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?)"
to buy your own politician. It's really cheap in Latin America, expensive in the US/Europe.
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.)
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
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.
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.
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?
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!
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
Which freedoms are you worried about?
I know this: you are free to not enter into contracts with those big bad corporations!
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
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.
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.
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.
So it's no different to the US then?
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.
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.
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
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.
It's becoming that. There was an article on CNN a few months back about what would happen if Canada were to be annexed by the US (after a successful Quebec separation). It was pretty interesting. Saying things like "The US has already designed the flag to represent 51 states... with canada being the 51st".
Pretty scarry.
Canada is very similar to the US (I travel back and forth from Ottawa regularly) However, there are some subtle differences. Personally, I feel these differences make if very worth while. For example:
SSN (we call it SIN) is protected by LAW.
Privacy is protected by LAW.
Lower tax rates have just been implemented (George W. is just talking about doing this now..)
No unreasonalbe search and seizure.
etc etc.
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'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.
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.
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.
------------
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!"
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
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.
You may not have noticed, but we're in the middle
of a series of political scandals. It's beginning
to look like our entire government has been
available to the highest bidder since the 70s.
We also pay 45ish percent income tax, and 20% VAT
(sales tax). Though as you've said, that's
coming down. Our recent prosperity has resulted
in the growth of racism as more people come here
from overseas looking for work - ironic
considering our recent history. Wealth isn't
even close to being shared properly. Until
1991 or so, homosexuality was illegal, and
divorce was only voted in 5ish years ago.
However, gender equality is coming on nicely,
as are electronic privacy laws. We're nowhere
near as observed as the US and UK populations,
and the separation of church and state is
finally bearing fruit. If we can stop the
further development of a two-tier society, nip
the racism thing in the bud, and introduce more
accountability into the political process, we
should be a pretty okay place to live in a
decade or so.
Assuming that the next recession doesn't put us
back to square one.
K.
-
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
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.
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?
And don't forget about the generally relaxed attitude towards people with 'different' opinions; pragmatic government; sensible law for alcohol and drugs
:)
Glad to be back in NL
Jilles
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
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.
Don't forget the pathetic mail service in Canada.
And nationalized health care and insurance.
IMO, not good things.
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.
So, what DOES a Canadian Have to be Proud of?
.........OOOOoohhhhh Canada!! Eh!!! ;)
1. Smarties
2. Crispy Crunch
3. Coffee Crisp
4. The size of our footballs, fields and one less Down
5. Lacrosse is Canadian
6. Hockey is Canadian
7. Basketball is Canadian
8. Mr. Dress-up can kick Mr. Rogers ass
9. Tim Hortons kicks Dunkin' Donuts ass
10. In the war of 1812, Canadians pushed the Americans so far back...passed their 'White House', we burned it... and most of Washington, under the command of William Lyon McKenzie who was insane and hammered all the time. We got bored because they ran away so we came home and partied... Go figure.
11. Canada has the largest French population that never surrendered to Germany.
12. We have the largest English population that never-ever surrendered or withdrew during any war.
13. Our civil war was a big bar fight that lasted a little over an hour.
14. The only person who was arrested in our civil war was an American mercenary, who slept in and missed the whole thing...but showed up just in time to get caught.
15. We knew plaid was cool far before Seattle caught on.
16. The Hudson's Bay Company once owned over 10% of the earth's surface and is still around as the world's oldest Company.
17. The average dog sled team can kill and devour a full grown human in under 3 minutes.
18. We still know what to do with all the parts of a buffalo.
19. We don't marry our kin-folk.
20. We invented ski-doos, jet-skis, velcro, zippers, zambonis,the long distance and short wave radios that save countless live each year.
21. We ALL have frozen our tongues to something metal and lived to tell about it.
22. Oh ya...and the handles on our beer cases are big enough to fit your hands with mitts on.
No it didn't. No one's vote was worth a damn in the general presedential election this year, because both candidates were utter crap. It was only so close because neither one was worth voting for, had a clear message or direction or was able to demonstrate that they believed in anything. The candidates that should've made it into the general election were killed off in the primaries (McCaine and Bradly) becuase they had strong beliefs but almost no money. And "the money" wants people with flexiable belief structures that can change their minds when told to.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
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
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.
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)
How silly. Try living in the Netherlands or any other European country if you're African or Asian or Turkish or Arab. See how well you are accepted in these societies. You will be regarded as a guest, at best, by everyone there including official government agencies, schools, and employers.
The U.S. has its problems but it's tried harder for much longer to have a modicum of equality for all ethnic groups, ages and genders. If the U.S. falls short of perfection, well, humans are imperfect and these massive experiments such as Bill of Rights take centuries to succeed.
To assert that people are less free in 2001 than in 1971 in the U.S. is to ignore history.
Corporate dominance is nothing new; has everyone forgotten the monopolism of the 1890s, when union strikers could be shot with impunity and individuals had no protection from the economic imperatives of the giant railroads and other industrial concerns?
--
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
I think the true reason that this election was a virtual tie was that there is no great issue at stake, No Great Depression or Vietnam or anything else. There were about a dozen issues, (Tax Cut, Health care, etc) No one of which really defined the election of 2000, so there was no great polerizing force.
The cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Hmm, I'd think the right to own and operate communications media would be far more important for protection of rights than the right to keep and bear guns. That appears to be about equally protected under the US and Canadian constitutions (i.e. - not at all). However, one significant difference is that Canadian policy is to reserve part of the public airwaves for non-profit use and aid groups in accessing other media, whereas the US is more inclined to go with the "money talks" paradigm. Both limit various peoples' ability to get their message out, but the dynamic of who gets limited is interesting.
> [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.
The Supreme court has just overturned this ruling. Based on the Little Sisters bookstore from Vancouver having all their merchandise siezed about 12 years ago. CCRA can no longer stop these types of things at the border. They must be proven to be offensive, and then can be siezed. It is no longer the other way around (ie this "might" be offensive, therefore we will hold it).
A great victory for fredom of expression of you ask me!
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.
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.
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'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.
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, freedom, and quality of life?
Was it ever?
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
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
A trifle slow is not the experience that my friends in Canada have had with the postal serivce. They tell me that 3 to 5 weeks is about typical for the mail. Towns near the border of BC actually have huge numbers of PO boxes registered to Canadians.
I don't know much personally about the health care system, but I have heard personal horror stories about both the health care and car insurance systems from residents and people just working in Canada.
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/
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.
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
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
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.
Wow -- you need to put away the keyboard and mouse and go read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
Capitalism is about moving things from lesser value to higher value. For example, you're a wheat farmer, I'm a chicken farmer. I give you a chicken for a bundle of wheat. Chickens aren't as valuable to me as wheat is, since I've got a few hundred around. Wheat is growing into your bedroom window, you're glad to get rid of some of it. We've just increased each other's wealth, and nobody's worse off for it.
Money is just an easier way of carrying around a sackful of chickens.
If Adam Smith is too thick for you to read, try P.J. O'Rourke's Eat the Rich
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
oh don't forget we also have claim to fame to
1. the poem "In Flanders Field" 2. pam anderson
3. william shatner and james doohan for all you trekkies
4. higher alcohol percentage in our beer
5. the rock legends known as rush
6. anne murray and leonard cohen
7. insulin
8. the telephone
i could go on but i can't think of a lot of stuff right now.
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 argument that guns are to protect you from other citizens is mistaken. The police and FBI do that."
1) As you point out, I still need something to protect me from the police.
2) The existence of the police was not provided for in the Constitution, therefore guns WERE intended to protect you from other citizens.
3) You've missed a case: protection from other citizens or foreigners if the police don't do their job. Consider gun-owning blacks in the South, especially pre-1960.
--
MailOne
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
... 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.
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?
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 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
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...
the argument that guns are to protect you from other citizens is mistaken. The police and FBI do that.
:)
In the words of Palpatine: "I'm afraid is is you who are mistaken, about a great many things"
(I was just looking for an excuse to quote Return of the Jedi)
The police are unfortunatly NOT there to protect you. Their role is to clean up after crimes have been commited and hopefuly bring the criminal to justice. However, they have no obligation to protect people, and there are several high court cases that re-affirm that. Ask a law professor about that one someday.
Let's pretend for a second that the job of the police was to protect you from criminals, they appearently are not going to do a very good job since the average response time for an officer to a crime in progress 911 call is 45 minutes, and there have been several cases where they didn't show up at all.
Not to mention that during the LA riots the police were streched to thin that many shop keepers and citizens were left to fend for themselves. The store owners who owned guns and defended their stores and people who defended their homes and families fared much better than those who only relied on the police to protect them. (not to mention that the police were somewhat responsible for the riots in the first place).
I agree with you about the intended meaning of the second amendment, but protection from criminals is a perfectly valid reason to posses a firearm as well.
Finkployd
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
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
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").
It's the only place safe from becoming a victim of American foriegn policy.
Brian
The mandatory car insurance thing is somewhat true, but I drive a little easier knowing everyone around me is INSURED, at least.
As for health care, there is an article from the July/August Washington Monthly titled "Canada's Burning", that very nicely clears up the (mostly American) mythology about Canada's nationalized health care system. Unfortunately the article is no longer freely available online, but here is a choice quote:
Like Pearlstein and Brooke, Amos forgot to place American and Canadian performance in a comparative context. She failed to tell her audience (or did not know) that Canada insured 100 percent of its citizens for $2,250 per person in 1998 while the United States expended $4,270 per person insuring only 84 percent of our citizens. This oversight was convenient. One would look rather foolish asserting that Canada's medical care costs half what ours does and insures everyone, but is, nonetheless, "inefficient."
STFU about slashdot bias.
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.
"The construction of the Constitution as protecting the citizenry from the governments (state and federal) and from each other came later, after the country began to be run by people who weren't all rich white aristocrats."
Nonsense. The founding fathers had just thrown off the yoke of an oppressive government by means of their own personal guns. And they didn't do it organized into or by state militias like the National Guard, either. The phrase "well-regulated militia" does indicate they were thinking less of individual people holding off evil government forces, but nonetheless they WERE providing for pure civilian entities to "keep and bear arms".
