Does America have any extra freedoms?

[Garga]

There was a recent thread about "what do other countries think about Americans."

 

Somewhere in that thread, someone talked about Americans and their freedoms. Somewhere else in the thread, someone said they wouldn't WANT what America considers freedom.

 

That got me thinking. I always just assumed that if you had a long list of "freedoms" that at the end of the day, America would have a couple extra more than any other country. Maybe not a lot, but there would be 4 or so extra freedoms more than anyone else.

 

Not saying that other countries don't have a lot of freedoms. I just figured that the same way France is known for having particularly good wine, and Germany is known for making really nice cars, America was known for having a a few extra freedoms.

 

But I realized now, that I just don't know what freedoms we have that other countries don't have. I'm NOT talking about China and countries where freedoms are very obviously curtailed by their governments. I'm talking: Canada, England, Australia, etc.

 

What freedoms does America have that other western countries don't have? I'm ashamed to say that honestly don't know. For example: Canada has freedom of speech, voting rights, rights to own property--yes? So what's missing?

[Garga]

Oh--and I don't really want to talk about whether the freedoms are "right" or "good" or not.

 

For example, Americans have the right to bear arms. A lot of people don't think that's a good thing. I'm hoping that we don't start debating whether or not these things are good.

 

I was just hoping for a list of what these extra freedoms are--for good or bad.

[LibraryLover]

Oh--and I don't really want to talk about whether the freedoms are "right" or "good" or not.

 

For example, Americans have the right to bear arms. A lot of people don't think that's a good thing. I'm hoping that we don't start debating whether or not these things are good.

 

I was just hoping for a list of what these extra freedoms are--for good or bad.

 

 

You're talking about CN and the EU, right? Not Saudi Arabia? Burma? North Korea?

 

If so, No. In fact we have fewer, except for the right to bear arms. That's our extra freedom. It was written into the bill of rights so we could have a militia.

 

With the Patriot Act, we have fewer than folks in CN or the EU. One huge example: Remember when we were protected from unreasonable search and seizure? Now there is a little caveat- a 24 hours retroactive search warrant. That means you can be searched first and the warrant issued afterwards. (Within 24 hours).

 

The Patriot Act has greatly impacted our original rights as American Citizens.

[abreakfromlife]

good question. I just read a couple of articles this past week about a couple of instances in Britain that made me so glad for the freedoms we have here - one was this model/actress who had some teenage boys trying to spy in her windows of her house, so she got a kitchen knife and banged it up against the window to scare them off, and then also called the police. The police told her she shouldn't have used the knife to scare them off; it was an illegal weapon. :confused::confused::confused: And then another man wrote an email to someone using his work address, or something, and used the word 'likey' which happens to rhyme with 'pikey' which is an offensive word to gypsy's.....so they arrested the owner of the business, since it came from the work account, for writing offensive things, and took his DNA at the police station and are going to keep it on record, even though eventually they let him go, since he wasn't the one who wrote the email with the word 'likey'. That's just insane to me. That isn't freedom when if you write a word that rhymes with an offensive word, you get arrested.....just crazy.

[abreakfromlife]

One huge example: Remember when we were protected from unreasonable search and seizure? Now there is a little caveat- a 24 hours retroactive search warrant. That means you can be searched first and the warrant issued afterwards. (Within 24 hours).

But they still have to have a reason for the search warrant. For the vast majority of ppl, that doesn't change anything. If CPS wanted to search my house b/c they got an anonymous call, I can say no, and 24 hrs later, they still wouldn't be able to get a warrant, and they know that, so they wouldn't be able to search in the first place.

[stripe]

Reminds me of the Handmaid's Tale business about freedom from and freedom to.

 

Some societies that have very few guns might feel they have a freedom from guns. Whereas Americans may want the freedom to have a gun. ?? I don't know. I am not trying to start a gun debate, just using it as an example. As another example, Americans have a freedom from seeing nipples on tv.! In Australia, aren't citizens required to vote (or else pay a fine)? Would one call this a freedom? Do Americans therefore have a freedom from voting? Or health care. Some groups have been arguing that they want to be free from government involvement in procuring medical care; while others perceive it as wanting the freedom to treat illness without back-breaking debt.

