their dominance on the news media. Who is this "they" we're talking about? Are "they" planning on shutting down WorldNetDaily? Or the Drudge Report? Or Salon.com?
Brand new article I just found; according to WorldNetDaily, "The year's 10 most underreported stories". Yes, they're all of greatest interest to conservatives, but hey, that's what I am.
The U.S. is still pretty much unparalleled in the civil rights it offers its people. As a United Kingdom citizen, I enjoy most of those same rights through my countries adoption of the European convention on Human rights. Ironically, dispite how popular paranoia about the intellegence services (particularly the NSA (UKUSA et al.) and the CIA) is in the States, you have wide far more wide ranging rights over the access of civilians to military and intelligence data than almost anywhere in the world. As I see it the United States is plagued by two main problems. Firstly it is fundamentally corrupt. Lobbying and external payment for political parties appropriation of capaign funds means that U.S. politics is riddled with an excess of influence by big corporations. Just because the system is open about this influence doesn't make it any less corrupt. In this area other contries (the UK included) are way ahead - controlling businesses involvement leads to a stronger democracy. I just hope my contry will do more to back this up with stronger civil rights than they have been doing up until now. This is just my opinion of course. I hope I haven't offended anyone. Jim Moores
By this logic you should be legally allowed to obtain mines, missiles, tanks, and rocket-launchers.
I agree completely.
The government is probably more restrained from intruding on your rights because of moral/ethical/social reasons than because of any actual fear of your little non-automatic rifle there.
It takes alot less than a "little non-automatic rifle" to kill someone.
The second Amendment doesn't exist to allow us to protect ourselves against criminals, or for hunting rights. The framers pointed that out quite clearly. It exists as insurance that our government continues to represent us with our consent.
People have had it beat into their heads over time that we are governed. We're not. We are served. Have more self-respect.
--
I am just fascinated by how the response to any given Jon Katz post usually includes an avalanche of posts (sometimes numbering in the hundreds) deriding his technological understanding, the appropriateness of the topic on Slashdot, and including a liberal dose of plain and fancy flamage. But this topic (a good one in my humble opinion, but no more tech-oriented than much written here by Katz) has gotten over 1,500 posts in just a few hours, with only a tiny percentage being variations on "Why is this here on Slashdot? You suck!"
I sense a trend here, possibly a conspiracy of anti-Katz bigotry . . . . .
-X-
Quotes from A Man for All Seasons
I would be very surprised if most amercans here would say: "Yes, we live in deep shit" (in which you IMHO are:)
Its definitely natural for anyone to protect his status quo. And NOT to think (or talk) about negative parts of everyday life.
Exactly the same sort of propaganda made russians in soviet union think that they are most free and leaders and blablabla....
If you look place most free, its definitely not some G7 coutry or probably any BIG country...
__
L.
My personal choice of living would be one of the mediumsized european union states like netherlands, belgium, denmark. While most scandinavian lands are also very interesting, they are also cold and beer is much too expensive :-)
:-), much freedom, not too much intervention from the goverment, reasonable law, cautions police and a general understandment of "a citizens country" instead of a "cutthroad country" or "fittest will survive country".
:-)
Those Medium Sized Countries have a personality (micro-countries like luxemburg or andoria do not have more personality than your average postoffice
Well, in general their police seems to be a bit lame in some cases (eg the case of the childmurderer Marc Detrou) but at least they react to public oppinion (or however you call 10.000 parents going rioting through your capitol
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
Now, it is my time to rant and rave (Because I like doing that). You see I am a proud Australian , yes, we do have a somewhat retarted government, but I don't think I could ever live in Americia. But I digress. I want to talk about the electrol system
A while ago Cortney Love was in Australia, and she was on a radio station, JJJ, (goverment funded nationwide youth radio) and she was talking about the Americian electrol system. In Australia voting is not an option, it is compulsory. if you don't submit a vote, $50 Dollar fine or a night or two in jail if you prefer. Ms Love commented on this saying that it made a lot more sense because it ensured that the majority of the population (ie 85% and up) casted valid votes (there are ways to "not" vote but still turn up).
The reason I point this out is that I think it is the americian system's number ONE downfall. How is it correct to say that someone who was voted in by the majority of the minority as a mandate to govern. you could, theoretically obtain the support of 15% of the nation, but still win the election by a landslide. I do think that in a true beautiful democracy voting should be a choice, but it isn't that clear cut, on paper communism is the fairest and most just form of governmet for the people, but we have seen that it doesn't really work that way. In Australia we do not have a popular vote for our leader. We are divided into regions (only 7 states/territories) and each region elects a representive. that rep may belong to a party (the two major ones are Labor and Liberal). Which ever party has the most members elected can attempt to form government (in some cases there may be a coalition government made up of two or more parties). The leader of that party (who is voted for by the party well before the election) is then the prime minister.
I feel this has one major advantage over the popular elected leader. Whoever the leader is, they got there through politics and policy, they do not need to have bucketloads of cash to run (though most polictions are well off).
But my real point isn't to compare the two systems. it is to explain that there are many many different ways to elect the leader of you country, many ways to run government and many many ways for people to show their power.
If you don't like the system, change it
Travis Matheson
Leg Godt!
That name crops up a hell of a lot on this topic. Consequently people go away read choamsky and get even more paranoid and scared and recommend him to other readers which is what i am doing now...
_________________________________________________ Intresting SIG
I don't think there even is one.
Kasreyn, your question reveals you to be a very young and inexperienced person. How would you expect anyone to reply to that? You should save some money and take a trip overseas. Anywhere. Anywhere at all. And stay for a little while. Don't stay in a five star hotel with servants at your beck and call and a driver to ferry you to the newest tourist attraction. Live on the economy. Read the local newspaper. Try paying the taxes or using the medical services. Make up your own mind. If nothing else, it will educate you.
What really annoys me about U.S. so-called freedom is the fact that Americans constantly brag about how free they are, when they do not seem to reflect a minute about what freedom would really mean.
- Other countries would be baffled about having speech [BEEEP] censored in TV shows. It just does not exist.
- Other countries accept homosexuality as part of nature -- the term "gay rights" is like "employee empowerment"; if it existed and people took it for granted, you wouldn't need to talk about it. (Here in Sweden, an ad campaign is running in the subway right now with "Daddy, daddy, child, child" as headline for a family trip package.)
- Other countries are downright confused about US's Victorian attitude to sex combined with the world's highest teen abortion rates; in the rest of the world, sex is seen as (just) a healthy activity that people should engage in -- especially teens. (Possibly with the exception of the Vatican and some Moslem countries.)
- I could go on and on and on...
My point is this: everybody is so homogenous -- required to be -- and intolerant of deviants, that you do not really understand what "freedom" means any more. Americans have focused on freedom from government, when freedom among peers has a vastly larger effect on your personal happiness.As soon as you realize you are not 100% homogenous with your peers, the United States becomes Hell on Earth. (From what I read on Slashdot, several people are aware of this in American schools.)
If you want to experience a place where you are free among your peers, I suggest you stay in Holland or Lichtenstein for a couple of weeks. The Unites States, however, is a joke in this respect -- comparable to many Moslem states.
http://www.erraticimpact.com/~20thcentury/html/fou cault.htm
Michel Foucault said that power is suggestive - this exactly explains your question.
You can't handle the truth.
Hey, I share your concerns about the limitations on our basic freedoms and the seeming lack of interest by so many in the capital. I have been watching this issue for a long time and there has been and is a trend to chip away at our freedoms so the central goverment can gain more and more control. The problem has been that too few have taken any action to reverse the trend. It wasn't politically correct to be patriotic or to believe in principles so people stayed home or made fun of "those radicals". Listen to what they said and then read the news, if you can believe what you read anymore. Maybe they're not to "out there" after all. The answer is NOT to leave but to organize with like minded indviduals and convert others to the cause. We're out here and we share your fears. That's why IT IS IMPORTANT not to run but to stand and fight for our rights. It has taken centuries to develop our way of life and millions have died to maintain our freedoms. It's damn time we realized that the path this country has been on for the last 50 years is wrong and we must correct it. As a country we must learn from the mistakes of the past and try to reverse them. It starts with one person, then another, and another until we are many. You would be surprised how many people already share your views. GET INVOLVED! Don't wait for someone else to do it for you. Hop out of the wagon and help us pull. It's our responsibility to defend our rights, or lose them one by one.