--
MailOne
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
System possessed? # grep deamon
Ask your armies and your police. The have guns, right? I am no less trustworthy, and my life not worth less than, a cop or a soldier; why should I not then avail myself of the same tools to defend myself, should that become necessary?
If you nations beleives that, then I suggest you urge your government to have its armed forces melt down all it firearms and start training with longbows instead.
Yes, they managed to kill some of the thugs who illegally attacked them. (Sure, the Branch Davidians were wackos, but they had been peaceful wackos until state and federal paramilitary "law enforcement" went after them for no well-defined reason.) Of course they lost, but they gave serious pause to other thugs with badges.
Democracy is, at its base, nothing but a substitute for violent conflict. All other things being equal, the side with more combatants wins, right? So instead of killing each other, we'll agree to let the bigger side prevail this time, and all go home unbloodied. Much more civilized.
But there's nothing to enforce that agreement other than the losing side knowing that it's smaller. If the smaller side gains an advantage - say, they have all the guns - there's nothing at all to keep them from breaking that agreement.
Or, as some wag once put it: Democracy is defended by three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
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
there is an interesting cross story on kuro5hin.
Don't mod me up. I already have 50 points.
-no broken link
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
Actually, all you need to do is look at the mere numbers to see that violent deaths are high in states where gun control is strong, and low in states where concealed carry is legal.
A few months ago the "Center to Prevent Handgun Violence" (an pro-gun control group) released a "report card" on gun control, giving my home state of Maryland the highest rating, A.
Kentucky received an F-.
United Health Group has a ranking of states by violent crime at http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/sr2000/components /lifestyle/crime.html. Maryland ranks at number 46, the fifth most
violent state, with 797 offenses per 100,000 people.
Kentucky is ranked as the 11th least violent, with 284 offenses per 100,000. All of the other states CPHV "failed" have less violent crime per capita than Maryland; Maine and Montana are 4th and 5th least violent.
This ain't rocket science. But the simplistic notion of "no guns, no shootings, therefore we'll make laws against guns" is very beguiling; right next to "no heroin, no junkies, therefore we'll make laws against drugs." Neither sort of prohibition works.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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!
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
Personally, I am more of a social anarchist, but see the best path to that as _playing_ _off_ the power of government against the power of corporations and economic force. It's completely stupid to just throw out government and leave business free to run amok.
I think what puzzles me most is the peculiar and arbitrary dividing line used- between 'powerless' business and 'all-powerful' government. How often, exactly, does government really, actually point guns and tanks and bombers at people to exert force? Isn't it normally done through bureaucracy, rules, and centralised authority dictating what can be allowed? And don't we have, in business, exactly that- bureaucracy, rules, and centralised authority dictating what can be allowed?
Do you really think that, in the absence of government, Microsoft _wouldn't_ send people with guns and truncheons to break your kneecaps if you start selling home-duplicated copies of W2K? In the absence of government, business takes on these functions itself. Are you completely unaware of the role of Pinkertons in early labor disputes? Corporate armies with guns and baseball bats are not a new thing: it is only government that moderates this tendency, and that only because it promises to take over this sort of 'law enforcement'.
There is no difference from a company and a government except scale. You say "How in hell can a corporation take away your freedom? They can't." Do a google search on 'Pinkerton labor deaths'. Some highlights:
"They can't", hell. Grow up!
We don't have it that much better. Just like the US, our rights are dwindling away.
/.'er pointed our Constitution doesn't even give us the right to own property!
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.
In recent history we've had increasing measures that turn innocent people into criminals (Digital Media levies, the firearms registry). We have a government that wants to control every aspect of Canadians lives (national daycare, hostility to privately-run health care). Hell, they even control what we see or hear (CRTC, CBSC). And be careful if you voice your dissent, we've got us an election gag law that puts restricts private citizens' ability to run political ads.
On top of all that, as one astute
I love my country, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. But the way things are headed has me concerned.
VENI! VIDI! VICI!
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.
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 suppose that depends on how you define deadly. Is it "able to inflict death"? In that case, I suppose you're correct...but then again, I suppose that salt, cigarettes, hang nails, bee stings, etc. would be just as deadly as guns.
OTOH, I'd think a common-sense definition of deadly would also deal with the "efficiency" of causing death. As well as the ease and frequency. In that case, I think guns are well ahead of "rakes and baseball bats". If you don't agree with that asessment, I suppose we could have a duel. I'll take the gun, and you get a rake. We'll then proceed to decide which is more deadly. =)
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!)
>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!
Nowhere in my message did I say that the US is the only country where that doesn't happen. How clueless of you to assume that I meant something I didn't even say.
And as for Americans in general, it seems to be in fashion to bash us all for something only a vocal few are guilty of. The rest of you are no saints, either, I'm betting, so you can all get off your high horses, too.
You've got to be kidding. In Toronto the Chief of Police announced that they will be doing R.I.D.E. (Unconstitutional unreasonable searches) all year
around. Yes, Random checkpoints all over the city
, that doesn't sound too totalitarian. Poor
country farmers all over the land had to stand for
hours in line and turn their guns over to the police or store-owners because they couldn't trudge through the bureaucracy and dollars it would take to keep them legally. It was discovered last year that there was a huge statscan government database of all Canadian citizens that kept details on "everything" it could, and high level politicos had access to it.
