4 ms·

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

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
  - krapp 9y ago
    You're talking about the definition of socialism as accepted by people familiar with socialism versus the definition of socialism by people who consider it "Stalinism lite" because they have only ever encountered it as a pejorative to that effect. Whether or not they're technically accurate is irrelevant - it's still what many Americans believe. Reasonable people can disagree with it but it's simply untrue that "literally no one" agrees with it.
  - mixedCase 9y ago
    I do believe he meant socialism as it's been advertised in the western world (see: Bernie Sanders, parts of Europe and Latin America) rather than socialism as "workers owning the means of production" (see: Marxist theory); since the latter has never lasted in a prosperous country/occurred at all (depending on who you ask and in which context).
digi_owl 9y ago
I ran into a claim some years back that the original republican notion of freedom that the US system was based on was "freedom from coercion". With coercion defined as the threat of physical, economic, or other harm. Thus the point of the government was to protect the citizens from coercion by being an entity that could step in on the side of the lesser party.

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
- krapp 9y ago
  You're talking about the definition of socialism as accepted by people familiar with socialism versus the definition of socialism by people who consider it "Stalinism lite" because they have only ever encountered it as a pejorative to that effect. Whether or not they're technically accurate is irrelevant - it's still what many Americans believe. Reasonable people can disagree with it but it's simply untrue that "literally no one" agrees with it.
- mixedCase 9y ago
  I do believe he meant socialism as it's been advertised in the western world (see: Bernie Sanders, parts of Europe and Latin America) rather than socialism as "workers owning the means of production" (see: Marxist theory); since the latter has never lasted in a prosperous country/occurred at all (depending on who you ask and in which context).

digi_owl 9y ago

I ran into a claim some years back that the original republican notion of freedom that the US system was based on was "freedom from coercion". With coercion defined as the threat of physical, economic, or other harm. Thus the point of the government was to protect the citizens from coercion by being an entity that could step in on the side of the lesser party.