Perhaps this is little late ... but I can't resist answering his comments.
>>Would you buy hamburgers from McDonalds if the
>>company also sold crack
>Could you stop them if they did? And would the
>other 90% of sheeple in America continue to buy
>McDonalds b/c they cant read/dont care? Would
>you let these same people set the co-ordinates
>on the Space Shuttle???? no - why should we just
>let the sheeple-mob steer us all into oblivion?
You touch upon a very interesting point. You are basically saying that you don't trust the people. If you can't trust your fellow citizens, whom are you going to trust? And at the same time you are saying that "90% of sheeple in America can't read/don't care?" you are asking for "business to come to town-hall style meetings and be accountable to the public". The same public that can't read and doesn't care?
>>Shell now has a human right commissioner and
>>most ads from that company state how nice the
>>company is to the environment and to it's worker
>Are you on drugs? So they put some asshole in a
>title and shove propaganda down your throat and
>you think all is well? You think they have
changed one fucking bit?
Well, Amnesty International does think Shell is trying to improve. From an Amnesty International report on Nigeria:
"In its approaches in recent years to Shell and other transnational companies [other oil companies] with significant investments in Nigeria, Amnesty International has appealed to them to acknowledge their responsibility to do all they can to uphold human rights under the UDHR. Only Shell has done so to date."
Shell was heavily attacked for their stance in Nigeria so it is understandable that they have responded to those concerns. When your stock price begins to fall because of your human rights record you have to do something.
And Amnesty International is not the only NGO that thinks Shell is trying to improve it's human rights record. Urmi Shah of Human Rights Watch believes Shell is moving in the right direction on the human rights front.
>Would you buy hamburgers from McDonalds
>if the company also sold crack
>>Could you stop them if they did?
Yes, I could stop them, with little help from the "sheeple-mob". The campaign against Shell was pretty effective. So was the campaign against Nike for employing children in it's factories. And so was the campaign against soccer ball producers in Pakistan.
>>A corporation is a body, formed by people, that
>> is authorized by law to act as a single person
>When thousands of people act on behalf of a
> corporation it is no one person who is acting
> 'evil or bad'. The problem lies in the motivations,
> what people are forced to do to feed themselves.
> They are compeled to act on the corporations
> behalf to further its interests. There is no debate
> what the 'interests' of the corporation are: profit.
> Always.
Correct, the objective of every corporation is profit, the more profit, the better. But do you have a better system? Do you want all the corporations to be owned by the government, or perhaps you have even better solution? Besides, every society has rules to control the behavior of both people and corporations. Perhaps you will just say that corporations will bend the rules and bribe the governments. If you really think so, then please tell that to all the corporations that have had their actions blocked for some reason by the European Union :)
>The worlds transnationals are all alike
> - what the hell are you thinking? There
>are none that I would consider moral and
> just. Literally zero. Besides, capatalism
> ends in collusive monopolistic mega-corps
> all acting to preserve there collective best
> interests. They will collectively oppose
> anything that may force them to become
> accountable and responsible.... I suppose
> youve never heard of RIAA/MPAA?
Yes, I have heard of RIAA/MPAA. In fact I've been following the copyright and fair rights issues for a quite a while.
Even though I don't agree with RIAA/MPAA I don't find them immoral and evil. I do in fact believe there are quite a few good multinational companies. What do you have against IBM, HP, Oracle, Volvo, Compaq, Lucent, Dell, Xerox, Fedex, Kodak, Cisco to name a few?
You may disagree with them on some issues and their products may be trash. But to say those companies are immoral is just not correct. Heck, even Microsoft has done a lot for humanity, even though Windows is crap and they are a monopoly.
Besides, most companies today are accountable to the public. They have to comply with laws in America and EU and they have to answer for their wrongdoings in the media and before shareholders meetings. And Ford has certainly suffered because of the Firestone incident. And so has Shell because of their Nigeria incident.
>>>The internet is being dismantled by people
>>> who want to stop paying anything to
>>> produce any content but make you pay
>>>everytime you access the same old content,
>>>over and over, because its gravy, all gravy.
> you didnt address his point: That big business
> will simply change/buy laws to extend copyright
> so they dont have to create new content...
>and force everyone who does out of business...
This comment is quite ridiculous. Media companies make the most money from new or recent content. Do you see Disney, WB, Paramount, etc. trying to sell their many excellent old movies. No, you don't; instead you see them marketing their new and terrible movies every single year. I don't even see book publishers heavily marketing their old books, and I don't expect to see this change in the coming years. This phenomena hasn't changed yet, even when at the same time copyrights has been extended from 25 to more than 90 years today. Do you really think media companies will suddenly begin to market their old warez just because the copyright will be extended even further?
Media companies don't even have that immense clout. They are being attacked heavily by Congress and many NGOs for violence in their movies and TV shows (perhaps you agree with those attacks?). And do you really think the media companies, with perhaps 100 billions in total revenues, have more influence on the government and congress than the much bigger computer industry [or any big industry for that matter]? The computer industry isn't that successful in it's campaigns for more visas for foreign workers and for less export regulations for encryption.
>Big American Corporations have WAY to much
>power and WAY too little public accountability.
>I dont want to 'vote with my dollars' - this simply
>allows them to predicate their 'money is the only
>thing that matters' system - fuck that: I want
>business to come to town-hall style meetings
>and be accountable to the public, you dont
>satisfy the public - your out of business (or
>something similar, I may not have the right
>mechanism - but you get the idea...)
Perhaps you are right, maybe corporations do have too much power. If you want to fix that, the right place to start is with campaign financing reform, just like John McCain is asking for.
But your town hall solution is pretty weak as you have yourself pointed out (90% of Americans are "sheeple-mob").
And using your logic ("you dont >satisfy the public - your out of business") media companies that produce material that the public doesn't like (Hustler, Nazi books, communist books, etc.) would go out of business. I'm pretty sure no movie company would have dared to produce a movie like Natural Born Killers or Lolita because every town hall meeting would have found those movies to be immoral.
Try to come up with a better logic next time.
And people can't even agree on what Heaven is like. I believe you gotta make your own heaven on Earth. You gotta separate your 'self' from the masses. You have to be your own person. You have think for yourself, with no outside influences. That means turning off your tv, stop listening to radio, stop going to movies, don't read the newspapers, don't read periodicals, and make and take the time to think! Actually sit down and think. It doesn't matter where you are. People are people. Some people are mean. Some people are very nice. Some people like to have fun and be frivolous. Others are serious. All of us have egos. We all react to pain. We all fight in the name of our God, or our beliefs. I dunno your age, but I suspect you're in your college years. Don't fret. Let it be. And be yourself. This is the first step to freedom. You're probably just now finding out that the world is not round like they told you in high school. Capitalism is prone to greed, acts of selfishness, and is merely a model for society that is flawed, and the model is incomplete. People sue for rights and copyrights. People try to force each other out of the market, for bigger market share. Have nots perpertrate crimes. They steal. And so do the major players. There are two laws. The law of the land, and the law of your God. It is most difficult to follow both. At times, it is impossible. But if you steer toward your God, you'll be true to yourself, and that brings peace and righteousness. So, there is no 'place' that is better than another. Truly, Americans' rights and liberties are deteriorating, due to Capitalism. But, as shown, communisim is flawed too. Socialism is likewise flawed. There is no perfect place, except Heaven. Seek Heaven from within. Be true to yourself. Put up that bs that you have to, and ignore the stuff you don't. "I'm fixing a hole where the rain comes in, And stop mind from wandering Where it will go." "And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right, "Where I belong I'm right where I belong. "Silly people standing there" "Who never win, who never grin" "And wonder why they can't get past my door." - John Lennon People can't break down a door that is you. You can open it to them. Or open to look out and wonder. You can keep people out. You can let people in. Its your door. Nobody can take that from you. Where you belong, is in you. When you fit there, you can then decide who and what gets past your door.
Well it's about 1meg already; and this will get a rating of 1 so why bother.
Before I started travelling I had a friend who had travelled for 6 years tell me :
Australia for the beaches.