Equifax can control your life as easily in Canada as it can in the States.
There is no free country - all governments are
controlled by big money and all get their power
from the barrel of a gun.
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
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
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
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
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!
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.
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.
Plus, you forget the fact that courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect the people.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
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.
(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.
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
But protection from ciriminals et al is a weak argument for the possesion of individual firearms
Tell that to the millions of citizens (esp. women) that have deterred criminals with their firearms. In most cases, the individual didn't even fire the weapon, but just made it clear to the criminal that they had one and intended to use it. My mother-in-law is one such person. She was in a parking garage at night and noticed some guy come out of the shadows and started to follow her. This made her nervous, so she put her hand on the revolver in her purse. By the time she got to her car the guy almost caught up to her, so she pulled it out and pointed it up in the air at shoulder level so the guy could see it while she opened the car. The guy took off, but in her opinion, she would have probably been assaulted if she hadn't been armed.
Having a low crime rate isn't a good reason to limit people from having the tools to protect themselves. That just lets the criminals know what areas they are less likely to provide any resistance. The rates of burglarly in the UK where someone is at home during the crime is much higher than the US and the resulting probability that the resident will be injured is also much higher. There also some debate that London is actually more dangerous than similar US cities because of this.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
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.
Unless those foreigners invade the USA. Then citizens are obliged to help protect their homeland.
Talk to people that live or have businesses near the Mexican border. According to them, it's already happening and the US Govt. does jack shit when it comes to protecting them from Mexican criminals (& sometimes rogue police/army units). In some cases, Mexican soldiers crossed into the US and shot at Border Patrol officers.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
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.
I wouldn't say that -- Marx's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" sounds pretty nasty to me. I only get what I need? When do I get my Playstation 2? I don't? Sucks to that...
Have you read Das Kapital? I recommend it, if only to see what we narrowly missed with the fall of the USSR. Marx was both a poor economist and a poor judge of human nature.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
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.
There is some pretty interesting evidence souronding Monsanto (which has since gotten out of the chemical business and moved into genetic engineered seed) dumping PCB's into water supplies over the course of several decades and how much the exectutives of the company knew in the 70's but didn't change policy until the 80's.
Now you could say that they didn't know PCB's caused cancer, and they are sorry about skyrocketing cancer rates, birth defects, and deaths in the communities around their plants.
It's like global warming and other trendy causes. The jury is out about the hard data and what causes it, but it doesn't take a Ph.d to know that what's comming out of the tail pipe isn't something you want to be breating. It's just a good idea to reduce the emmisions and scrub the toxics. We shouldn't have to say the sky is falling in order to effect change, it should be a no brainer.
In that regaurd they knew drinking PCBs directly weren't a "good thing"(tm). I don't think it's a big leap of logic to say "Hey, maybe that's a bad idea if we dump this into the river where people get their water."
No body went to jail. From plant manager to CEO, no one was held criminally responcible. In fact recent press reports show that the gov't turned a blind eye to complaints about the plants. So, now you go to a civil system, in which a very large company can hold off basically a group of low income small towns folk for years.
To contrast that, as a person, if I had been drinking and got into an accident that someone died in, there is a very good chance I would have to face criminal charges. Of course I never had any intent to hurt anyone, but I don't have any articles of incorporation to hide behind.
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.
RE: 19. We don't marry our kin-folk.
You've obviously never been to rural Nova Scotia. The gene pool is MIGHTY shallow there. It explains why the Atlantic provinces vote for Joe Clark.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
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.
Canada does not have the following rights:
Free speech
The right to own anything (but you can be taxed on it!)
The right to remain silent (Bill C-68)
The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty (again, Bill C-68)
The right to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure (again, Bill C-68)
You have a prime minister elected with a "landslide majority" of about 30% of the population, most of them located in a belt around Toronto.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Just because it hasn't happened in a while doesn't mean that it's impossible to win in the country without being a spineless watered down dipshit, I just don't think it can happen within the current political structure. Whomever breaks the parties lock on the electoral system won't do it from within, it will be somebody that rises in the public eye outside of the political landscape who then makes a move into politics (or is essentially forced that way)
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
This is a bit of a misrepresentation. Take a look at a comparison of gun crime in our two countries. Yes, we do have problems with guns in the UK, in common with virtually every country in the world, but it is on a scale that is incomparably small next to US figures. This would seem to be largely due to cultural differences. A US citizen is likely to be a supporter of the second amendment, a believer in the use of guns to protect the person, and in hunting for sport. Contrary to some stereotypes, hunting is very much a minority persuit in the UK, as is target shooting, and under British law, there is NO OTHER legitimate reason to own a gun. Hence: no reason for handguns, which are only designed for killing people. Self-defense is no defense when it comes to guns. Defend yourself with a gun, and even if you dont fire it you will be in prison for a long time. Fire it, and you will probably be dead. Where firearms are suspected, British police will call the local Armed Response Vehicle. These are units with highly trained police officers that patrol nationwide, armed mainly with semi-automatic weapons. You might have seen them partolling UK airports. They always shoot to kill, aiming for the torso. It doesn't happen often, as gun crime is relatively low, but occasionally people are shot by them.