[....]

I've been to 12 foreign countries...:glare: and studied overseas for awhile...

 

When you're talking about Europe, the right to bear arms, get married quickly :D and homeschooling stick out the most in my head. In some parts of Europe, it's illegal to homeschool and getting a marriage license can take forever.

 

As far as freedom of ideas...

 

Here's an example: in some 13 countries in Europe, it's illegal to deny that the Holocaust happened. In America, you can embrace any bizarre conspiracy theory your heart desires (you could even have your own conspiracy theory radio show- like that Coast to Coast guy or Glenn Beck :D).

 

There are a lot of political party restrictions that we just don't have also. You could belong to the Overthrow the Gooberment While Wearing White Pants Political Party :hat: and no one's even going to notice. I think - in particularly central Europe - there's a lot of political party control by the government.

 

Let's not forget the different economic systems...some countries the gooberment controls the economy...in some places it doesn't... :banghead: Doh!

 

I've been all over the world, without being arrogant or haughty (I absolutely adore some places I've been to)...but there's just something about Home... :auto:

 

 

Good topic for discussion, Garga! I'd like to hear what other people think.

[LibraryLover]

But they still have to have a reason for the search warrant. For the vast majority of ppl, that doesn't change anything. If CPS wanted to search my house b/c they got an anonymous call, I can say no, and 24 hrs later, they still wouldn't be able to get a warrant, and they know that, so they wouldn't be able to search in the first place.

 

The I Am Not Doing Anything Wrong So Why Would Anyone Bother Me is an interesting argument.

 

The slow erosion of rights is a slippery slope indeed.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think the US does place greater value on "freedom" than other countries. Speech is more protected than in most of Europe, for example. There are tons of laws against hate speech, provoking speech, inciting violence or hatred and such. This also means that people in the US have the freedom to be disgusting, offensive or untruthful (because to win a libel suit in the US you must prove harm done by the lie). It requires a greater level of tolerance among the public for varying points of view, even crazy ones.

 

The right to bear arms certainly applies, most European countries have fairly strict gun laws requiring registration, belonging to a hunting club and so forth.

 

Interesting documents that connect to this topic:

 

British Bill of Rights of 1689

 

French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789

[tofuscramble]

good question. I just read a couple of articles this past week about a couple of instances in Britain that made me so glad for the freedoms we have here - one was this model/actress who had some teenage boys trying to spy in her windows of her house, so she got a kitchen knife and banged it up against the window to scare them off, and then also called the police. The police told her she shouldn't have used the knife to scare them off; it was an illegal weapon. :confused::confused::confused:

 

This is interesting to me, I think its six of one and half a dozen of the other. I'm from Britain and I know that in Britain a burglar cannot sue the victim, if they fall through a skylight and hurt themselves while trying to break into someones home.

 

Back home (in Britain) they have CTV cameras on just about every street corner, but then here you cant drive without carrying a license with you at all times, crossing the street in the wrong place is illegal and the government allow GM foods and cloned beef into the food chain without giving the general public a say in it.

 

Unfortunately, nowhere is truly free right now.

[LibraryLover]

Which makes me think of France's stance on religious articles in schools. Crosses, hijab, yarmulkes etc.

 

That wouldn't be tolerated here, but I think a lot of people would like to see Muslim garb banned. That pesky civil rights for everybody bugs some folks. ;)

 

I think the US does place greater value on "freedom" than other countries. Speech is more protected than in most of Europe, for example. There are tons of laws against hate speech, provoking speech, inciting violence or hatred and such. This also means that people in the US have the freedom to be disgusting, offensive or untruthful (because to win a libel suit in the US you must prove harm done by the lie). It requires a greater level of tolerance among the public for varying points of view, even crazy ones.

 

The right to bear arms certainly applies, most European countries have fairly strict gun laws requiring registration, belonging to a hunting club and so forth.