Canada for the mountains.
The rest is a waste of time.
I think he was being a bit hard.
England: for the monuments the history.
France: for the food.
Sweden: for the pine forests.
Germany: for the order ( a little sad).
Singapore: for the exteme order ( it might be what you like).
Japan: so many people and so polite.
USA: To be amazed at the quality of some of the phyical infustructure; the degragation of other; the extreme rich; the poor. Such extreme views: Pro gun; anti gun; pro abortion; anti abortion. And the place still works; it is simply amazing.
Which is the best, when away from home: I miss the Gum trees; the wide open spaces; the stars still shine bright over large areas. I miss being able to assume the person doing the job can read; will aim to get the job done and will have a resonable education.
Australia: But there is no place like home; and that is just the way it is.
The question was flame bait; little more.
>Is the United States still the best choice of
:-)
>a place to live for safety, freedom, and
>quality of life?
this can not be shown to you by way of written
opinions alone.
travel a bit, my friend, with your eyes and
ears open, and you will see... that this
might not be the truth
### barx
From what you say the US doesn't sound like a very good place to live at all. Maybe you could tell me where it is so that I can avoid it.
The Constitution didn't prevent blacks or women from voting. That was done by the states. If you look at the relevant amendments, they don't actually grant that right either; instead they forbid the states from taking it away.
In fact, most of the rights "granted" in the Constitution are worded that way. It's something I consider that to be very important. Looking at Canada's own Charter of Rights, we see a different set of wording: rather than guaranteeing the mentioned rights, it merely grants them. I consider this disturbing, because anything that is "granted" can be taken away, whereas something that is guaranteed cannot.
This is also, in the end, why I prefer the GPL over similar licenses. It's a mindset that freedom which isn't guaranteed is not freedom at all. I'm sure I'll get flamed for it, but there's nothing I can do about that.
----------
Take the Firestone case for example. Who will be punished in that case? Primarly the stockholders, even if they didn't do anything wrong (except perhaps buying shares in the wrong company).
Remember, companies don't make decisions, people do. And those people who make a decision, knowing that tens of people will die because of their decision, they should be punished.
If individual employee knew they could go to jail because of their wrongdoings they would be much more inclined to do the right thing. Currently, the worst that could happen to you if you do something terribly wrong as an employee, is that you will be sacked. The current system relies too much on firms to police themselves. Laws on corporate crime often make the accountability of individuals insufficiently clear. This needs to be changed.
A very good exception to the current system on corporate crimes are laws on the enviroment. If a company breaks those laws, a criminal liability is assigned to the top managers of the company. We need those kinds of laws against more types of corporate crimes.
I'm sorry but in some states, the sodomy is banned. I think that masturbation may be also illegal, but I'm not sure.
So there is the freedom of speech (even for nazis) but there isn't the freedom of the "body".
For me, the true freedom is: the freedom of speech AND the freedom of the body.
The freedom of the body implies having the right to do anything as long as it doesn't infrige on the liberty of anyone else..
From a "foreigner" POV, it is quite obvious that the USA have "glaring gaps" in their so called freedom.
It is always much more easy to see what wrong in the other country than in your own country..
That would be because he is wrong in the eyes of Buddhists, Muslim, Shinto, athiest, et cetera.
I'm not opposed to religious freedom, nor do I think someone should be held back because of his/her religion, but I think it should stay out of government. The media probably didn't like him for the "conservative" part of his philosophy, not the Christian part of it. We have a similar situation here, though I'll stop short of labeling it a problem.
On the issue of certification of schools, I'd certainly like to see the facts on that one. I'd also reserve judgement on that issue until I see definitive proof that these school are up to par, and they are not using their "christian" nature to hide shoddy performance. Then again I think teachers should be the certified ones, not the buildings in which they teach. The state could just not certify religion courses as part of the educational building blocks.
Lowmag.net
What you generally find is that in a state of individualism, the state (which is always essential) tries to find people to spy on as the officials get paranoid. In a socially aware state - the state are still paranoid but at least the people they're spying on is everyone and everyone a larger target than whoever the agency feels like spying on at the moment.
Not having a constitution in the UK (except that of monarchy) means that any law can ultimately get passed in our country, including some very dodgy ones recently - however, thankfully Europe does have other laws to override the more stupid ones - like the human rights legislation. One of those human rights is one of privacy.
Oh, one more thing, whoever said that Canada invented Smarties is wrong. All of the US's decent chocolate comes through Canada but Smarties were invented by Rowntree Macintosh (a dodgy UK company) which got bought out by Nestle (a dodgy French company) and so that is presumably why you think they're Canadian.
And you are right, I did emigrate to France - although I was 12 at the time and my parents made the choice for me.
But I do not regret it. There is far less chance here that I or anyone I know get their head blown off by a nut with a gun.
I just wish that people would stop actually believing that the 2nd Amendment is protecting them. As far as I can see, it is killing more people than it protects.
Argue as much as you like about education, twisted morals and weak parents. The truth is, if those who killed a dozen students in a Colorado school had had knives instead of guns, their trip would have been much less costly in human lives, no ? And that is not even the most recent happening.
Wake up America ! Guns kill !
Kasreyn, I have one question? Did you vote? If not, why not? I have been of the opinion that anyone who complains about something when the tools of correcting the problem are at their disposal is lazy. Politicians pay attention to two things: money and votes. But if you sit back and preach to the choir (as you are doing here on Slashdot), what hope to you have that it will be any different wherever you wind up at? As with all things in life, the best things require effort and persistence. Now stop pissing and moaning and get out there and make a difference!
Why does our society undervalue learning? Perhaps a couple of generations of poorly run Gov't Monopoly schools have turned our society against learning?
Your right, some people CAN afford to put thier kids in a different school. But they still have to pay for the Gov't Schools too.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-B.Franklin
My original point was that it'd be nice if politicians all got off on the same foot (funny how politicians can be anti-communism and anti-union but still band together in groups that sacrifice the few for the good of the many?) and if there was some actual separation of business and state. That's all.
Oh yeah. And maybe less HURR HURR I READ A BOOK and more grounding in reality... anyone who utters "capitalism can work.. just ask Adam Smith!" from one side of the mouth and "communism could never work... just look at the USSR!" from the other needs a reality check.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
I ask myself this question from time to time. I have been to a dozen other countries and find consistenly that their governments and standard of living are way below ours. Have you seen the plumbing in Europe? They don't even know what a window screen is. Who let the bugs in!
Medicine, Science, Education, Basic Individual rights. Where do people always go when their government is killing or jailing them arbitrarily. Boat people, Cuban refugees, people from everywhere come here. Have you ever heard of a boat full of Americans washing up on the shores of Australia? When a rich guy from Russia needs an operation, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll fly to the U.S.
Here's something else to consider. My guess is that you're under 30. You have really only been asking this important question (good for you, keep asking) for 10 years. I didn't give a crap about what country was best when I was 20. Anyway, the past 8 years have been dominated by a president that has been the laughing stock of the world. World opinion of the US is still high, but Clinton's lying, indescretion and almost total disregard for our Constitution has discredited us in ways that we are just beginning to understand.
I don't think that a Republican president, elected in a razor thin margin election can put everything right, but the Republican party is more known for defense of the constitution (among other things).
So give it a chance... My guess is in a few years the picture will be different. And for everybody out there, don't kid yourself. The USA has the longest running government in modern history. Everyone thinks we are a "new" country, but every significant government on Earth has seen a major upheaval except the United States. We haven't had a major governmental change since 1865. No significant country can claim that. And even then the USA survived. 224 years and going strong.
The US is the modern day equivalent of Rome.
I met a girl from Lithuania just last night who cried in the cerial aisle of the grocery store this week, partly because she couldn't believe how much we have here and how little they have in her country.
KolinH
Try some of the Caribbean island nations, perhaps Costa Rica and then of course Pacific islands. e.g., Tom Hanks in Castaway had complete freedom.
Aide: Grant drinks too much to command an army. Lincoln: Find out what he drinks and give it to my other generals!
The country as founded in 1787 has been radically altered from a true Republic of Sovereign States into a Consolidated Nation which was completed in 1865. Since then, that Consolidated Nation has repeatedly and continually invaded people's lives and restricted freedom. While some of the actions of the government make sense, much is way beyond what was originally intended by our founding fathers. We continue to move closer to being an "Empire".
