6 ms·

"You're not free to expect your health to be taken care of no matter what your financial situation; you're not free from living in often astonishing debt just t

"You're not free to expect your health to be taken care of no matter what your financial situation; you're not free from living in often astonishing debt just to to get a higher education; you're not free to feel any sort of real sense of job security when an employer can fire you at will with little protection;" I think universal healthcare, affordable higher education and social security are basic necessities and it's insane that the US doesn't have them. But that's not freedom, that's socialism. It's like saying that US citizens are not free to travel because airplane tickets are expensive. Freedom means that you get a choice, even if that choice is going to screw yourself later in life - for instance not buying health insurance. All those things you mention are paid by your taxes - someone is literally taking money away from you to pay for something you might not need - thats hardly freedom. In this sense the US is the freest country to live in, though not necessarily the best one.

vikascoder 9y ago
Freedom means having the choice not to buy and have health insurance? Cause who needs it? But you have mandatory car insurance in most states. However much time I spend in the USA, I just can't wrap around my head around these ”freedoms”. What I conclude, after having also lived in Germany, is that one really needs to live and experience this socialism to have a feeling how "free" that actually feels. Most US folks are boxed into their own idea of freedom from having basic necessities from a theoretical perspective knowing no other better way to live so much so that they would actively dismantle whatever protections they enjoy now.
MereInterest 9y ago
I think there is a tendency in the US to define "freedom" only in terms of what somebody is not prevented from doing, rather than what somebody is enabled to do. This is partly historical, as the Bill of Rights describes only restrictions of what the government may not do, and does not have any statements about things that the government must ensure. Your use of freedom and socialism as opposing ideas, rather than as two separate axes, suggests that you might be making this assumption.
- krapp 9y ago
  Many Americans consider their freedoms to be individual and inalienable - that they exist in spite of government, not thanks to it. Their coercive nature puts governments in opposition to freedom regardless of the intent behind the laws they enforce, or their benefit to society as a whole. Socialism seems opposed to freedom because it requires a greater scope of government power, and therefore, a greater suppression of individual and collective liberty, than capitalism. Of course, not everyone agrees with even those broad definitions of socialism or capitalism (in the American libertarian sense of capitalism, anyway.) In other words, in the US the view tends to be that "the government which governs best, governs least."
  - drakonka 9y ago
    I wonder how this view is reconciled with data points like the EIU's Democracy Index, which rates "civil liberties" in the US below those of many of the EU countries. Is the Democracy Index not considered a reputable report, or does the US tend to define "civil liberties" as something outside of the data points[1] used to build the index? These points seem to focus largely on personal freedoms, free media, and government interference. [1] http://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/Democracy_Index_2017.pdf http://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/Democracy_Index_2... - Factors used for "civil liberties" rating start on page 73. Edit: Accidentally linked 2007 instead of 2017 PDF, fixed.
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      If we're honest with ourselves, most political beliefs aren't reconciled with data. We pick and choose what supports them. Second, there's that temporary millionaire thing going on. If you're wealthy, the US is one of the best places in the world to be. You get to have your cake and eat it (healthcare, for example, is less of a concern). The legal system favors you, you can buy your way into media and politics. People see the freedom on the upper end and don't associate that with major limitations on the lower.
  - psychometry 9y ago
    Literally no one would agree that is a definition of socialism. https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asocialiasm https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asocialiasm
yequalsx 9y ago
...someone is literally taking money away from you to pay for something you might not need – thats hardly freedom. Every society beyond a certain size in the history of world has done this so making this statement is not relevant unless your point is that no society can be deemed free or that "freeness" is sliding scale dependent upon taxation rate. No one I've ever talked to has ever really thought this so I'm guessing you don't either. Overall taxation levels in the U.S. are 40% – 50 % lower than in the Scandinavian countries. Generally people in those countries don't need to worry about food, shelter, healthcare. No matter what poor choices they make in life these things will be provided. In the U.S. a single illness can bankrupt a family and leave them in penury. A person does have to worry about the what if scenarios. This burden of worry is precisely the way in which we are not free. It's the lack of real security. There's a balance that the Scandinavian countries seemed to have found. They tax higher than we do. They invest in their people and in their society's well being. They tend to be happier. They tend to be healthier. They don't have to worry about being bankrupt because they got cancer. They are freer than we are as a result. Those countries, simply put, are much better places to live than the U.S.
- jimmy1 9y ago