 

Interesting documents that connect to this topic:

 

British Bill of Rights of 1689

 

French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789

Edited January 16, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Mrs Mungo]

Which makes me think of France's stance on religious articles in schools. Crosses, hi jab, yarmulkes etc.

 

That wouldn't be tolerated here, but I think a lot of people would like to see Muslim garb banned. That pesky civil rights for everybody bugs some folks. ;)

 

France is actually considering banning the niquab and burqa from being worn in public, period.

 

I don't think you'd find many in the US that would support that, too much of a slippery slope toward outlawing other styles of religious dress that set one apart. I think, really, that's the difference. The US sees itself as a nation of individuals and thinks that is its strength. Some European countries see themselves a collective and believe that is their strength.

[tofuscramble]

In some parts of Europe prostitution and cannabis are legal. I think even some synthetic drugs. Also, in Europe, sex is not nearly as taboo.

 

Then here, people can carry guns more easily and Nazi groups and the KKK are legal (right?).

 

Having lived both places, its easy to think the place you're living in is better or "more free", but I think on a whole, when you weigh everything up, its not all that different.

Edited January 15, 2010 by tofuscramble

[Mrs Mungo]

In some parts of Europe prostitution and cannabis are legal. I think even some synthetic drugs. Also, in Britain, sex is not nearly as taboo.

 

In some parts of the US prostitution and cannabis are legal. These are state issues, not federal issues (OK, technically it's still illegal but "tolerated" from a federal standpoint in states where it's legalized, also true for The Netherlands). Something being "taboo," according to cultural mores is not the same is it being illegal.

 

Then here, people can carry guns more easily and Nazi groups and the KKK are legal (right?).

Whether you can *carry* guns is not the same question as whether you can own them. Again, this is a state issue, not a federal issue. Yes, Nazi groups are allowed, so are all kinds of church groups, civil rights groups and so forth.

 

eta: I lived in Europe for 5 years.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Mom-ninja.]

Prostitution is legal in Nevada.

 

 

Off the top of my head home school is absolutely illegal in Germany.

 

I don't know about vaccines. I didn't have kids when I lived in Europe. Anyone know if you can deny vaxes?

[Old Dominion Heather]

Prostitution is legal in some parts of America.

[TeacherZee]

Prostitution is legal in Nevada.

 

 

Off the top of my head home school is absolutely illegal in Germany.

 

I don't know about vaccines. I didn't have kids when I lived in Europe. Anyone know if you can deny vaxes?

 

I can't answer for all of Europe but in Sweden we are actually more free when it comes to vaccines than you are in the US. As far as I know in the US your children need to be vaccinated or have an exemption form in order to go to public school (yes you homeschool but there it doesn't negate the fact that the requirement exist). In Sweden you don't need any such forms. It is between you and your doctor if you are vaccinated or not. The schools can't ask for it.

[tofuscramble]

Prostitution is legal in Nevada.

 

 

Off the top of my head home school is absolutely illegal in Germany.

 

I don't know about vaccines. I didn't have kids when I lived in Europe. Anyone know if you can deny vaxes?

 

I think you can deny vaccines in Britain, but its hard (like it is here). There are different laws in different parts of Europe though. In Switzerland everybody has to own a gun, in Britain you have to have a license.

 

Given the sheer size of the US, its not surprising there are different laws in different states. Europe as a whole probably has as many freedoms and restrictions as the US as a whole.

[stripe]

Yes, there is a great desire to get rid of certain items of clothing worn by Muslims in various parts of Europe, and the Swiss just outlawed minarets on mosques. (Apparently it's so satisfying to focus one's attention/hatred on members of one religion, that it should be repeated every 70 years.) Freedom from difference.

[linders]

We have the right to HS, which is illegal in several EU countries.

[Mrs Mungo]

We have the right to HS, which is illegal in several EU countries.

 

However, this is again a state issue. Our federal government is more limited.

[rookie]

I think you can deny vaccines in Britain, but its hard (like it is here). There are different laws in different parts of Europe though. In Switzerland everybody has to own a gun, in Britain you have to have a license.

