POLL: Freest country in the world

Remove all ads!

Well I would think the US allow for most freedom per individual. At least more than Finland at any rate. But at what cost that freedom comes, is another thing.

Security would be a good example, where freedom is the cost of more security due to the control that is necessarily involved.

 

And how does everyone perceive taxes as playing into this discussion?

 

Irrelevant as I'd really like to restrict my thread on civil rights

 

I would imagine though that many people who see taxation as the coercive taking of your money by the government (with the threat of jail and direct loss of feedom) would see them as interrelated, just an observation.

 

There is another point here - although all the nations being disscussed are relatively advanced (ie First World, to use an abominably non-PC word) what about places where you can get away with more stuff than you would be able to in a more "civilised" society?

Some places are legally more restrictive than others (any place where the basic law is dictated by an extremely fundamental interpretation of the Koran, for example) but the chances of being able to get away with crimes is higher, owing to the lack of operation of the region's law-enforcers - whether through corruption, innefficiency, or it being far to dangerous for them to patrol. Of course, the downside to living in such modern day examples of these places is that you can get stoned to death for very little...

... Assuming the police catch you first

 

Definitely the U.S.... because we have guns! Lots and lots and lots of guns!

 

Yeah! That would make me feel free! Just like the people in Washington a few weeks ago. Kids going to school under supervision of cops and security. That sniper was a good example of why freedom isn't always that wonderful.
I know freedom is not the thing to look down on here, it's the criminals. Okay.. But giving people 'too much' freedom, seemingly causes a situation that people actually don't feel free.

So freedom itself would not always make you feel free

 

Laches, just a question: What happens to you in the US when you don't pay your taxes?

 

In the U.S., if you don't pay your taxes you are subject to a fine or possible imprisonment. Income taxes are seen as a payment for the services the government provides such as protection from foreign threats, protection from internal threats, etc... To not pay is considered a violation of a social contract.

 

It isn't uncommon for evasion to result in prison, just read about one man who received 18 months. Fines are a given. Maybe in some nations prison isn't available for evasion which would weigh into the discussion. In others taxes are less (even zilch)which I think could weigh into it.

Personally, I think taxes are directly related to freedom. Problem with social contract theory is -- I don't recall ever signing anything, did I miss that memo : ) The response of -- well then leave the country is pretty draconian, particularly considering you don't have that right for 18 years.

 

On the other hand some countries with higher taxes for example offer free education up to college level and university even (eliminating the restrictions costs inhibit on lower lcass families - it must cost quite lot of money to send kids to college in the US, not to mention university).

That allows the people to freely choose their path of life without beeing limited too much by their social and financial background. That's a question of equality. Higher education is for everyone, not for the rich only. Lower taxes and lower gvt service usually result in you paying yourself - for a service offered by privates - privates are out for profit, usually driving up costs.

 

Well I can only give my opionion on the netherlands, that being my home country and all. I won't give my opionion on other countries for I haven't lived there and I could only base my arguments on the news which mostly isn't 100% accurate (except the USA where I have been).

The netherlands are in my view fairly 'free' in the way I haven't felt I'm not free yet. Of course when you are a little political different you get shot (that's why I'm not into politics at all . I can say one thing for sure, the netherlands are more free then the USA. I mean come on what harm can a few beers do to a 16 year old. A lot probably but it does the same thing to a 21 year old, but the difference is the 16 year old takes one or two or three beers and learns how to deal with it. A 21 year old will have numerous frustrations on why he couldn't drink the past few years and will probably drown himself in booze. Just an example

 

Ragusa: on the issue of education costs etc, you are talking about equality, which is not the same thing as freedom. I'm not saying it's not important, just that it's not freedom. Otherwise Soviet Russia would have been considered freer than the United States - although I'm sure there are people who think that true. Joacqin?

Laches: You're quite right, economic freedom is directly related to taxation rates and methods. Most taxation is an abuse of government power to rob the citizens. However virtually all the countries in the running all fail on that scale, since either the methods of taxation - taxing "vice" like alcohol, or inheritances for example, to control the citizenry's behaviours - or the tax rate itself, or both, is scandalous in every country I can think of with a high degree of civil rights. So I looked mainly at civil and political freedoms, where the difference between countries is much greater. For the record, Canada and France must be among the least free countries in the world when you look at tax rates. Especially France, since to retain citizenship you need to pay taxes even if you don't live in France or make any form of income there!

No- wait! Taxless Monaco is the most free country in the world! Unless you like to vote for your sovereign or are pro-abortion I guess... but we covered those issues elsewhere.

 

Deleted the contents since my post was already up ( ).

[ March 14, 2003, 18:36: Message edited by: Foradasthar ]

 

I would say that equality allows for greater freedom for a greater amount of people. It is true that inequality leads to immense freedom for the precious few but the vast majority live without any freedom at all. Just look at women, they are alot freer today than what they were 100 years ago due to them being more equal. But I do not say that the Soviet union ever was freer than the US as the Soviet completely lacked any civil and political rights, and the equality thing was mostly a facade anyway there.

 

I disagree that equality leads to freedom, that might be a very un PC thing to say I admit, but thinking about it for just a bit I think it is true. Now, obviously you might cite an extreme example such as slavery as supporting the notion that extreme inequality decreases freedom but I'd say this is an instance where correlation does not equal causation. I see no reason why there must be a necessary connection between equality and freedom, indeed, that strikes me as perhaps the type of reasoning (rationalization really) to justify a "redistribution of resources."

Why is it that one might say equality leads to freedom? Well, I'd imagine that the argument is that by creating equality (which we'll assume for the moment is achieved by elevating the economic standing of the lowest members of the economic totem pole)you allow a greater degree of opportunity for those who would otherwise not have it. For example, by taking away the money of the financially rich by gun point in order to pay for the college educations of the poor will allow the poor to have a greater number of career options available, they'll be able to afford luxuries such as travel more easily, their children will reap the benefits allowing them greater opportunity to experience more things etc.