  America is one of the biggest (land-mass wise) and most diverse places in the world. There are tons of experiences to have. Treating America or the American experience as some cohesive whole or some shared experience is the most repeated fallacy in these types of conversations. There are cities in America with public healthcare, and then there are cities that don't. There are cities that value greenways, public transportation, and diverse cultures, there are cities that value your freedom of transportation (i.e. a car) over everything. There are cities that have great public shelters and food kitchens and then there are cities where everyone opens their door and every place of worship tends to be a food kitchen, and then there are, of course, cities that don't do much of either. And while there isn't an explicit "free" education, there are hundreds of universities that will fully subsidize your cost of education (Harvard being one prominent example). > Generally people in those countries don't need to worry about food, shelter, healthcare. No matter what poor choices they make in life these things will be provided. This purported truthism is categorically false however, when your nation suffers an influx of new immigration, refugees, etc, such as what America has experienced most of it's existence. . Then all of a sudden, the money in the public coffers starts to run dry -- Greece is a great example -- the government almost went broke (well, I should say, went more broke) footing the bills for all the refugees streaming into the country. I am not saying that this is a bad thing -- good on them and bless them for that -- but at the end of the day, people's attitudes and perceptions on their perfect little "my government takes care of us" story gets changed when all of a sudden your government no longer has the means to take care of everyone. And since Europe is much closer to many of the conflicts happening in the world ATM, many countries in the Eurozone are seeing first hand the effect of this.
janekm 9y ago
There are countries with lower taxes and fewer government services than the US (Somalia, say?). Even taxpayer funded healthcare places the US in the top 10 on a per-capita level. Trying to defend the US healthcare system on the basis of “you don’t want the government to take away your money” is basically a slogan invented by dishonest politicians in the pockets of the health insurance industry.
internetman55 9y ago
I feel like high income Americans might be addicted to living above their means (tons of cars, everyone owns a big house, etc.). Im pretty cheap (and dont have kids/mortgage yet) and I got laid off my job. Basically unemployment covered all my expenses with a decent chunk left over to save and I just kept my work insurance with COBRA. Since I just saved a lot of money working I could theoretically be job hunting for almost 2 years before my emergency fund was empty assuming no unemployment income. But im also an entry level tech employee so its not hard to find a new job at a high salary relative to most people.
point78 9y ago
By that method of thinking only the rich are free. Everyone in poverty who do not have enough money to pay for healthcare or have any type of social services or pay for education .. ..theyre free to do what then? Eu has more "freedom" in that everyone has access to these things.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  > By that method of thinking only the rich are free. "Money is coined freedom" -- Fyodor Dostoyevsky > Eu has more "freedom" in that everyone has access to these things. Agreed. Which is why I think that Europeans area also "richer" (the above works both ways, IMHO). The "freedom" in the US is very much a freedom of the rich and powerful to do whatever they want unhindered. Which looks a lot like tyranny to everyone affected. Certainly employees are much more free in Europe, because they can't be fired on a whim. For example, had James Damore been a Google Employee in Munich, he'd almost certainly still have his job, or a very fat compensation payment.
whataretensors 9y ago
> universal healthcare, affordable higher education and social security It seems insane to me that people would want government to do healthcare. Every interaction I have with US government is terrible. IRS, SEC, DMV, ... Might as well get comcast to do it. Health is a global issue. There should be global solutions.
- AsyncAwait 9y ago
  > It seems insane to me that people would want government to do healthcare It's not government DOING healthcare, it's still private doctors doing it, just it being free at the point of delivery via a government administered single-payer system. The reason many government services in the U.S. don't work is because they get defunded to curtail their effectiveness and then scapegoated. To someone from the EU, it seems barbaric to want to profit off of someone getting sick. You wouldn't want private armies, would you?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - cabaalis 9y ago
    You seem to forget the power of the purse. Providers would not be free to provide Healthcare in their terms. They would be forced to provide it in methods approved by the government.
    - AsyncAwait 9y ago
      > Providers would not be free to provide Healthcare in their terms. They would be forced to provide it in methods approved by the government. I know the "free market" argument is that the providers would innovate etc. but in reality they would just jack up prices where possible. Healthcare shouldn't be for profit, just like prisons, it only encourages bad incentives.
- rbobby 9y ago