 

Given the sheer size of the US, its not surprising there are different laws in different states. Europe as a whole probably has as many freedoms and restrictions as the US as a whole.

 

 

I did not know the bit about everyone owning a gun in Switzerland - is that right? If so: why, at what age, for what purpose?

[tofuscramble]

I did not know the bit about everyone owning a gun in Switzerland - is that right? If so: why, at what age, for what purpose?

 

Its because everyone is required to undergo military training. It goes way back to the old days, when they trained all their young men to fight to protect the country.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

[Mabelen]

Yes, there is a great desire to get rid of certain items of clothing worn by Muslims in various parts of Europe, and the Swiss just outlawed minarets on mosques. (Apparently it's so satisfying to focus one's attention/hatred on members of one religion, that it should be repeated every 70 years.) Freedom from difference.

 

Outlawed minarets or voted against construction of new ones? These are two different things.

[Garga]

Its because everyone is required to undergo military training. It goes way back to the old days, when they trained all their young men to fight to protect the country.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

 

This stuff is fascinating. Like someone else pointed out, maybe it's a bit of both freedom from and freedom to. (The idea of freedom from being told you will join the military.)

 

Sounds like there's no clear-cut answer.

 

And I also liked how someone pointed out that America sees it's diversity as a strength, while perhaps some other countries view their collectiveness as a strength. I'm sure people could (and do) debate ad nauseum which is better.

 

And then, we have our federal government, whose laws every American citizen has to follow, but there are also state laws, which vary among all 50 states. (We know all about that as homeschoolers!! There are 50 different sets of laws about homeschooling!) So, I guess sorting all that out can make this even murkier.

 

I suppose I was thinking of Federal laws vs the state's.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Garga

[TXMomof4]

I think you can deny vaccines in Britain, but its hard (like it is here). There are different laws in different parts of Europe though. In Switzerland everybody has to own a gun, in Britain you have to have a license.

 

Given the sheer size of the US, its not surprising there are different laws in different states. Europe as a whole probably has as many freedoms and restrictions as the US as a whole.

 

(Bolding mine) I think this is what is getting lost in so many discussions. We are a group of individual states. Things that are fine and fly with no question in New York will go over like a lead balloon in Utah. The idea of state rights seems to get lost in the discussion these days. If Vermont wants gay marriage and Texas doesn't - well, the voters have had their say. Drivers license laws, marriage license rules, dress codes at schools - these aren't dictated by the federal gov. and shouldn't be.

[chiguirre]

 

The problems arise when people move from one state to another. States agree to accept the driver's licenses of other states, they agree to recognize marriages performed in other states. If a state has vastly different requirements for a dl than another, that could be a serious problem, and I'm not even going to touch the other issue...

[keptwoman]

This is something I have often wondered when people talk about America being more free.

You definitely have the right to bear arms. While it's not a freedom I want, I guess it *is* a freedom.

I think the main thing people are talking about in this situation is freedom from government intervention (healthcare comes to mind) and I think that is why people consider the US more free.

 

On the whole though I believe that most democratic countries have as much freedom as the USA. Their freedom may look different, but they had the chance to vote in the government who decided the rules for their freedom. To me that is what makes freedom, the right to have a say in who governs you (and indirectly what rules they make)

[WishboneDawn]

 

And I also liked how someone pointed out that America sees it's diversity as a strength, while perhaps some other countries view their collectiveness as a strength.

 

This talk of diversity isn't quite right. The USA isn't alone in that. Canada is at least as diverse. And although it's convienient to look at Europe and see countries that are less diverse it often isn't so. Take France. Even taking immigrants out of the equation and just counting it's indigenous populations it's got a tremendous range of peoples with different cultures, dialects and interests. The UK is another country that's in no way at all lacking in diversity. They aren't alone in Europe.

 

France maintains a tight, restrictive grip on national unity and identity. The USA welcomes diversity buts expects to a large measure, assimilation into American ideals and expectations. Canada expects immigrants to keep their cultures intact, sometimes to the detriment of a national ideal.