Now, in my opinion the above reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that creating equality creates freedom is flawed, in relation to the original question, because of a different understanding of 'freedom' than I would use. When I read the question and thought about it I equated 'freedom' with 'freedom from government intereference.' I take the above line of reasoning to be equating 'freedom' with 'freedom to do whatever you'd like and the government should help.' With the former definition, freedom would be measured by determining how much a citizen is able to do based upon the written law AND the way that law is enforced. This, as a libertarian, more closely resembles my concept of freedom -- freedom from the government and not a belief that the government should take from one to give to another. It might be criticized as being a more harsh understanding I suppose.

The latter understanding of 'freedom' in my opinion relies more on a utilitarian understanding. Under such an understanding one might claim that by producing a net increase in 'freedom' a nation is more 'free' than another and this might well justify taking from some to give to another to a greater extent. In my opinion, the fact that many may benefit is irrelevant because I perceive the infringment of freedom inherent with the government interference with one to to be egregious due to a violation of a right that is independent of the good of the masses. The good of the masses is irrelevant in this context for me, it is the rights of the individual which concern me. So, I suppose I look to see how free an individual is in a given nation with regards to what a nation will allow them to do while others prefer to look at what all of the members of a nation are actually capable of doing and the infringement on the rights of the individuals are given less weight if such infringements can be justified as necessary for the 'common good.'

Now, I'd agree with others that say freedom does not necessarily equal good. The nation which allows the greatest freedom to its occupants in my opinion is probably some war torn third world nation where because what laws they do have won't be enforced you have the freedom to rape and murder or whatever else you'd like to your heart's content as long as you are strong enough to do so. In such a state there is no government restriction on your freedom to act at all -- a sort of Hobbesan freedom that I'd consider absolute. Of course, it wouldn't be very pleasant.

 

The masses consists of individual Laches, and in a capitalist system money most often equal freedom. So those with money have freedom while those without have none. What use is freedom of speech if you cant read or write? Neither is the money taken from the rich by gunpoint in a proper country, in a capitalistic democratic country free elections has given power to people who tries to insure the greatest amount of freedom to who many people as possible. The goverment should be there to ínsure the freedom of its citizens, perhaps by infringing on some freedom. For instance so infringes the police on peoples ability to kill and steal but it allows people to have the freedom to walk the streets reasonable safe and not live in constant terror of break ins.
Goverment involvement gives the individuals the freedom to go to the hospital when they are sick and injured. The freedom to a decent home and education for your children. Goverment involvement makes sure you are treated decently at your workplace and not forced to work 20h a day which would severly infringe on your freedom.
For me it always seems like the libertarians look out for the freedom for the few individuals, ignoring the freedom for the many individuals. Atleast that is what it would be like in reality.

I also thinks that the main idea and thought behind libertarianism is a nice one, but so is the one behind communism. Both are as utopian and impossible. One leads to oppression and one leads to anarchy where the few lives in castles with armed guards to protect themselves against the many who have nothing.

 

Laches, I'm sending the UCLA over to your house to take your card away. No card-carrying Libertarian would ever say such a thing.

Joacqin, I think you are confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarians, officially at least, do believe that there should be a basic justice system in place so that the strong cannot outright rob or kill the weak (that is the whole point of a justice system, after all). The difference with libertarians and other liberals, though, is that we don't think that the best way to grow as a nation or as a species is to hobble the strong so that they can't use their unique advantages to accomplish anything of value.

 

I did not mistake libertarinism for anarchy, I thought they appeared to very like each other.
The strong would and are only doing that which will make them stronger, they never had never will have any will to share their strenght and power. That is what I would do and anyone that claims otherwise is either a liar or an one in a billion saint.

 

Call me a liar then. Although, I'd hope we could avoid the personal attacks. Given that the founding principles of the US were libertarianism (Locke: 'life, liberty, and property' Jefferson: 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness') and the US, while it has moved away from that still retains a strong libertarian streak while at the same time having very high levels of charitable contributions (is it still the highest in the world?) I'd say the assertion that the strong in a libertarian society only look out for themselves is dubious at best.

Also, the comparison of communism and libertarianism is, in my opinion, silly because one is internally flawed and the other is not. Communism is internally flawed because it relies on a bunk labor added theory of value and would require an impossible level of efficiency with regards to the transfer of informaion. Libertarianism on the other hand does not suffer from any internal flaws, some people simply state that it is too harsh. In other words, a purely libertarian state is possible and a purely communist state is not possible, and not just in a 'people are too greedy' kind of way, it really is impossible even assuming that all people were perfectly altruistic to the point of being martyrs.

That's drifting from topic again. Once again, I'm not sure I am getting my point across. There is a difference in being free from government interference to do as you'd like and demanding the government take from others so that you can do what you'd like. I'm talking about negative rights and you're talking about positive rights. In my opinion, the question was about negative rights. The libertarian position to me is that one should be allowed to do whatever she would like so long as she doesn't do direct harm to another. You say libertarians believe in the freedom of a few and ignore everyone else but that is absolutely not true. A libertarian would wish to guarantee all citizens the same freedom from government, you would argue for increasing the power of government which would necessarily constrain the legal behavior of all citizens. I would argue that you are talking about affluence and I, and Sprite I think, are talking about freedom. Having more money =!= being more free but being allowed to do more things legally does.

Also, with regards to taxation, many governments do take your money at gunpoint and even the most benign take it under the threat of prison -- they have to, otherwise eventually someone wouldn't pay and if they didn't have teeth the number of people who would refuse would grow and grow and grow....