  > It seems insane to me that people would want government to do healthcare. Like many systems, the Canadian system is a single-payer system. Each province (read state) decides what procedures will/will not be covered (essentially "the policy"). A doctor submits claims and gets paid (roughly... some provinces have caps). Doctors do not call the gov't to get pre-approval/approval for any course of treatment. Your doctor decides you need an MRI... it's covered. Need that appendix out... it's covered. Need a blood test... it's covered. Need to pop a baby out... its covered. Think of it as an insurance system that just works the vast majority of the time. Note that there are treatments/procedures that aren't covered and you'd have to pay out of pocket for them (the only one I've ever been made aware of was a special drug/thingy that improved the odds of a spinal fusion working... $5K a pop and you'd likely need 2). There are even some less common blood tests that aren't covered (no clue what... just something I heard). So... it's not all sunshine and rainbows. BUT... it's way way better than the US system. Also... it keeps people out of court. No one gets sued to cover someone's medical expenses (you broke my kids arm). And it keeps malpractice costs down (no need for the malpractice insurance to cover future medical expenses). In general it just makes Canadians nicer people :)
icantdrive55 9y ago
Yes--it's free if you have money. The money buys up all the land. The money buys politicians. The politicians/business raise fees/fines because they can. You end up in prison, usually over something minor, if you don't have funds. Not really a free society? (California has 1 place in the desert, I know of, that a person can pitch a tent, and live for free. Actually, the owners of the land just allow the homeless to live there. The people are technically squatting.)
mpweiher 9y ago
> I think universal healthcare, affordable higher education > and social security are basic necessities and it's > insane that the US doesn't have them. > But that's not freedom, that's socialism. You are confusing "freedom" with "anarchy", because freedoms tend to interfere with each other. I think we can agree that I do not lead a free life if I am in constant fear for my safety. So we create laws to restrict the freedom of the strong and police departments to enforce those laws. And you do not get a choice in the matter, not just not to adhere to those laws, but also to be protected by those laws. And you might even be called on to participate, against your will (jury duty, the draft). All this is not just compatible with "freedom", not in opposition to it, but arguably required for actual freedom. Actual freedom is not the same as "nobody can tell me what I can or cannot do [stomps feet]", and a bit more complicated. Now liberal democracies differ on exactly where they draw the line, but I think the evidence is pretty strong that things like (a) worker's rights (b) universal healthcare (however delivered) and (c) at least sort-of free education enhance overall freedom. Whereas for example the right to bear arms, while sounding nice from the [stomp your feet] POV, is actually detrimental.
coldtea 9y ago
>But that's not freedom, that's socialism. Who said that freedom is in conflict with socialism? Socialism takes care of some foundational requirements, so you have more freedom in your movement. (Social democracy to be more correct, we're not talking about socialism in the Eastern European circa 1960s sense, but about something most of the civilized world enjoys, from Western and Nordic Europe to Japan and Australia). It's like saying that US citizens are not free to travel because airplane tickets are expensive. Well, there is a thing as things being "prohibitively expensive". And if some private interests take the public for suckers and keep tickets expensive, then, yeah, those people are not "free to fly" as much as other people are. Even more so, if it's not tickets but something everybody should enjoy, like healthcare, but some huge interests, like big Pharma and insurance companies, artificially inflate costs using all the tricks of the "free market" and laugh all the way to the bank. >Freedom means that you get a choice, even if that choice is going to screw yourself later in life - for instance not buying health insurance. No, freedom means you have basic stuff like "healthcare covered, so you are free to pursue your interests -- not some rigged BS choice, between huge health conglomerates and people who can't afford bread every day. Strangely, no one extends the "freedom" you described to other basics, like safety, rule of law, and so on. Because in that case, the free-er places would be Western Sahara, or some such country without an official government, where you're "free" to do whatever, as long as you can do it.
YPCrumble 9y ago
> Freedom means that you get a choice, even if that choice is going to screw yourself later in life - for instance not buying health insurance. America is less free than "socialist" in your example. As an American you're free not to buy health insurance. However, if you don't purchase health insurance you have to pay a tax penalty to the government for the same amount as a health insurance premium. On top of that, the $400 a month "health insurance" you are required to purchase only covers health care costs after the first $8,000 you spend out of pocket.
fnl 9y ago
The issue here is a point of view: Freedom technically means free of constraints, which is the US view. However, many people (me included, BTW) interprete freedom as in "freedom of choice", that is, a society that enables more, not less choices of going about your life. Sadly, total freedom (in its most literal definition) is ultimately equal to anarchy...
jonnycomputer 9y ago
I think the requisite reference here is to the notions of positive and negative liberties, a distinction famously formulated by Isaiah Berlin. See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative...
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  Interesting.
stordoff 9y ago
> But that's not freedom, that's socialism. It's different, but I'd still say it's a form of freedom - the government frees you from having to take care of certain things, even if you are unable to do so yourself. There are more axes to freedom that just freedom FROM the government IMO.