Unless you want a drivers licence, that is. Photo ID on drivers licenses has been compulsory for a bit over a year now.
The photos are kept in a digital record in a database. I'm not sure whether it's held by the government or by a company contracted to the government. There are probably various privacy restrictions surrounding it, but I guess it comes down to how much you trust them.
===
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
RE: The UN Has voted Canada #1 7 years running.
In "human development". Certainly not jobs, prosperity, opportunity, jobs or rights.
RE: Time magazine voted Toronto Canada the best place to "Live and raise a family".
On what grounds????
RE: Here, health care is free,
Costs more than half your paycheque
RE: speech is protected,
Only if you produce kiddie porn. Try free speech against having a murderous dictator over for dinner all chummy chummy with the PM, and the pepper spray ("For me dats sumting dat yi hav hon my plate") and batons come out ("You kids har luckey dat dey dint use da baseball bat.")
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
www.enthea.org
Good choice. I draw issue with you on one comment, however:
> I would suggest that society might become more caring if people aren't so easily confronted with the idea of being able to use lethal force.
Of the people with whom I've discussed lethal force, I've found gun owners far more cognizant of the ramifications and their responsibilities than non-owners.
You're a rare exception - someone who's decided not to use lethal force to protect themselves or their property, and who's made a rational decision on that basis.
Good on ya.
All most gun owners are asking is "please don't try to enforce your moral choice on the rest of us".
(My position? Guns are just like drugs and pr0n. When did you ever hear someone ask for banning of drugs (or pr0n) because they might become addicted (or aroused)? It's always other people, always somehow less socially-developed than the ones who want the "ban", whose behavior is dangerous and has to be curbed by law...)
> 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
"I have even been known to compare the current mentality of the US with that of Nazi Germany."
Godwin's Law invoked. argument over!
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?
Actually, estimates of the defensive use of firearms by private citizens range from 108,000 (US DOJ) to 2 million (Kleck and Gertz) incidents per year. (Quite a range of estimates!) True, very few of these involve killing or wounding the assailant; but the defenders were apparently able to convince their assailants of their willingness to fire.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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...)
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?"
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>
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
True, but you also have to realize that at the time several parts of the colonies would have been on the 'frontier' where having firearms to defend oneself from predators (humans included) was a necessity. I'm sure it's included for practical and political reasons.
I don't think that raising the minimum wage is going to help. Most people making minimum wage are kids living at home with their parents. Raising it will only increase the costs of those goods & services provided by the businesses providing minimum wage jobs or reduce the amount of people that they can hire. The crime situation is more due to lack of morals. I don't know how many times I've seen some woman on tv complaining that their son/boyfriend were jailed or shot because they were stealing a car or dealing drugs. They see nothing wrong with those actions. It also doesn't hurt that we have Hollywood glamorizing those activities and hyping a get rich quick, instant gratification lifestyle. I don't think the Govt can really do anything to make legal life "attractive" without screwing it up.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
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
You don't have to shoot, much less kill anyone to deter crime w/ a firearm, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by "extend your personal freedom". Most gun nuts that I know use them for hunting, target shooting, and just in case they need them for self defense. If they are using it to lay their hands on your property or to threaten you, that's criminal behavior that could be performed with other tools too. Most gun owners aren't criminals, so why associate them with the ones that are?
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Oh, what a sweet notion! [/sarcasm]
I wish you'd been there the time I needed a gun and didn't have it. Then they would have beat the crap out of you; and you, not I, would have spent the next several years in a spinal brace.
Just so you know, the next time they didn't touch me: I was armed. Nobody got hurt -- not me, not them. Sorta nice how that works... since societies aren't always peaceful. My offense? They just didn't like my haircut.
---
---
Politics is about making compromises. Religion isn't. --Michael Horton
It is the responsibility of the government through the police force and justice system to protect its citizens.
Just curious where you base this bit of fantasy? Since when in either Canada or the US is it the responsibility of the government to "protect" it's citizens from each other? Unless there's been some new bit of legislation sprung forth while I wasn't watching, there are no, zero, none, naddah responsibilities for a government to protect you from anything.
What a governmental body can do is punish, or remove from society, some person who has violated a law. That's pretty much it, except for the overly rare occurance in which a police officer happens upon a crime in progress. Even in those cases that's purely a moment of opportunity, not an actual responsibility of the police force to be there.
While you go about dreaming up 9mm's being sold at 7-11's, you might also want to consider a bit of reality in there as you produce your opinion.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
Huh, my coffee table is older than the USA.
And we have had a democracy since 1849. Somewhat interupted during WW2 thanks to Germany invading us, but i dont think you can blame our goverment for that, especially not considering we were neutral at the time.
I guess i should mention that im Danish and i dont have the right to own a firearm, but i do have the right to free education (actually they pay me 500$ per month for studying) free health care, good unemployment support (and a tax rate of about 45% for a person with a normal income. :( But i at least feel that im getting something for the money. )
The only thing that really bugs me when it comes to personal freedom here is that we still have the draft. Maybe if we didnt have free education some poorer people would volunteer so we didnt need it....