[keptwoman]

This talk of diversity isn't quite right. The USA isn't alone in that. Canada is at least as diverse. And although it's convienient to look at Europe and see countries that are less diverse it often isn't so. Take France. Even taking immigrants out of the equation and just counting it's indigenous populations it's got a tremendous range of peoples with different cultures, dialects and interests. The UK is another country that's in no way at all lacking in diversity. They aren't alone in Europe.

Yes, Australia and New Zealand are also very diverse. I think it is more common in "newer" nations. People come from everywhere to Australia and New Zealand just as they do to the USA.

 

We also have lots of refugees etc wanting to come here, that also is not something unique to the US. I think refugees from political difficulty chose many different countries to go to.

 

We dont have a land border here in Australia, but we do have a very narrow and shallow piece of water between Australia and Indonesia, and many thousands of people pay crazy amounts of money to people completely without morals who put them on boats to try to get to Australia.

 

It seems that folks in the US seem to think that their freedoms somehow make them more appealling than elsewhere to displaced people and I don't really believe that to be true.

[WishboneDawn]

This is something I have often wondered when people talk about America being more free.

You definitely have the right to bear arms. While it's not a freedom I want, I guess it *is* a freedom.

I think the main thing people are talking about in this situation is freedom from government intervention (healthcare comes to mind) and I think that is why people consider the US more free.

 

I don't buy it. The whole freedom from government thing seems to come from an adversarial view of gov't, as if it's an other. The point of a democratic gov't is that it's us, it's the people. If Americans have lost that sense I don't think it bodes well for American democracy.

 

As a Canuck I do see our healthcare as a freedom because it's a gov't mandate. That means we the people have control over it rather then unaccountable corporate interests. Granted, if your view of freedoms is overwhelmingly defined by what's accorded to the individual then what I just wrote will seem non-sensical (or probably socialist :rolleyes:).

[Gretchen in NJ]

France is actually considering banning the niquab and burqa from being worn in public, period.

 

I don't think you'd find many in the US that would support that, too much of a slippery slope toward outlawing other styles of religious dress that set one apart. I think, really, that's the difference. The US sees itself as a nation of individuals and thinks that is its strength. Some European countries see themselves a collective and believe that is their strength.

 

:iagree: Like the borg in the Star Trek series.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Gretchen in NJ

[Gretchen in NJ]

I think you can deny vaccines in Britain, but its hard (like it is here). There are different laws in different parts of Europe though. In Switzerland everybody has to own a gun, in Britain you have to have a license.

 

Given the sheer size of the US, its not surprising there are different laws in different states. Europe as a whole probably has as many freedoms and restrictions as the US as a whole.

 

Really?:001_huh: I have never heard of that before. I find it very interesting.

[keptwoman]

I don't buy it. The whole freedom from government thing seems to come from an adversarial view of gov't, as if it's an other. The point of a democratic gov't is that it's us, it's the people. If Americans have lost that sense I don't think it bodes well for American democracy.

 

As a Canuck I do see our healthcare as a freedom because it's a gov't mandate. That means we the people have control over it rather then unaccountable corporate interests. Granted, if your view of freedoms is overwhelmingly defined by what's accorded to the individual then what I just wrote will seem non-sensical (or probably socialist :rolleyes:).

I do see freedom from government as one of the main things that comes through in discussions, I don't buy it either.

I also see our healthcare as a freedom, but I'm aware that many folks in the US would not see it that way,

But then I'm probably considered a socialist too :lol:

I guess it comes back to what I said in another discussion, one persons freedom is anothers tyranny.

[Gretchen in NJ]

I do see freedom from government as one of the main things that comes through in discussions, I don't buy it either.

I also see our healthcare as a freedom, but I'm aware that many folks in the US would not see it that way,

But then I'm probably considered a socialist too :lol:

I guess it comes back to what I said in another discussion, one persons freedom is anothers tyranny.

 

True. I do see our health care system as it is now as a freedom. I have the freedom to choose.