vikascoder 9y ago

Freedom means having the choice not to buy and have health insurance? Cause who needs it? But you have mandatory car insurance in most states. However much time I spend in the USA, I just can't wrap around my head around these ”freedoms”. What I conclude, after having also lived in Germany, is that one really needs to live and experience this socialism to have a feeling how "free" that actually feels. Most US folks are boxed into their own idea of freedom from having basic necessities from a theoretical perspective knowing no other better way to live so much so that they would actively dismantle whatever protections they enjoy now.

MereInterest 9y ago

I think there is a tendency in the US to define "freedom" only in terms of what somebody is not prevented from doing, rather than what somebody is enabled to do. This is partly historical, as the Bill of Rights describes only restrictions of what the government may not do, and does not have any statements about things that the government must ensure. Your use of freedom and socialism as opposing ideas, rather than as two separate axes, suggests that you might be making this assumption.

krapp 9y ago
Many Americans consider their freedoms to be individual and inalienable - that they exist in spite of government, not thanks to it. Their coercive nature puts governments in opposition to freedom regardless of the intent behind the laws they enforce, or their benefit to society as a whole. Socialism seems opposed to freedom because it requires a greater scope of government power, and therefore, a greater suppression of individual and collective liberty, than capitalism. Of course, not everyone agrees with even those broad definitions of socialism or capitalism (in the American libertarian sense of capitalism, anyway.) In other words, in the US the view tends to be that "the government which governs best, governs least."
- drakonka 9y ago
  I wonder how this view is reconciled with data points like the EIU's Democracy Index, which rates "civil liberties" in the US below those of many of the EU countries. Is the Democracy Index not considered a reputable report, or does the US tend to define "civil liberties" as something outside of the data points[1] used to build the index? These points seem to focus largely on personal freedoms, free media, and government interference. [1] http://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/Democracy_Index_2017.pdf http://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/Democracy_Index_2... - Factors used for "civil liberties" rating start on page 73. Edit: Accidentally linked 2007 instead of 2017 PDF, fixed.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    If we're honest with ourselves, most political beliefs aren't reconciled with data. We pick and choose what supports them. Second, there's that temporary millionaire thing going on. If you're wealthy, the US is one of the best places in the world to be. You get to have your cake and eat it (healthcare, for example, is less of a concern). The legal system favors you, you can buy your way into media and politics. People see the freedom on the upper end and don't associate that with major limitations on the lower.
- psychometry 9y ago
  Literally no one would agree that is a definition of socialism. https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asocialiasm https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asocialiasm

yequalsx 9y ago

...someone is literally taking money away from you to pay for something you might not need – thats hardly freedom. Every society beyond a certain size in the history of world has done this so making this statement is not relevant unless your point is that no society can be deemed free or that "freeness" is sliding scale dependent upon taxation rate. No one I've ever talked to has ever really thought this so I'm guessing you don't either. Overall taxation levels in the U.S. are 40% – 50 % lower than in the Scandinavian countries. Generally people in those countries don't need to worry about food, shelter, healthcare. No matter what poor choices they make in life these things will be provided. In the U.S. a single illness can bankrupt a family and leave them in penury. A person does have to worry about the what if scenarios. This burden of worry is precisely the way in which we are not free. It's the lack of real security. There's a balance that the Scandinavian countries seemed to have found. They tax higher than we do. They invest in their people and in their society's well being. They tend to be happier. They tend to be healthier. They don't have to worry about being bankrupt because they got cancer. They are freer than we are as a result. Those countries, simply put, are much better places to live than the U.S.