Corporations with all of their checks and intrusiveness are in many ways modelled after the Consolidated Nation.
Army No. Va.
Aide: Grant drinks too much to command an army. Lincoln: Find out what he drinks and give it to my other generals!
I'd swap your stated roles for corporations and the government. Corporations care about making money, nothing else. Anything they do, just ask yourself how it helps them make money and you'll understand it fine. The government on the other hand is run by elected politicians who largely care about their image above all (thus passing new laws to respond to sensational crimes instead of the less sexy option of more enforcement of existing laws, etc.) and staffed by (mainly liberal atm) idealogues who take every chance they get to make policy through regulations without going through that pesky democratic process. Much harder to scope these people's motives. And compared to some other countries often cited as being "more free" (i.e. less capitalist): *Australia passed a law last year allowing police to hack into a citizen's computer without a warrant or any other notification, take any data and then cover their tracks. They don't have to tell you before, during or after. *London, England has surveillance cameras on a large percentage of all intersections and sidewalks in the city. Who watches the footage and what do they use it for? That's classified. England also has no binding constitution or bill of rights. The government respects the Magna Carta by tradition, but if they decided not to, hey. People have been put in jail for weapons violations after using hand tools to defend themselves against muggers. Etc. *Canada and most west European countries charge ridiculous taxes to pay for a social safety net (mainly medical care) that, yes, does a good job on the basics, but people from these countries who can afford it often come to the US for advanced procedures which they either can't get (no private health insurance at home -if the govt doesn't think you need it, sorry) or would have to wait months-years for at home. *It's no accident that the economic boom that's made us so much richer happened here instead of "there". "There" (wherever it is) has such a steep regulatory ladder for companies to climb that startups can't get started, small business can't afford to buy equipment and big business can't hire and fire as it needs to in order to adapt to a new economy. For my money (I choose that phrase for a reason) I'll take the good ol' US of A, big ugly warts and all.
*** ***
The right to bear arms was resonable when US was build, the purpose was to garantee that people are able to stop/trow a government they can't stop with legal democratic means (if there is some bug in the constitution, or some dictator takes control of the US). This was reasonable in the *past*. US won the war with UK, because a lot of poeple had guns.
But now this is useless! The technology has changed. The wars have changed!
Think about the wars in Serbia and Iraq. Were they won by people with light, simple guns? You need modern toys! Can you stop a tank with a pistol? Not to mention air crafts, navigation, communications,... If you think you can gather some fellows with guns and stop the US army, I think you are wrong.
NOW You, the US people have to fight for freedom, but not the freedom for guns, the freedom of speech, the freedom of information. You have to fight censorship and patents. Now in this fery moment there is much higher possibility for the US to be taken over and monopolized by corporations.
Now information is you primary weapon - bear it!
US has been, by far, the most evil country `til now. You talk about patriotism and then bomb Kosovo killing lots of people without any soldier dead. You didnt want communism to enter the world, so you started a war that could have lend to the end of the world. Why you have to mess in others soup? Why dont you stand at your home and let other people live? You say that you fight for freedom, for YOUR freedom...
...
by the time the rest of us lend you airports, military bases and get into our wars you will be free.
I would like to see 4 billion chinese getting into US armed with a more advanced firepower than yours because Bush and Gore didnt decide
This is a fact, Even it hurts 2 you Americans, it is a fact.
------- The last Sig. got fired.
As for guns: in the final analysis, each person has only as much freedom as he or she can personally enforce.
So those without the power to personally enforce their freedom have none? Sounds quite cynical to me. Is there really no room for any humanitarian ideology in the U.S.?
I didn't say I had one! ;) I was merely commenting on one of the causes of the problem: that not everyone shares the prioritization of the human rights of others over their own profit.
Regarding that point, while checks and balances on government are very important, it seems to me that a need that's evolving in the digital age is for greater checks and balances on corporations, regarding many of the same kinds of issues that have traditionally been associated with government. The power which we worried that governments might abuse has largely shifted and now resides in corporations, which are less closely controlled, but nevertheless have the full force of government enforcement behind them.
So I don't believe that simply interpreting and enforcing the existing Constitution will be sufficient protection for a free society over the next century or so. I think a more explicitly drawn bill of rights related to issues like privacy and information sharing may be needed. It's not that privacy in and of itself is necessarily the primary issue, but rather the abuses that are possible when privacy is violated. Laws to protect against this need to exist with teeth, unlike most existing efforts in this area, so that when an individual's rights in these areas are violated by a corporation, the individual can obtain meaningful legal redress that will also serve as a disincentive to corporations to commit such abuses.
This approach seems to have worked quite well for product liability - corporations, in general, are quite responsible about the safety of products these days (Firestone excepted!) That's because the legislature has given higher priority to the safety of individuals, than to corporate profit. So "my solution" may lie in this direction...
Many more are descended from slaves. We survived the same brutalization and dehumanization that was passed out to the natives. The survivors and their descendants are tough and smart.
The rest of us are descended from those bloody handed invaders. Every opportunist, every body who was just pissed off with what was going on where they were, everyone who just wanted to see what they could be if they weren't under the control of an entrenched aristocracy of one form or another. All of those moved to the Americas. And, after the revolution more and more of them came to the US.
The key thing about the immigrants is that they weren't willing to put up with what they had and they believed in their personal ability to change things by their own actions.
In other words, we are descended from tough, mean, people who have survived against extreme misfortune and are willing to get up off their butts and take a risk. Of course we're different from the rest of the world. Everyone in the world who is like us has tried to move here for the last several hundred years.
stonewolf
P.S.
I'm proud to be able to claim all of the above groups as ancestors.
In which nation would you prefer to have spent time in before WWII?
I really am somewhat ignorant in the history of the U.S. But the way that left-wing thinkers, homosexuals or people of color were treated in the U.S. before WW II makes me believe that I would not have liked to live there at that time.
Let's start with the most important equation in politics:
In other words, you can be very free, or you can be very equal in outcomes (no nasty CEO's making 100's of times the pay of the average working in the company factory). Can't have both.
That said, what freedom do you want?
Freedom from want? try one of those high-tax, homogeneous societies like Sweden. Just be willing to give up most of your economic choice freedoms.
Freedom from arbitrary laws: Go for one of those southeast Asia countries where they sell their 2yr-old daughters into sexual slavery. They won't bug you much, and you can dope yourself up pretty easily.
Freedom of religion 'Fraid the ol US probably leads here. Ever been to the Middle East?
Freedom from politics? Tired of election news? Try a real garden state like Bulgaria or Yemen. No recounts there, fer sure.
Economic freedom? There are lots of places where your economic freedoms are paramount. Try Singapore - just don't chew gum in public. How about one of those exotic South Pacific islands? No opportunities, but no real restriction either. Freedom from inequality? The possibilities are endless. You can go Iran-like, and know that laws are ruthlessly and equitably applied (within the subclass you fall into, e.g., women). Or you might try Cuba, there should be little inequality there, everyone is poor, but happy. Same with Bangladesh, everyone is pretty much equally poor.
There are lots of other freedoms you can choose from, give it a shot!
Wow...
/., being a news service, mostly posts bad news. This is pretty understandable. But still, even taking this into account, things seem to be slipping away. By freedom, I meant my personal individual freedom to control my life. Freedoms like the freedoms to murder, rape, and destroy, I can do without. That's what the government is for - to take those freedoms away. But it seems like it has forgotten what freedoms it shouldn't take away.
/.?
Sorry I'm so late getting back to the topic, I waited for a day or so and it didn't appear so I decided they must not have posted it... I only found out this morning by email.
I'm rather stunned by the amount of replies, and the amount of flameage. I noticed I've been accused of being a troll or flamebait; that honestly wasn't my intention. I asked for nonbiased discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of various nations, and on the whole that's what I saw.
On various topics,
Many asked what I meant by "freedoms" and "quality of life". I understand the concept that one must give up SOME freedoms to live under any government, obviously. The only truly, totally free government is no government at all, ie., anarchy, but there is no chance of safety there. Additionally, anarchy would never last long by the very nature of humanity - it would always be replaced with some sort of strongman dictatorship.