The second part of your sentance contradicts the first. Either there are police with guns, or there aren't. "
Don't split hairs. Please let me clarify: the normal police don't carry guns. You won't see armed police on the streets. The only police I've seen with guns are on the television (patrolling Heathrow airport during a time of high national alert), or one occasion when the local bobby decided he couldn't handle some of my drunken friends (the nearest support came from the Prime Minister's residence and they were armed with sub-machineguns - they stood there and didn't get involved whilst another friend of mine pretended to be a commando pretending to shoot them). That's my experience of police with guns over my whole lifetime within the country.
So in general, the police don't carry guns.
"Remember than the same could have been said of pre-Nazi Germany, before Hitler came to power (though purely democratic means). What guarantee do you have that the army's going to stay overseas, that in fifty years your government won't have them roaming the streets rounding up "undesirables"? "
I have no fear that the army will ever be used against the people. If perhaps the people armed themselves and tried to rise up it might happen - but then those people would be trying to bypass normal democratic processes. In general, the government doesn't stay in power when the people don't like them. It's called democracy.
"I suppose I could be brought up as an accessory to manslaughter if a student of mine killed an attacker intent on killing him or her? "
If the legal system were screwed up. That's the sort of thing we expect to hear from the American courts though (we often do).
"Restricting guns to government employees creates an unstable situation; only when firearms are available to all can a peaceful society be maintained over the long term. If are feeling superior because your nation "gets by" without private ownership of firearms, you might consider the age of democracy in your nation compared to in the USA. (Where it is, to be sure, now endangered, but it's not quite dead yet.)"
Please... Britain was a democracy before the US. The evolution over hundreds of years from feudal through monarchy to a modern parliamentary democracy has lead to stability without the need for weapons. Don't forget, the basis of much of the American constitution is based on the ideals started at the time of King John (IIRC) and the Magna Carta.
Do you realise how antipodean your statement sounds: you only maintain a peaceful society with firearms?! That doesn't sound peaceful, that sounds repressive. Intimidation is no grounds for for peace.
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!)
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!!!)
I'd love to see the reaction in the US if Illinois or New York tried seceding.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
I'm with a poster above: if you want no socialism, no government, just pure capitalism: go to Somalia. And hope your gun doesn't jam. Enjoy your stay, and may you feel very smart and superior and Darwinistically worthy of survival for as long as you survive.
The rest of us might be more interested in taking care of _all_ of the 'tribe'. Social Darwinism is a really _dumb-ass_ way to maintain a heterogenous culture in any sense of the word...
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.
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.
Does this relaxed attitude extend to the journalist who spent the last 15 or so year proving that the government and the royal family ruined his career just because he said that they were going to lose the Indonesian war of independence?
Find funky gifts
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.
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.
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.
With the result being lots of people who know the words flawlessly. But who have no clue as to the meaning. You also see the same kind of thing with Americans proudly stating that they have a "written consitution", then saying that it grants them "rights"...
"the government here are OK "
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
Er, since when? Don't forget we now have the RIP bill, which means there can never be a Verisign in the UK. Er, yeah, gee thanks for that, especially for trying to pull the wool over our eyes with "it'll protect e-commerce".
Me, I want Scotland to get a complete sense of independence; at least there's decent scenery there.
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
just wondering.. since when is our national capital a country? You have just confirmed one of the bad stereotypes about americans..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
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.
Which CEO went out to pour poison in the water supply? (None.)
Which CEO ordered people to "go out and poison the town's water supply"? (None.)
You must be fucking kidding. Typical example of libertarian ostrichism. Tell me, are you reall sure NO CEO (or manager or whatever) of, say, a chemical company (Union Carbide) has never poisoned people accidentally (Bhopal), where accidentally means 'safety measures are expensive, 3rd world workers are dispensable'?
--
The first lazer was invented at UofT (Canada, Toronto)
You can't handle the truth.
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.
----------
BS. If your government wanted to invade your property there would be nothing you could possibly do. Even your mighty Beretta will not stop an army or a scad.
You can't handle the truth.
true, but not entirely fair. for some things you have to pay extra in the US, which you have already payed for with your taxes in europe. Maybe someone who actually knows all this stuff can tell you how it all turns out, I certainly can't.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I work at a router company and the french users want a way to securely manage our boxes. but we can't let them since the french govt. still thinks that private citizen-to-citizen (or citizen-to-box!) communications are illegal!
wow - count me OUT for france, thankyouverymuch..
oh, and they smoke too much over there, too ;-)
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Yeah, well we're basically allowed to do what we want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberty of someone else, negatively impact corporate profits, or offend Christian morality. Which means we're well and truly screwed in the freedom department.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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...
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.
Is it "bad stuff happens sometimes"? Is it "if you second-guess people enough, nothing bad will ever happen
What I mean here is clear enough: it costs money, lots of it, not to pollute or to guarantee good security in (for example) the chemical industry.
Therefore it makes money to not give a shit about it.
It also makes money to kill people to rob them.
It's not the same thing, it just happens to be very similar ... That's my point.
--
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.
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.
Technically, no, it's not. It's Marxism-Leninism, which is Communism++ (mooshy "feel good" plastic-banana commune society plus central control to force that commune to work together). Since force is the only way to make communism happen (human nature prevents it from spontaneously forming, see "The Tragedy of the Commons" argument), Marxism-Leninism is how you get to Communism -- assuming you can get the central control to absolve themselves of power.