jimmy1 9y ago
America is one of the biggest (land-mass wise) and most diverse places in the world. There are tons of experiences to have. Treating America or the American experience as some cohesive whole or some shared experience is the most repeated fallacy in these types of conversations. There are cities in America with public healthcare, and then there are cities that don't. There are cities that value greenways, public transportation, and diverse cultures, there are cities that value your freedom of transportation (i.e. a car) over everything. There are cities that have great public shelters and food kitchens and then there are cities where everyone opens their door and every place of worship tends to be a food kitchen, and then there are, of course, cities that don't do much of either. And while there isn't an explicit "free" education, there are hundreds of universities that will fully subsidize your cost of education (Harvard being one prominent example). > Generally people in those countries don't need to worry about food, shelter, healthcare. No matter what poor choices they make in life these things will be provided. This purported truthism is categorically false however, when your nation suffers an influx of new immigration, refugees, etc, such as what America has experienced most of it's existence. . Then all of a sudden, the money in the public coffers starts to run dry -- Greece is a great example -- the government almost went broke (well, I should say, went more broke) footing the bills for all the refugees streaming into the country. I am not saying that this is a bad thing -- good on them and bless them for that -- but at the end of the day, people's attitudes and perceptions on their perfect little "my government takes care of us" story gets changed when all of a sudden your government no longer has the means to take care of everyone. And since Europe is much closer to many of the conflicts happening in the world ATM, many countries in the Eurozone are seeing first hand the effect of this.

janekm 9y ago

There are countries with lower taxes and fewer government services than the US (Somalia, say?). Even taxpayer funded healthcare places the US in the top 10 on a per-capita level. Trying to defend the US healthcare system on the basis of “you don’t want the government to take away your money” is basically a slogan invented by dishonest politicians in the pockets of the health insurance industry.

internetman55 9y ago

I feel like high income Americans might be addicted to living above their means (tons of cars, everyone owns a big house, etc.). Im pretty cheap (and dont have kids/mortgage yet) and I got laid off my job. Basically unemployment covered all my expenses with a decent chunk left over to save and I just kept my work insurance with COBRA. Since I just saved a lot of money working I could theoretically be job hunting for almost 2 years before my emergency fund was empty assuming no unemployment income. But im also an entry level tech employee so its not hard to find a new job at a high salary relative to most people.

point78 9y ago

By that method of thinking only the rich are free. Everyone in poverty who do not have enough money to pay for healthcare or have any type of social services or pay for education .. ..theyre free to do what then? Eu has more "freedom" in that everyone has access to these things.

mpweiher 9y ago
> By that method of thinking only the rich are free. "Money is coined freedom" -- Fyodor Dostoyevsky > Eu has more "freedom" in that everyone has access to these things. Agreed. Which is why I think that Europeans area also "richer" (the above works both ways, IMHO). The "freedom" in the US is very much a freedom of the rich and powerful to do whatever they want unhindered. Which looks a lot like tyranny to everyone affected. Certainly employees are much more free in Europe, because they can't be fired on a whim. For example, had James Damore been a Google Employee in Munich, he'd almost certainly still have his job, or a very fat compensation payment.

whataretensors 9y ago

> universal healthcare, affordable higher education and social security It seems insane to me that people would want government to do healthcare. Every interaction I have with US government is terrible. IRS, SEC, DMV, ... Might as well get comcast to do it. Health is a global issue. There should be global solutions.

AsyncAwait 9y ago
> It seems insane to me that people would want government to do healthcare It's not government DOING healthcare, it's still private doctors doing it, just it being free at the point of delivery via a government administered single-payer system. The reason many government services in the U.S. don't work is because they get defunded to curtail their effectiveness and then scapegoated. To someone from the EU, it seems barbaric to want to profit off of someone getting sick. You wouldn't want private armies, would you?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cabaalis 9y ago
  You seem to forget the power of the purse. Providers would not be free to provide Healthcare in their terms. They would be forced to provide it in methods approved by the government.
  - AsyncAwait 9y ago
    > Providers would not be free to provide Healthcare in their terms. They would be forced to provide it in methods approved by the government. I know the "free market" argument is that the providers would innovate etc. but in reality they would just jack up prices where possible. Healthcare shouldn't be for profit, just like prisons, it only encourages bad incentives.
rbobby 9y ago
> It seems insane to me that people would want government to do healthcare. Like many systems, the Canadian system is a single-payer system. Each province (read state) decides what procedures will/will not be covered (essentially "the policy"). A doctor submits claims and gets paid (roughly... some provinces have caps). Doctors do not call the gov't to get pre-approval/approval for any course of treatment. Your doctor decides you need an MRI... it's covered. Need that appendix out... it's covered. Need a blood test... it's covered. Need to pop a baby out... its covered. Think of it as an insurance system that just works the vast majority of the time. Note that there are treatments/procedures that aren't covered and you'd have to pay out of pocket for them (the only one I've ever been made aware of was a special drug/thingy that improved the odds of a spinal fusion working... $5K a pop and you'd likely need 2). There are even some less common blood tests that aren't covered (no clue what... just something I heard). So... it's not all sunshine and rainbows. BUT... it's way way better than the US system. Also... it keeps people out of court. No one gets sued to cover someone's medical expenses (you broke my kids arm). And it keeps malpractice costs down (no need for the malpractice insurance to cover future medical expenses). In general it just makes Canadians nicer people :)