So obviously, some sort of democratic or republic nation is the idea. I understand that
Many expressed confusion over how corporations could steal my freedoms. The answer is, of course, they can't, unless the government helps them. Which it is. Legislation that benefits no one in our society except the mega-corporations is passed all the time, partially because of the power of special-interest money in our governments, and partly due to apathy on the part of its citizens (I posted something along these lines a few weeks ago).
Yes, I'm getting active, politically. I believe that if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain, and I've been doing a LOT of complaining. =P I try to convince my friends to vote, but many of them are convinced it's a waste of time. The system doesn't help very much, though - I'm a democratic/libertarian agnostic living in a heavily republican/christian state. I'm outvoted every time. I'm not sure what good it would do to move to another state that is heavily democratic, because then my individual vote would bear no weight either. I've tried writing my "representative", but I've never even been honored with a reply. He apparently doesn't feel the need to consider whether he is representing ME appropriately.
And I'm not really interested in going full-blast into politics myself. Becoming part of the system to beat it? I couldn't stand that. Besides, I have other things I want to do with my life, and a career in politics isn't something I would enjoy. I'm not power-hungry. I don't enjoy controlling others. I just want to live my life without others capriciously wielding unneccessary, assumed powers over me. Without the sort of people I hate, controlling whether I will be happy or miserable, live or die.
I want to be able to think and say whatever comes into my head. I want to be able to appreciate art and express myself without being banished or silenced for it. I want to be able to choose whether or not to worship, and how, without undue influence from the government. I want to be accorded the respect due an adult human, and have no one try to tell me what's right for me to see, read, hear, or do. I want to die of old age, not in a civil war or a bomb attack or in a shooting in a Burger King. I want the freedom to raise my children, if I ever have children, the way *I* want them to be raised. And I want a place to live that would be safe to raise those children IN.
I want to find a nation or place where I can have these things, as well as a chance to do some meaningful work in computers if possible, or where I could write books and not see them censored or whatever. =)
That's all I meant by my question. You've given me some ideas, and I'll certainly look into Canada and Iceland (though I hate the cold!).
Thanks for all your discussion and insight. And I agree with the poster who said, how bad can it be when we can still have a huge discussion about it on
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Hmmm.... isn't Mir coming down in February?
--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Perhaps this is a bit of a digression from the original question, but I think it's a point that needs to be made.
People in the US complain constantly about the current state of things, how they are unsatisfied. I am one of these individuals, I personally believe that things need a lot of change. However, if anyone is taking away our freedom it is ourselves. I know it's been said a hundred times, but what right to we have to complain in a nation where roughly %50 of the population turn out for the most major elections (I might also note that that percentage is much higher in that group that owns 90% of the wealth). Our government has a complex system of checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. But in that system, the citizens were supposed to be the ultimate judges.
I think that the apathy towards politics today is caused by a culture that thrives on instant gratification. The US Goverment was designed for slow change. Citizens can't expect their vote to make an immediate effect. In order for the behemoth that is the government to change direction, it must first slow down, turn, then speed up again. The system is not perfect, it doesn't prevent corruption from happening. But with responsible citizenship, that corruption can be corrected and stopped from accelerating.
Shaun
"Vote Libertarian and win a Free Country!"
Let me throw in a quote of my own:
Three cheers for the 2nd amendment! Yup, prisons represent the ultimate in gun control and security. And many are little "Lord of the Flies" incubators. What a great argument for arming the citizens ("an armed society is a polite society", R.A. Heinlein).Personally, I think the Russkie got it wrong - the true test of civilization is probably found in its hospitals, where it takes care of its weakest citizens, not its prisons, where it incarcerates some of its most predatory animals.
Dt.18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Lev.20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Rom.1:26-27
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
1 Tm.1:10
"For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"
Let me know if you need that spelled out any better for you.
http://www.truechristiansunite.com Home of the 1st TRUE Christian AI -- Hal!!!
Besides which this whole "Guns == Freedom" argument can only be an argument for legalizing fully automatic weapons, grenades, missile launchers, and tanks, not handguns and non-automatic rifles. I had this conversation with a friend of mine who is a career Marine. Though he is somewhat pro-2nd amendment, he readily admitted that the only problems our military would have with putting down a citizen's uprising would be moral in nature: they would have absolutely no difficulty squashing any significant resistance within a matter of days in terms of military power. In fact, the term "arms" as the founding fathers use it in the Constitution refers to no form of military technology in practical use today, but to single-shot muskets.
> Is the United States still the best choice of a place to live for safety, freedom, and quality of life? Was it ever? People from many countries like Australia, Germany or Scandinavia think twice before travelling to the US because of the shocking crime rate. You certainly live safer elsewhere, especially here in Australia :-).
Quality of life? Check the WHO ratings for that,... the US don't score well there either. Little wonder with a virtually non existing public health or welfare system, no job security, and virtually no privacy - let alone complete lack of decent public education.
After living & working on 4 continents (and I have been in the US about 30 times), I certainly know that the US would not be the place where I raise my children - because they do need safety and quality of life!
Ps.14:1
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
http://www.truechristiansunite.com Home of the 1st TRUE Christian AI -- Hal!!!
And it takes a lot more than a little non-automatic rifle to detonate an entire platoon of soldiers from thirty miles away. The US military could squash a people's revolt in a matter of days. With those weapons you'd have to resort to guerilla tactics (involving killing innocent civilians) in order to put up a non-laughable resistance.
But what you are proposing is the worse possible combination of totalitarianism and anarchy that is possible in a human society, one that offers neither stability, nor safety, nor freedom. You are setting up a situation in which the most powerful group rules by right of military force (in the US this will be the Christian Right) and violence rather than law is the arbiter of disputes. No higher authority exists to protect an unpopular individual, the only rights you have are the ones you can defend, and if the majority doesn't like your beliefs or life-style then you are dead. If the local warlord decides he wants your daughter or your wife, your ability to protect them is limited to how many people are on your side. The most powerful members of this society will tend to be the most violent, and they will no longer have to answer to anyone for their actions.
On the other hand you guys have Wolverine and RUSH. And Mounties dress way cooler than Rangers. And basic education is better. And you didn't keep slaves. And while you gave birth to Celine Dion, we're the dumbasses that popularized her.
I don't claim that rights are obvious, but I do claim that they are absolute when they are properly and precisely expressed. We can debate whether something is a right, or whether we have described it precisely enough, but I won't debate whether it is ever OK to limit a right.
Here is the definition of "right" from Meriam Webster that underlies what I trying to say:
If one has a right, then one has a just claim to it. It is never OK to limit that right to get the results we might want. The ends never justify the means. This implies a couple of things.First, rights are not granted or defined by man. They pre-exist. If you are a theist, then they are endowed by our creator. If you are not, then they spring from our value as human beings. Our job as ethical agents is to recognize and describe rights, not to create them.
Second, if we have properly described some set of pre-existing rights, then it must be true that the rights of two people can never be contradictory. Otherwise, one right or the other either isn't a right, or isn't described precisely enough.
All this said, I don't claim to have a monopoly on figuring out what is a right and what is not. I tend toward using libertarian (not anarchist) standards, but consider each case individually.
How do I apply this to the right to keep and bear arms?
Well, I start by assuming that every human being has the "right to life," that is, the right not to be killed or harmed unjustly. That is a very abbreviated statement of the right, and a lot is wrapped up in the word "unjustly." For example, if I initiate a physical attack on someone, I do not have the right not to be harmed by that person. Also note that the right to life does not imply an obligation on others to feed me, clothe me, or otherwise keep me alive.
Because one has the right not to be killed or harmed, one has the right to get, possess, and use effective tools to keep from being killed or harmed. One of the most effective tools for personel defense is a firearm. That is why police in the US carry them, rather than buckets of hot grits. (grin)
Of course, one must not violate another's rights during this process, or the getting, possessing, and using a firearm cannot be a right. So one mustn't steal a firearm. One mustn't endanger others by negligently storing a firearm, just as one mustn't endanger others by negligently storing rat poison or any other potentially dangerous object. One must use a firearm responsibly, and may give up his right to possess a firearm permanently for gross misuse.