Okay, I'll put it like this: Is capitalism perfect? No. Is it the best we've got? Yes. Capitalism works because it DOES take human nature into account. We have unlimited wants, but a limited supply. Marx gets that far correctly. However, he misunderstands and alternately confuses "wants" with "needs", and assumes everybody has the same "wants". This is provably untrue -- I want a nice girlfriend, that gay guy wants a nice boyfriend (as a simple example), or I want the cash for 100 shares of Apple stock on loan so I can sell short, that guy simply wants 100 shares of Apple at any price (a more complicated example).
Your "slowly starving to death" example is severely flawed. Are people starving in America? Probably -- but you have to look pretty hard to find them. Food is plentiful and cheap in America. Were people starving in the USSR? You bet -- the kind of low-grade malnutrition that afflicts most of the world, not a mass die-off of thousands of people, granted. But slowly starving to death they were.
Regarding the most attrocious comment you made ("imbalanced distribution of wealth") -- are you kidding? What's the correct balance? Who decides? What criteria are used? What's wealth? It must sound great to you, but realize this: I have greater aspirations than a double-wide in Arkansas (which is what an even distribution of wealth in America would mean). Just because YOU have no vision or drive doesn't mean you have the right to trample on mine.
You are still under the misapprehension that capitalism is "get what you can grab from somebody else", i.e. wealth is a zero-sum game. It just isn't so -- wealth is defined differently for different people in different ways. Yes, there is a finite ammount of gold (or pick your precious metal of choice). Gold is just one type of wealth. Is there a finite ammount of love? Charity? Cheap thrills? Adrenaline rushes? Religious fervor? These are also types of wealth -- and captitalism allows for it. Communism (or Marxism-Leninism, if you prefer) doesn't. (In fact, religion is generally de-emphasized (if not outright disallowed) under Marxism-Leninism. You can't have competition for the Politburo, or their power is lessened)
I can only figure you to be a young idealist, perhaps still living at home. Get out in the world for a bit. Better still, start and run your own business for a few years. You'll get a better idea of human nature, and maybe understand the benefits of pure capitalism and freedom then.
Oh, and your "HURR HURR HURR I READ A BOOK" comment shows a remarkable lack of life experience. Is a book a perfect replacement for real experience? No. Is it better than "this is what it is, because I think that's what it is" (which is your argument). Yes. I haven't lived under Marxism-Leninism (unless you believe my more extreme libertarian friends and say that we're already living in it), and I doubt you have either. But I have at least read the philosophy on which it is based, as well as the counter argument. You're just spouting off slogans and solipcisms based on your limited understanding of the facts. And it shows.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
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.
__________________
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?
__________________
but dunkin donuts sucks. at least compare vs krispy kreme.
--
Geoff Harrison (http://mandrake.net)
Senior Software Engineer - VA Linux Labs (http://www.valinux.com)
Geoff "Mandrake" Harrison
Some Random UI Hacker
But what you are advocating is to arbitrarily raise wages to some level that some politician and/or social planner pulls out of their butt. The money doesn't magically appear out of nowhere and in response the employers can hire less people, raise prices on their services, suck it up out of any profits, or some combination. It upsets the supply/demand equilibrium and will eventually drive up costs in other areas, effectively negating the original increase. The way for min. wage workers to increase their income is to get experience and skills, thus making them more valuable to employers. If their HS was so inadequate that their graduates can't come out of the chute getting something better than an min wage job, then it should be bulldozed. BTW, saving or investing is putting money INTO the economy, not out. Where do you think venture capitalists & banks get their money? Investors & people who have savings/money market accounts.
Yes, I do think people are inheritly bad, and have to be taught right & wrong. With a large percentage of the population being raised or having been raised by the day care centers or the schools, it's no wonder that crime isn't worse. If people are going to have kids, they had better decide if they want good moral kids or do they want a glut of excess material that 2nd incomes give them. And yes, I do think Hollywood glamorization of crime makes it worse. It desensitizes people to it and it makes a life of crime seem ok or at least a lot easier than being honest. Education is still available via loans, grants, & scholarships. If all else fails, join the military and get the training plus college funds after you leave.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
This doesnt include all the international terrorist attacks, which could probably be considered a small invasion.
Occaional commando activity, landings on remote, frozen uninhabited (except by artic birds) island territories, shipping raids near the coastline, pirate activity, a rare bombing run or two as part of a sneak attack, and some Islamic fundamentalist farting in the general direction of North America hardly constitute anything approaching a real invasion.
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.
Calling an island part of a continent is purely an arbitrary thing to do. There is no "techtonic" rule that stipulates how it is supposed to be done. I don't know what you mean by "techtonically" - you mean it's on the same plate? Well, in that case Los Angeles isn't part of North America, it's part of the Pacific Ocean. And while we're at it, the line between "continent" and "island" is pretty fuzzy too. Greenland is an island of North America, but Australia is a separate continent. Is it because Greenland is still on the shallow "shelf" of North America, while Australia is a "shelf" unto itself? Well, if that was the definition, then Hawaii and countless other Pacific islands would be separate continents too. We don't want to call them that, because they seem too small. Face it, the distinction between continent and island, and which continent an island is 'part of' is completely arbitrary and made-up by geographers. There's no scientific principle to the naming convention.