[keptwoman]

True. I do see our health care system as it is now as a freedom. I have the freedom to choose.

To choose what? The person who you see or the company you are insured with?

I have the freedom to choose who I see, I just don't get to choose who pays them for it, it's the government.

[TXMomof4]

 

 

It seems that folks in the US seem to think that their freedoms somehow make them more appealling than elsewhere to displaced people and I don't really believe that to be true.

 

I don't think it's our freedom - I think it's our lack of enforcement of immigration laws. I was talking to a friend who was pregnant and planning a trip to Europe. She said she hoped she'd give birth somewhere exciting and then her child would have dual citizenship. Um. Nope, doesn't work that way. Last I heard (and this was a few years ago) Ireland was the only EU country to automatically give citizenship rights to children born there regardless of the parents' citizenship status and they were working like heck to change that because it costs too much money. Is there another country that will take any child born within their borders and automatically grant them citizenship?

[nmoira]

The I Am Not Doing Anything Wrong So Why Would Anyone Bother Me is an interesting argument.

 

The slow erosion of rights is a slippery slope indeed.

Brandon Mayfield would agree.

 

Excerpts:

 

A bag containing detonating devices, found by Spanish authorities following the Madrid commuter train bombings, had fingerprints that were initially identified by the FBI as belonging to Mayfield ("100% verified").

According to the court documents in judge Ann Aiken's decision, this information was largely "fabricated and concocted by the FBI and DOJ"

. When the FBI finally sent Mayfield's fingerprints to the Spanish authorities, they contested the matching of the finger prints from Brandon Mayfield to the ones associated with the Madrid bombing. Further, the Spanish authorities informed the FBI that they had other suspects who were Moroccan immigrants in the case that were not linked to anyone in the USA.

The FBI completely disregarded all of the information from the Spanish authorities, and proceeded to spy on Mayfield and his family further.

 

 

 

[snip]

 

 

 

The FBI arrested Mayfield at his offices in West Slope, an unincorporated suburb of Portland. The arrest was similar to the then-recent Mike Hawash case, under a material witness warrant rather than under charge; he was held with no access to family and limited access, if any, to legal counsel. The FBI initially refused to inform either Mayfield or his family why he was being arrested or where he was being held.

 

 

 

Later, the FBI leaked the nature of the charges to the local media and the family discovered what the charges were by watching the local news. He was at first held at a Multnomah County jail under a false name; he was later transferred to an unidentified location. His family protested that Mayfield had no connection with the bombings, nor had he been off the continent in over 11 to 14 years.

 

 

 

Following his arrest, Spanish authorities relayed their increasing doubts that the fingerprint on the bag was actually Mayfield's to the FBI, though these concerns were not communicated to Mayfield's attorneys.

On May 19 the Spanish authorities announced that the fingerprints actually belonged to an Algerian national, Ouhnane Daoud; Brandon Mayfield was released from prison when the international press broke the story the next day — May 20, 2004. A gag order remained in force for the next few days. By May 25, the case was dismissed by the judge, who ordered the return of seized evidence and unsealing of documents pertaining to his arrest.

 

 

 

The FBI conducted an internal review of Mayfield's arrest and detention, concluding that although he was not arrested solely due to his religious beliefs, they may have contributed to investigator's failure to take into account the Spanish concerns over fingerprint identification.

 

 

 

Edited to add:

 

 

 

The FBI issued a press release announcing the report's conclusion that they had not misused the USA PATRIOT Act in the investigation. Civil libertarians and the ACLU nonetheless consider Mayfield's detention a misuse of the material witness statute.

 

Edited January 16, 2010 by nmoira

[Gretchen in NJ]

To choose what? The person who you see or the company you are insured with?

I have the freedom to choose who I see, I just don't get to choose who pays them for it, it's the government.

 

I can choose not to go through a third party to pay my medical bills. I can pay in cash. I can choose to see a doctor or not see a doctor. You have the freedom to choose who you see, but the person who you see doesn't always have the freedom to choose certain types of treatments.