icantdrive55 9y ago

Yes--it's free if you have money. The money buys up all the land. The money buys politicians. The politicians/business raise fees/fines because they can. You end up in prison, usually over something minor, if you don't have funds. Not really a free society? (California has 1 place in the desert, I know of, that a person can pitch a tent, and live for free. Actually, the owners of the land just allow the homeless to live there. The people are technically squatting.)

mpweiher 9y ago

> I think universal healthcare, affordable higher education > and social security are basic necessities and it's > insane that the US doesn't have them. > But that's not freedom, that's socialism. You are confusing "freedom" with "anarchy", because freedoms tend to interfere with each other. I think we can agree that I do not lead a free life if I am in constant fear for my safety. So we create laws to restrict the freedom of the strong and police departments to enforce those laws. And you do not get a choice in the matter, not just not to adhere to those laws, but also to be protected by those laws. And you might even be called on to participate, against your will (jury duty, the draft). All this is not just compatible with "freedom", not in opposition to it, but arguably required for actual freedom. Actual freedom is not the same as "nobody can tell me what I can or cannot do [stomps feet]", and a bit more complicated. Now liberal democracies differ on exactly where they draw the line, but I think the evidence is pretty strong that things like (a) worker's rights (b) universal healthcare (however delivered) and (c) at least sort-of free education enhance overall freedom. Whereas for example the right to bear arms, while sounding nice from the [stomp your feet] POV, is actually detrimental.

coldtea 9y ago

>But that's not freedom, that's socialism. Who said that freedom is in conflict with socialism? Socialism takes care of some foundational requirements, so you have more freedom in your movement. (Social democracy to be more correct, we're not talking about socialism in the Eastern European circa 1960s sense, but about something most of the civilized world enjoys, from Western and Nordic Europe to Japan and Australia). It's like saying that US citizens are not free to travel because airplane tickets are expensive. Well, there is a thing as things being "prohibitively expensive". And if some private interests take the public for suckers and keep tickets expensive, then, yeah, those people are not "free to fly" as much as other people are. Even more so, if it's not tickets but something everybody should enjoy, like healthcare, but some huge interests, like big Pharma and insurance companies, artificially inflate costs using all the tricks of the "free market" and laugh all the way to the bank. >Freedom means that you get a choice, even if that choice is going to screw yourself later in life - for instance not buying health insurance. No, freedom means you have basic stuff like "healthcare covered, so you are free to pursue your interests -- not some rigged BS choice, between huge health conglomerates and people who can't afford bread every day. Strangely, no one extends the "freedom" you described to other basics, like safety, rule of law, and so on. Because in that case, the free-er places would be Western Sahara, or some such country without an official government, where you're "free" to do whatever, as long as you can do it.

YPCrumble 9y ago

> Freedom means that you get a choice, even if that choice is going to screw yourself later in life - for instance not buying health insurance. America is less free than "socialist" in your example. As an American you're free not to buy health insurance. However, if you don't purchase health insurance you have to pay a tax penalty to the government for the same amount as a health insurance premium. On top of that, the $400 a month "health insurance" you are required to purchase only covers health care costs after the first $8,000 you spend out of pocket.

fnl 9y ago

The issue here is a point of view: Freedom technically means free of constraints, which is the US view. However, many people (me included, BTW) interprete freedom as in "freedom of choice", that is, a society that enables more, not less choices of going about your life. Sadly, total freedom (in its most literal definition) is ultimately equal to anarchy...

jonnycomputer 9y ago

I think the requisite reference here is to the notions of positive and negative liberties, a distinction famously formulated by Isaiah Berlin. See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative...

SubiculumCode 9y ago
Interesting.

stordoff 9y ago

> But that's not freedom, that's socialism. It's different, but I'd still say it's a form of freedom - the government frees you from having to take care of certain things, even if you are unable to do so yourself. There are more axes to freedom that just freedom FROM the government IMO.