So in summary, I agree that rights are not always obvious. But I don't think that all societies other than anarchies must limit rights. In fact, an anarchy is no better than a tyranny with respect to rights. In such a society, every individual can violate your rights, without fear of organized reprisal from "society" at large. Society, at its best, exists to recognize and protect the rights of individuals.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
I agree that changes to the Constitution are needed -- a right to privacy included (as I disagree with the policy of loose interpretation by which the courts currently find it present).
Corporations do not have the full force of government behind them. The "full force of government" -- the thing that makes it dangerous -- is its ability to use force upon the populace; its ability to say "you will do this, or we'll lock you up". Merely saying "you will do this, or you won't get to use our product" (or "you won't get to work for us", or whatever) is an entirely different and lesser threat.
If Microsoft refuses to sell me a copy of Windows or Honda refuses to sell me a car unless I sign some onerous agreement, I still have the ability to refuse. Exercising this ability may be harmful to me -- perhaps I work at a Windows-based company and will be fired if I don't agree to a MS license -- but I'm still given free choice. Nobody will lock me up or kill me if I don't comply, and if I lose my job for my principals I can damn well find another. The only means by which a corporation may have me locked up is government, and it is because of this that government must be restricted.
Corporations do not innately posess the "full force of government"; it is only through such mechanisms as the DMCA that corporations gain the ability to violate individuals' rights. Restrict the government such that it cannot provide such aid, and the abuses will stop.
Once again, I welcome you to show me an instance in which a corporation has violated an individual's rights which a small, limited government could not handle as well as a large one.
The funny thing is if a Canadian acts like a total asshole most Europeans would make the mistake of assuming he is an American.
...)
That is not to say that Americans do not sometimes exhibit an excess of National Pride.
There is a (racist???) joke about a man who goes into an "ethnic" resteraunt and shouts
I hate *insert_ethnic_group_here*
and the staff respond, so do we, we are
*insert_similar/neighbouring_ethnic_group*
(Ummm, you had to be there, it does not work written down, and is not for the easily offended
By the way, I don't know which health care clinics that you're going to, but I've never been to one where a heroin addict with a syringe hanging out of his arm starts showing me his pus.
No, there was no syringe hanging out of his arm - just the needle, which he said had been embedded in his skin for two days.
After he sat beside me (in an otherwise mostly empty waiting room) and - as if his body odor wasn't enough - when he proceeded to play Show and Tell with me, I got up and moved to another seat. Oddly enough, he was insulted, apparently unable to comprehend why I was disgusted and felt a need to move elsewhere. At this point, he followed me, sat down beside me, and started yelling at me and berating me. When I moved again and he followed me, I had to finally threaten him with an ass-kicking before he left me alone, glaring at me from across the waiting room.
I pay taxes. They support my healthcare. I expect that I shouldn't have to deal with shit like that anytime, let alone when I'm sick. And *neither would you*, no matter how much of a bleeding heart authoritarian socialist idiot you may be. Wanna give a socialist an embolism? Okay: picture this: what if the homeless heroin-addict had been harassing a 4'1" Native-Canadian French-speaking lesbian in a wheelchair? Would *she* be in the wrong for demanding that unpredictable homeless drug addicts be kept away from her so that she's not similarily intimidated when *she's* getting medical treatment?
Put that one in your social welfare crack-pipe and smoke it.
Sadly, because there are no private hospitals to go to, I was forced to deal with this shit, and I resent it.
Now, there are private doctor's offices and health care centers here, and they bill the provincial health insurance (in my case, OHIP). And I certainly would have gone to them first. In fact, I tried several. But this was Labor Day Weekend in 1997, and they were all closed: I was forced to go to a hospital waiting room. And it was the Wellesley Central Hospital in downtown Toronto.
Keep in mind that professional and other employed people don't really care too much about the social programs that the NDP and others keep on bandying about as great reasons to love living in Canada. Those of us who are most likely to be lured to the US by that excellent job offer are also the least likely to ever need the social programs that we're being told are so great.
I just can't figure out why I'm still here.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Many Canadians, myself included, do not approve of all the social programs that we foot the bill for. The typical response is "Well, if you don't like it, leave!" That's not good enough, ye who blather on about multiculturism and tolerance.
Beautiful. Thank you, I was seriously wondering if I was the only one who was told to leave the country by my peers when I asked if all these silly crappy socialist programs were really so good after all.
Of course, I was told stuff like, "Well, if you feel that way, Canada is better off without you", etc. In fact, there have already been several instances of that from my fellow Canadians in this thread.
Now, Canadian socialists are, by definition, multiculturalists. They believe in respecting and loving every culture, every religion, everybody, even if the values of the minority culture clash violently with those of the majority (European/Western) Canadian culture.
For example, they're offended when a Sikh member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is told that he can't wear a turban and carry the ceremonial dagger of *his* culture while also wearing the uniform of an icon of the culture of Canada, his adopted homeland.
And despite this tolerance, they're also *completely* intolerant to other political viewpoints, even when presented with valid, rational and logical questions which undermine the propaganda that the NDP, the Socialist Worker's Party of Canada - hell, even the Liberal Party - has imparted on them.
If they weren't so dangerous to economic growth (and therefore the prosperity of all the citizens of the country!), swatting down socialist propaganda would be a lot of fun.
Now, here's another neat trick: despite the fact that I haven't said anything here that's not absolutely true, and my viewpoint is intelligent and well presented, I'll be moderated down by someone who disagrees with the content simply because it's anti-socialist. Just watch, remembering that moderator guidelines tell you to moderate based on fact and quality of the opinion, not based on whether or not you personally agree with it. My original post is probably the only one in the history of Slashdot that I've ever seen to carry a "+4, Troll" moderation. [grin]
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
and poorly lit Canadian TV shows over and over again.
OK, now that you mention it, what *is* up with that? Are courses in lighting design just not offered north of the border (or in many European countries)? Does this have something insidious to do with the metric system? (Nope; Japanese TV lighting is superb.)
I don't understand it myself. I used to work in TV/Film/Music/Arena Technical Staging, and I used to end up doing freelance lighting for a lot of Canadian TV shows. My name is in the credits for early versions of the CTV hit "Traders", several episodes of the "Red-Green Show", "You Can't Do That on Television" and "the Kids in the Hall", among others.
I know that the producers and the directors like lots of back lighting, little flood, little key lighting. The net effect is that the actors look *very* three dimensional, since the shine of their hair and shoulders really kicks them out of the screen.
On one drama that I worked on for the CBC, the lighting director told me to make all the back lights over the marks to be the same intensity as the key, and then to scoop the fill only to 40 foot-candles. Evidently, it looked like absolute shit - everything looked like a scene out of an especially bad soap opera - but when I protested to the lighting director, he shrugged his shoulders, shook his head, and told me that he didn't understand it either but that it was the command from Above.
Note the CBC techie term for stupid instructions is that it's a "command from Above". Note the capital "A", like the way people from Maine often capitalize Winter, as a combination of contempt and sullen respect.
CBC Producers have their own lingo: they describe money in a currency that they know as "leather sofas". As in, "It cost me 30 leather sofas to make that episode of Anne of Green Gables." Near as I could tell, in 1993, the foreign exchange rate between the CBC's currency and the Canadian currency was that one CBC Leather Sofa was worth about $6,000 Canadian Dollars.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Fucking Torrie..
Like most socialists, you're so ill-informed that you can't even spell the party's nickname right. No wonder you need the government to protect you from success through work - you're illiterate! Okay, Lesson One: T-O-R-Y. Tory. Got it? Good.
And no, I'm not. While I did help to relect Mike Harris in Ontario because he was doing such a great job, that's not my political stripe: I'm a Libertarian more than anything else.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
By and large, heroin addicts are suffering less from the effect of heroin than from the effect of prohibition. It has been shown that when heroin is legal, and a reliable source of heroin of known purity is available, addicts are able to resume a fairly normal life.
Oh, completely, yes. But it doesn't change the fact that they were stupid enough to try it in the first place.
You know, there's a test you really should take. Here's the link, it's billed as the world's smallest political quiz.