[EthiopianFood]

To choose what? The person who you see or the company you are insured with?

I have the freedom to choose who I see, I just don't get to choose who pays them for it, it's the government.

 

Since someone else will probably say this, I'll venture to comment on this. The government doesn't pay for your health insurance, you and every citizen in your country does. You don't have the freedom NOT to pay for it. You can choose not to utilize the service, but you still have to pay. *shrug*

[EthiopianFood]

the person who you see doesn't always have the freedom to choose certain types of treatments.

 

Well, this is true of a health insurance plan as well. They can deny coverage of services, even if the person needs them to live.

[keptwoman]

I can choose not to go through a third party to pay my medical bills. I can pay in cash.

As can I, if I choose not to claim the $$ back that's my choice.

I can choose to see a doctor or not see a doctor

Me too :)

You have the freedom to choose who you see, but the person who you see doesn't always have the freedom to choose certain types of treatments.

I don't believe this to be true, I can always pay privately for something that Medicare doesn't cover, but I've yet to come across them not paying for anything that anyone has wanted or needed, well apart from plastic surgery, clearly you are going to have to pay out of your own pocket if you want a nose job :tongue_smilie: With the exception of homebirths which they don't pay for (don't get me started on THAT ONE, makes me furious!!! no healthcare system is perfect that's for certain) And I'd suggest that the same and worse restrictions operate under your private insurer scheme from what US friends have said.

 

Since someone else will probably say this, I'll venture to comment on this. The government doesn't pay for your health insurance, you and every citizen in your country does. You don't have the freedom NOT to pay for it. You can choose not to utilize the service, but you still have to pay. *shrug*

Yes, you are absolutely correct. And I'm aware that others would find that less of a freedom. In that case they would be free to leave the country :)

 

However, I'm sorry OP. I should have known better than to mention medical. I can see a thread derailment and I didn't mean for that to happen, my point was that what some find more free others find less free. It's true in healthcare but also in many other aspects of life.

Edited January 16, 2010 by keptwoman

[EthiopianFood]

Yes, you are absolutely correct. And I'm aware that others would find that less of a freedom. In that case they would be free to leave the country :)

 

Well obviously. :tongue_smilie: We were talking about different freedoms, that is why I commented on that.

 

 

However, I'm sorry OP. I should have known better than to mention medical. I can see a thread derailment and I didn't mean for that to happen, my point was that what some find more free others find less free. It's true in healthcare but also in many other aspects of life.

 

I think you should find a country that requires or bans circ and comment on that. :D

[tofuscramble]

Ever since I moved here to America (almost 10 years ago now), I have said that I felt that most Americans in general 1) Don't tend to know much about the rest of the world (people on this board seem to be more educated than the general population). 2) Think their constitution provides them with all this freedom that other countries don't get.

 

I have felt like there's a certain ignorance over here. People in the US are inside this bubble, where they think that whats here is so much better than everywhere else and it really isn't. Sure some things are better, but some things are worse. Its just different, you know?

 

Honestly, I felt just as free when I lived in Europe and I felt just as free when I lived in Canada for a year.

 

Not that I don't love America, because I do, just as I love the UK. My husband is from America, so I get the luxury of being a dual citizen. Which, by the way, according to the American government, I have to renounce my citizenship of my home country before they will make me a citizen here (the US is one of the few countries that do this). Thankfully, the UK will not recognize a renunciation, so I get to be dual. If I were from another country though, I might be singing a different tune. I would say that violates a basic freedom right there.

 

They are all as bad as each other if you ask me.

[Sputterduck]

This talk of diversity isn't quite right. The USA isn't alone in that. Canada is at least as diverse. And although it's convienient to look at Europe and see countries that are less diverse it often isn't so. Take France. Even taking immigrants out of the equation and just counting it's indigenous populations it's got a tremendous range of peoples with different cultures, dialects and interests. The UK is another country that's in no way at all lacking in diversity. They aren't alone in Europe.