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.
.... and it just keeps going and going.
....
I think that sums it up right there. European expatriots from the United States come back to Europe to save their native peoples from Hitler and now, just because the US put their budgetary asses on the line AND were quite safe on the other side of the Atlantic from early attacks, means that all Europeans OWE all Americans automatic respect.
Think about this for a second. Imagine someone saved YOUR LIFE one day and every time he saw you he brought it up. Wouldn't you be a little cheesed off? Now extrapolate over millions of people over 50 years and you have a generic European attitude. Also, imagine this same person treated you like shit after he saved your life. Would you care if he saved your life if he treated you like shit? Would your opinion of him still be positive? I doubt it.
The negative European attitude comes from:
1) experience, and
2) hearsay
Now, most people in Europe may have not met an American first hand, but if other people hear something bad about them, it'll stick in their minds and they'll tell people the same thing
Another aspect not discussed here could be simple jealousy. There is no argument that the US is ahead of the European countries in many respects, mostly because European countries have difficulties surpassing tradition, and have (arguably) less significant scientific development. This also causes negativity to arise.
Another thing I can't understand is, why single out FRANCE of all places? There were countries in deeper shit than France before the US helped to end WWII. England, Poland and Czechoslovakia come immediately to mind
----- rL
I am european (italian, to be more exact), and I'll just put my .02e on this.
The USA in the '40 and '50ies did much more than help save our asses. They helped us rebuild the economies of a continent ravaged by a war that cost millions of lives and just about everything there was to sustain the war effort. My gratitude (I am in no position to talk for anybody else) goes to the USA for that effort and that help. Period.
Now, about the attitude of USA governments NOW. I have mixed feelings in the matter: on one side the USA _are_ helping around. But at the same time they are doing it like bullies, and only when directly touched (in the purse, mostly), sadly. Compare the time it took for the USA to intervene in Kuwait to the time it took to intervine in Bosnia, or in Kosovo, or East Timor (still waiting on that one), or Ethiopia, Ruanda, Burundi or just about anywere in continental Africa (where there was no military involvement of the USA at all, even when genocides were happening). USA governments have this bad habit of acting how they please, whether it suits the rest of the world or not. If it doesn't, who cares. The rest of the world isn't likely to put an embargo on the US, or declare war, is it?
Add to this the USA governments' attitude towards the United Nations (which should rubber-stamp some of the USA interests in the world - or at least this is what the USA governments seem to like to think). The USA is the single biggest debitor to the United Nations. I am not sure, but it might very well be that the USA never paid a single dime to sustain the UN. This is not exactly good behavior, is it?
Now, about american PEOPLE. Every single person is unique, and is to be considered as such. Considering average attitudes, I think that US citizens are good-natured, a tad full of themselves, and with a generalized ignorance of other places' customs. They go around expecting everything to be like the US is. But this opinion is worth less then the electrons it's written with.
Right. Actions like firearms prohibitions. (Some of the first modern American anti-gun laws were passed by conservatives who wanted to keep guns out of the hands of groups like the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.
Tell that to the Jews, homosexuals, and other "undesirables" killed by democratically-authorized Nazis. Or we could check with the black Americans beaten by democratically-authorized police officers before (and during, and after) the civil rights movement. Or the American Indians about the actions of the democratically-authorized army, or more recently FBI.
Democracy is no guarantee of liberty for the minority.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Kinda like the telephone. (Bell was actually born in Scotland, but split his time between Canada and the US).
`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Then again, we don't have a two-party system where you have to fight like the devil just to get on the ballot (not that it's much easier to win, though). All it takes in Canada to become a party is to run candidates in enough ridings, and deal with the paperwork requirements. At that point, you not only get to spend your heart out, you even get to issue tax reciepts.
Of course, your chances of winning aren't that much better. Only 5 parties made it into parliament, this time 'round.
`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I've had a number of friends who've gone down to the States to work (better pay there), but they tend to be happy to return to Canada. Money's not the only thing that makes for a good life -- Just ask whats-his-name from Nirvana who make a couple million dollars and then blew his brains out.
Oh, yeah, that's right... We've got Sarah McLauclin too.
`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
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.
As for our so-called charter of rights (an addition to the 1982 act), the notwithstanding clause means that any government that wants to be nasty (the kind you tend to need the most protection from) has the ability to ignore most of the important parts of charter by just saying so.
`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Disgust at the Liberal win doesn't have much to do with being Reform. They shouldn't have gotten the number of seats that they did either, given the distribution of votes. I'm Green, and I'm disgusted with the system too. (probably moreso than most Reform supporters).
`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Second: In BC, where their year-round use was pioneered, Drunk driving is no longer the top killer on our roads (now it's speeding). You can argue the constitutionality of the stops, but at least do it based on available facts.
That having been said, if they asked to search my car at a checkpoint (I almost never drink -- much less drink and drive), I'd Just Say No. The real problem is that most Canadians don't know that they have the right to say that to a request for an unconstitutional search.
`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.