My results show me to be a staunch Libertarian.
friendly, chipper, informative, helpful and welcoming American Customs staff
Bwaaa Haw Haw Haw hahahaha Wooooooo! HeeeHeee heee heee heee! hmmmmmahahaha
I *always* have more trouble going back into Canada. On the whole, and in my experience, American Customs agents are much friendlier. I'm dating a Buffalonian, so I cross the border once every week in each direction. Recent entry into the US at Lewiston NY, almost verbatim, transcribed:
"Citizen of what country?"
"Canada."
"Purpose of your trip?"
"Visiting friends in Buffalo."
"How long you staying?"
"Three days."
"Zat an old Dodge? What year's that truck?"
"Yes sir, Dodge D-140 Ram, and 1976."
"What's the motor?"
"400 CID (6.6L) V8."
"Rev it for me."
I comply... Customs guy smiles warmly.
"Love that sound. Thank you. Have a great trip, and take good care of that truck."
"Thank you sir."
Customs trick to being treated better: Smile. Tell them only what they ask of you. Hold a piece of ID (like a passport, even though they're not required between Canada and the US, they help) in your hand on the steering wheel, but only give it to the agent if he/she asks. And, most importantly, take off your sunglasses and turn off the radio before you pull up to the hut.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
on a recent (very short, thank god) back to the united states this fall, i heard a few people saying things like:
"if GW get's elected president, i will leave the country"
i always laughed at this proposition, and my only reply was:
"why wait?"
adrien cater
boring.ch
Point and Grunt
I don't know about the speed of the Canadian post, but there are lots of other reasons to have a U.S. post box. International mail costs more. International magazine subscriptions costs more. Anything costs more when it cross a border. Plus Washington State sales taxes are only about 3%.
__________________
Even if that were true, it would be as useless as most such broad statements. There's no reason a space-based society would be more free just because it would be out of reach of existing authorities. First, it would not be out of reach. Second, space is a nasty place that takes requires a lot of planning and organization by people who want to live there -- which implies an extremely hierarchical and unfree society.
and now, the world is only a limited number of steps away from UN domination in this area, which has been strongly pro-business and anti-person.
If you're going to worry about internationalistic dictatorships, pick something relatively realistic, like the Elders of Zion or the Illuminati. They, at least, have not been shown to be incompetant bureaucracies that can't even collect their memebership dues, and go into political meltdown every time a serious decision needs to be made.
By the way, our Men in Black department doesn't have your address on file. Could you supply it? Thanks.
__________________
Dude, I can't agree with you more. Now that i'v been newly deamed an adult, I'm starting to realise how things around the us work. I dont like it. More and more I feel like I'm stuck with a bunch of null brained morons. I just can't help but compare them all to sheep. They way they think and act is just stupifying(mind my spelling, I was educated in the us :P ). As for what was mentioned in the topic of this discussion, I definatly agree with the paranoia. More and more of our rites seem to be taken away. One being our rite to vote. As if anyone's opinion counted in this last so called election. I dont realy know anymore though. Once I get enough money, I'm probably going to move over either Germany, UK, or Canada. They definatly seem to be more put togeather.
Live to be happy!! OR ELSE!!
You will see that I am pro-gun, anti-SUV, anti-sprawl.
I believe individuals have the right to say when their government is doing wrong, and if the government continues to abuse its power, then they have a right to change it by force, if absolutely necessary (this is HUGE responsibility IMO, not something to be toyed with, and only invoked after ALL other options have failed). Without this right, all other rights are so much "lip-service".
I do not think every person and his brother, sister and mom needs an SUV. I like 4WD vehicles, but they have a place, and only for those who use them for responsible 4WDing. I would love to own an older model Blazer, for instance - but I recognize that I don't really have a need for one. Many people use SUVs like oversize station-wagons (which many actually tend to be - some aren't even 4WD! - its all an image thing). Personally, I would love to have an ethanol powered vehicle, but it is kinda hard to buy ethanol anywhere when you need it.
Lastly, I support the idea of arcologies. I would love to live and work in one. I think such a system could be built today, that would be much more environmentally friendly than individual homes (plus, you wouldn't need SUV's in an arcology - you could walk).
I don't trust our (when I say this, I mean American) government. They have done nothing major in the past 20 years to earn any kind of trust, and they continue to abuse the power (I can't even understand using "they" - because they are people too - I don't understand why the parts can't get the whole to be beneficial/benevolent - maybe some strange chaos related thing, or maybe it is more akin to a biological process).
I view freedom as the right to be left alone, to pursue my own goals, provided that said goals and actions do not harm or cause hardship to other individuals in the society. Owning a gun does not cause a problem (shooting my neighbor does) - see the difference?
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I'd like to be free to keep more than 50% of my income, without having it all go to taxes to support dubious socialist programs that I'll never make use of, because I *work* for a living.
Certainly Canadian taxes are too high. But please don't assume the beneficiaries are lazy bums living off the government. Many are the working poor. So in a sense, the Canadian government is subsidizing industries that depend on low-skill labor!
I'd like to be free to drive on roads without jackasses talking on cellphones reversing on freeways because they've missed their exits.
Yikes! And I thought the drivers in SiliValley were bad! Still, I have to point out that traffic enforcement counts as a restriction on freedom.
I'd like to be free to live in a country where I can pay for health care that doesn't leave me sitting in an emergency room for three hours ...
Well, we Americans are free to buy our health care if we can afford it -- but a growing number of us can't. At least half of the US has to go to our version of that ER, and do so subsidized by the paid users of the system. You call it "socialized medicine," we call it "cost shifting".
Most of all, I'd like to be free to go outside without fearing for my life for 5 months of the year. I don't define quality of living by habitating in a place where you can die simply from going outside without a jacket on.
So you want the government to stay out of your life, but control the weather? That's just a little inconsistent....
And finally, I'd like to be free to post this comment without being moderated down by someone who simply disagrees with me; rather, I'd like to be moderated down if I've said anything untrue about Canada.
You know, that's sort of funny. Slashdot is really a kind of experiment in applied Libertarianism. Taco and company don't tell us what to say. We're free to yell "penis bird!" and "first post!" at each other to our hearts' content. Or, if we desire a more adult level of conversation, we can voluntarily use the moderation features, which themselves are driven and regulated by our own volunteer efforts.
Yet it always seems to be the most Libertarian-minded folks who scream loudest when they get "unfairly" modded down. It never seems to occur to the Patriots of Freedom that the only system that never makes a mistake is a dictatorship. The moderation system, like any system of voluntary self-government, works imperfectly, and is at its best when everybody participates.
Speaking of which, have you meta-moderated today?
__________________
Absolutely there ought to be a corporate jail. I propose that corporation be jailed by simply stopping of the trade of stock. You freeze the stock and disallow anybody to buy it or sell it. This does not harm the stock holders because the stock value is frozen. If the corporation is found not guilty then start selling the stock again, no real harm and no real foul. This is just like somebody being held in jail during the trial.
If the corporation is found guilty it can either appeal the verdict (and stay in jail) or be punished by either a jail sentence or the death penalty as appropriate. If the corporation is put to death then all assets of the corporation are seized by the govt. The shareholders get screwed but then it was their responsibility to make sure their corporation behaved in a legal manner in the first place.
War is necrophilia.
A citizen carrying a semi-automatic handgun saved my girlfriend's life when a man assaulted and attempted to kidnap her as she left work a few years back. Do a little research on the concealed carry law in Florida and you'll find that it has dramatically helped to reduce the rate of violent crime in the years it has been active.
Why a legal gun owner would make you feel unsafe is beyond me. While I don't dispute the primary use of assault rifles, I DO have confidence in the ability of legal, registered owners to use them properly. Most gun-related crimes are committed by people who illegally possess such weapons.
SEAL
Our political system is highly democratic, and if theres the slightest sign of a brake in deomcracy its noticed immediatly and the people will NOT tollerate it.
To add to that, we have a large multi cultural back ground, people from all around the world, its great!.
The only thing that i find a problem is sometimes some of the political members seem a bit mentally challenged when it comes to the IT sector, but you get that...
"Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk ?"
stuff
Immigration is easier said than done for the average person. Emigration out of any democratic country is easy. Putting up with countless hours, weeks, months(scandinavia), years(in the US) for paperwork to immigrate, and still possibly being told no. Sure you maybe able to get H1B or something similar to work temporarily, but then you are basically a hostage to your employer. Don't say marriage either, that should be left for entirely different purpose than legal trickery. I think first and foremost freedom should be freedom of movement and it certainly isn't case in any of these great democracies of ours. Other than that what matters is most money for least work...
... It was written by the Lord.
2 Tim.3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
You would do well to heed those words.
http://www.truechristiansunite.com Home of the 1st TRUE Christian AI -- Hal!!!
But when becoming so disenfranchised with the United States, keep in mind while there is little being done to check the power of many of these major corporations, we have less to fear that those other smaller economies and developing nations who're so much hungrier for the economic growth being offered. Are our personal freedoms, we often have to ask ourselves, more valuable than our lives? As you recall, there was a certain, incident with Shell oil and the indiginous people living on their oil fields in Africa, and it is important that while we, American citizens value our personal freedoms, there is much more to be grateful for within this sort of creeping corporate protection lent to our US government. You must further examine the state of other nations and their failing governments who often toss aside their human rights, much less those garenteed us by our constitution and government. Though it may sound as though I am a representation of an American bias and brainwashing (after all, we're always told our nation is better than any other place in the world) but having been to places that really do have it much worse, on first hand account, there is much to be thankful for, and although it may look as though our freedoms our being sold off, it seems more and more like our personal privacy is more than anything. Which is a greater concern? Depends on your perspective. Just protect yourself. Sometimes the greatest intrusion is the one you least acknowledge.
Don't eat your soul to fill your belly.
conesus.com
We have corruption, coverups, abuse, mispending, incompetent representatives, corporations that are too powerfull, and people that just don't care enough to vote anymore. Just like Rome used to have.
We we have a war, only the "Perfect" people are sent out to get killed, the 4-F people stay home and breed. So we get left with a lot of Joe Six-packs picking our politicians and not caring enough to learn what is going on in our government.
So what can you do? Help change our system or leave the country? Or perhaps join the majority and just sit back and do nothing and let the insanity continue?
*WARNING* Slippery when sarcastic!
A corporation can't do time in prison.
This becomes a problem because then a corporation can get away with terrible crimes so long as it can throw money at the problem. Fines are the only punishment to worry about.
A corporation prevents the individuals involved from being held accountable for their actions, for even if the corp is found guilty of something, the fines come out of the corporation's pocket, not the person or persons who made the decision to do that action.
I'm no communist, I have nothing against capitalism, but I do have something against faceless capitalism that shields individuals from personal responsibility.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I'm not going to say much about this thread, but it really disgusts me that many countries who benefitted greatly from our military "bullying" now treat us with such disrespect. Let's just look at France, shall we? I think the quote from the Billion-Dollar Bill episode of Simpsons sums it up: "This is to honor our allies in World War II, who fought so poorly and surrendered so readily."
Lose essential liberties to get temporary safety = get only hassles and security theater.
> Meanwhile, back in England, the people once defeated by an armed populous still take a dim
> view of citizens having the means to violently overthrow their divinely-ordained rulers, no
> matter how oppressive those rulers become.
Excuse me, but most people here don't look back that far into history when they decide whether guns are right or wrong. One of the reasons (IMO) that we take a dim view of public bearing arms is that we regularly hear stories on the news from the US like "12 dead as child pulls gun in school"; "Ex-employee shoots 4 colleagues dead"; etc. Also, closer to home, Northern Irelands long standing conflict has probably had an effect.
Strangely Slashdot's quote of the moment when I read you comment was:
"People who fight fire with fire usually end up with ashes. -- Abigail Van Buren"
which I feel was somewhat appropriate...
We're just too stinkin' nice to need guns for self defence. -- It's not like we didn't have our columbine copy-cat. It's that with one dead, and one wounded, it was national news (and still is -- the kid just went on trial). In the states, a shooting that size would barely make it into some local newspapers, much less onto the national news.
`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
If you can't mount an effective defence against the government, you obviously won't be able to overthrow it when it gets out of hand.
btw: This is spoken as someone who does not own a gun and does not intend to. -- but if I did, it would be to protect me aginst the state, not my neighbour.
`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Thanks for your very civil & thoughtful replies. The "10 Most Underreported stories" article disturbs me because I've read about all 10 stories extensively in the "liberal" media (NYTimes, WashingtonPost), and all of the "underreported" viewpoints had been included in the mainstream articles (along with other viewpoints). If you would like, I'll dig up links to all 10 stories in almost any paper. Does the inclusion of the opposing viewpoint somehow subjugate the conservative viewpoint, therefore making it "underreported"? You see, that scares me.
As for my use of "they," I was using ambiguous grammar to give you a gender-neutral pronoun. I'm worried that you are willing to do anything to defend your viewpoint (and your lifestyle) to the detriment of others. Your attack on the mainstream (which trys to include multiple viewpoints) & your preference on media purporting only one view as legitimate scares me, and I ask you to examine why you do that.
I work in the business-end of the healthcare industry, and the free market forces I see at work already do not portend well for your plan. The consensus that we now need a patient's bill of rights (which will only help patient's take cases to court, not to receive better care) should factor into your ideas. I apologize for my tone of ridicule in regards to your healthcare idea, but I can't see anyway in which it solves any of the problems currently facing healthcare! It seems to be all about the free market.
Do you want to see the free market reign supreme in the USA? Where do you draw the line? In California, for 20 years there has been a practice of having private judges hear the discovery (initial information gathering) phase of trials for tens of thousands of dollars. Can we restrict our legal rights in order to favor a free market? Doesn't our health directly affect our right to life & the pursuit of happiness? Doesn't that justify some level of legal protection in the field of healthcare? There is a dangerous inconsistency & short-sightedness to the current conservative ideology in the US, and one that doesn't need to be. I'm a strong believer in both liberal & libertarian values, although only as far as they do not conflict. I don't see a similar coherency in your views.
Bands of fringe militants may not be able to overthow a consensus goverment, but a majority popular revolution is something else.
In the latter case, a disarmed populace would not be as able or willing to revolt. If they were totally weaponless, then a few elites with a relatively small police/army could hold them off.
In the modern age however, our military is so staggeringly powerful, that without significant support among the soldiers, there could not likely be any successful rebellion. Our warriors are extensively "psychologically conditioned" and screened for disloyal tendancies, moreso the higher in rank you look- so an armed revolution is unlikely is all but the worst of situations.
I don't know much about other countries and their balance of Freedom, Safety and Quality of Life. But I will say that you can't say that companies are simply stiping the public of their rights, corporations aren't odd disassociated entities, they are run by people with ideas and thoughts and agendas. We're not talking about a uncontrollable beast that acts autonomously, we're talking about something guided and directed by people who are hoping to better their quality of life by doing what ever is in the "Companies" best interest...
Many companies are concerned about protecting the materials they produce, although some people are willing to give of themselves without call for compensation, Comapanies are in existence for ONE reason, money, and that means they want to protect what they create from anyone who might disseminate it in a manner that would cost them possible profits. These corporations have rights too, remember that under U.S. laws a corporation is viewed as a legal entitity just like a person, and that means they have the right to protect their property, whether it be actual product or some flavor of intellectual property.
Companies don't want to lose ANY money because that's all they exist for, a company without profits isn't worth anything. So don't go around saying that companies are trying to strip us of our rights, in many cases companies are trying to keep US from infringing upon their rights...
+----DuBBs2ooo----+
+The King of Fools+
+-----------------+
Yup, I'm with you so far...
Exercising this ability may be harmful to me -- perhaps I work at a Windows-based company and will be fired if I don't agree to a MS license -- but I'm still given free choice.
Here's where we part ways. As far as I'm concerned I'll be fired if I don't agree is no longer free choice, this is a choice made under duress. You've already stated that threat of force is the government's means of enforcement, and I think you'll agree that decisions under threat of force (ie. give me money or I'll kill you) are not free choices. However, to me the threat of removal of financial support is different in degree only. Lets say all the companies in the area with positions available for me to fill use windows. For me, the choice then becomes: Accept the agreement, or lose my job, the house where my kids live, the car that my wife drives the kids to school in, etc. What kind of a choice is that? Being locked up is not the only harmful form of censure out there.
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?