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.
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.)
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
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.
No, but... They have used highly advanced social engineering to take advantage of the fact the people are sheep, and further bred and proliferated the sheep mentality. This leads to people not forming militias, homogenously practicing religeons, and accepting the pretense of authority of any central organization that is sufficiently proficient in the art.
It's not really the use of force. It's something new that really only came of age in the 20 Century. I don't think that philosophers and political thinkers have come to grips with it yet, or even done a good job of identifying it, so it doesn't classify as a crime or oppression by most people's standards, yet. Maybe in 100 years, the behavior of Microsoft and Pepsi will be viewed as politically oppressive, and people will wonder with amazement as to why the people of 2001 just stood there and took it.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
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.
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
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.