 

France maintains a tight, restrictive grip on national unity and identity. The USA welcomes diversity buts expects to a large measure, assimilation into American ideals and expectations. Canada expects immigrants to keep their cultures intact, sometimes to the detriment of a national ideal.

 

Is Canada at least as diverse?

 

34% of our population are minorities. From the statistics I found the number appears to be 16% in Canada. Numbers are looked at a little differently by the two countries.

[Audrey]

but the person who you see doesn't always have the freedom to choose certain types of treatments.

 

 

Neither do most of your doctors under HMOs and other insurance organizations of that ilk. Their hands are tied, too.

 

We do, by the way, have the freedom to request and seek treatments of any available type. Provincial healthcare covers a wide range of basic options. You can always choose another option, but you may have to pay for it yourself.

[Audrey]

Since someone else will probably say this, I'll venture to comment on this. The government doesn't pay for your health insurance, you and every citizen in your country does. You don't have the freedom NOT to pay for it. You can choose not to utilize the service, but you still have to pay. *shrug*

 

 

Ah... but you see.. that's a difference in mentality. Whereas YOU think "I don't want to pay for someone else to get services" WE think "it's good we all pay for everyone's services."

 

I don't expect you to like that, or to even get that, but there is a fundamental difference in the way that citizens of countries like Canada and Australia think about each other and about government funded services than Americans do. It is not something we can really explain to you. *I* did not get it when I first moved here, but seeing it in action and benefitting from this way of thinking for 15+ years.... I do get it now, and fully embrace the egalitarianism and compassion of it.

[IsabelC]

A freedom I can think of that US citizens have and we in Australia don't and that I would actually like to have, is the freedom to not vote. Compulsory voting is only enforced in very few countries, and I believe it is a significant curtailment of my freedom, because if there is no political candidate of whom I approve, I am forced to vote for somebody who does not represent my views.

 

As a republican (Americans, please note that a republican in Australia is not analogous to a Republican in the US, here it is any person who would like Australia to be a republic, regardless of their political leanings on other issues), I would also like the freedom of not having a foreigner who does not reside in Australia as our head of state.

 

I can't think of any other way in which the US is more free off the top of my head.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Hotdrink

[lauracolumbus]

AS a person who does not want to pay for government health insurance, cash for clunkers, or corporate bailouts, I am not free to leave because no other country would accept me as an immigrant. As a former immigration attorney, I can tell you we have some of the the most (if not the most) generous of immigration laws. If a woman from Mexico crosses the border and gives birth in Texas, not only does that child automatically become a citizen (with the attendant aid to children benefits), but s/he can sponsor her mother when she is of age. We are the number one destination country in the world for immigrants. I believe it's because of our economic freedoms and opportunities.

 

And we do allow for dual citizenship w/numerous countries.

 

And even w/the selective service registration our freedoms from military service are greater than many other western countries.

 

I'm not sure if it's still true in Europe/Cn/Aus, but our freedom to pursue a higher education has traditionally been much greater as well.

[Melissa in Australia]

AS a person who does not want to pay for government health insurance, cash for clunkers, or corporate bailouts, I am not free to leave because no other country would accept me as an immigrant. As a former immigration attorney, I can tell you we have some of the the most (if not the most) generous of immigration laws. If a woman from Mexico crosses the border and gives birth in Texas, not only does that child automatically become a citizen (with the attendant aid to children benefits), but s/he can sponsor her mother when she is of age. We are the number one destination country in the world for immigrants. I believe it's because of our economic freedoms and opportunities.

 

And we do allow for dual citizenship w/numerous countries.

 

And even w/the selective service registration our freedoms from military service are greater than many other western countries.

 

I'm not sure if it's still true in Europe/Cn/Aus, but our freedom to pursue a higher education has traditionally been much greater as well.

 

I believe that America is the number 1 destination for immigrants because it is easier to get in. Not because of any greater freedom. if Australian officials find an illegal immigrant, they most likely will be packed off to a detention centre for a few years. they probably will be aloud to stay after that.

 

Australia has the freedom of not having to register for the military at all.