3 ms·

> But I don't think there are better countries concerning civil rights. No European state comes close. Not Sweden, not Norway, Switzerland maybe for some people

> But I don't think there are better countries concerning civil rights. No European state comes close. Not Sweden, not Norway, Switzerland maybe for some people... I've read that often, but don't really think it's true. Compared to many European countries some of the more obvious civil rights problems are things like gay rights, minorities are systematically prevented from voting (through gerrymandering and other voting district decisions), the highest prison population per capita in the world (combine that with loss of voting rights and disproportionate share of minorities you get additional minority voter suppression), lack of whistleblower protections etc. Freedom House has a civil rights ranking where the United States only land at rank 51 of 210 countries: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2018-table-country-scores https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2018-table-cou.... The US only get to the 38th position in their freedom of press index: https://freedomhouse.org/report/table-country-scores-fotp-2017 https://freedomhouse.org/report/table-country-scores-fotp-20...

raxxorrax 7y ago
The focus on minorities seems always a bit strange to me and a bad start to argue for more civil liberties. Everyone should be equal under the law and I talk about civil liberties that are enshrined in law. That doesn't mean minorities are not at a disadvantage or that everyone being equal under the law describes reality, but the best way to help with that are universal human rights and their strict enforcement. Minorities are too often used as a shield to their disadvantage. Using minorities as an argument to restrict speech for example is a very common example and plainly wrong. I think the rankings in the US are correct and not really in the top class, but I do believe that the US ends its paranoia trip at some point. Maybe wishful thinking. Germany has some better rankings but really lacks in freedom when compared to the US.
- bildung 7y ago
  > The focus on minorities seems always a bit strange to me and a bad start to argue for more civil liberties. Everyone should be equal under the law and I talk about civil liberties that are enshrined in law. People belabor the minority point because that is the cornerstone of a real democracy. You don't have a proper democracy if you have free elections - but only for the right kind of people. The US voting system right now is designed to exclude certain kinds of people. This something most other industrialized countries don't do. That is a main reason for the low ranking in the list I linked. > Germany has some better rankings but really lacks in freedom when compared to the US. Care to qualify what kind of freedoms Germany is lacking compared to the US?
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    You secure the rights of minorities through universal human rights. These protect you from abuse. Nothing else matters. Why shouldn't the minority suppress the majority? Thinking of Iraq here for example, where it was a religious minority. Exactly the same problem, or what do you suggest here? In most of human history minorities have suppressed the majority. It isn't even close. > People belabor the minority point because that is the cornerstone of a real democracy. That sentence doesn't make sense. In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition. That applies to everyone of course.
    - bildung 7y ago
      > You secure the rights of minorities through universal human rights. No, you just declare them that way. You secure them through actual instiutional measures. > In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition. That's an insufficient definion. Please have a look at introductory material about the topic before stating things like this. The english wikipedia entry is quite good.
      - raxxorrax 7y ago
        > You secure them through actual instiutional measures. Partially correct, you secure them by law which is policed by the states monopoly on violence. And any institution is forced to follow that to the letter. Otherwise you have a right to legal compensation in any constitutional state. > The english wikipedia entry is quite good. It states exactly what I said. Maybe substitute universal human rights, which was admittedly optimistic, with constitutional rights and you have exactly the same statements. Otherwise, since people do vote, they could indeed strip any anyone from rights, minority or not, protective institutions or not. So some rights are off limits to change by the sovereign. To rule a people, you need either force or consent. So better make those constitutional rights generic and accepted by everyone. Otherwise you do not have consent and are not a democracy. Autocracy and its derivations are on the other side of the pole. It is not a better way to secure minority rights, it is the only way. > In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition. Out of context quote and I was not denying mob rule. The tyranny of the majority is restricted by human rights by the way (may they be universal or constitutional, doesn't matter).

raxxorrax 7y ago

The focus on minorities seems always a bit strange to me and a bad start to argue for more civil liberties. Everyone should be equal under the law and I talk about civil liberties that are enshrined in law. That doesn't mean minorities are not at a disadvantage or that everyone being equal under the law describes reality, but the best way to help with that are universal human rights and their strict enforcement. Minorities are too often used as a shield to their disadvantage. Using minorities as an argument to restrict speech for example is a very common example and plainly wrong. I think the rankings in the US are correct and not really in the top class, but I do believe that the US ends its paranoia trip at some point. Maybe wishful thinking. Germany has some better rankings but really lacks in freedom when compared to the US.

bildung 7y ago
> The focus on minorities seems always a bit strange to me and a bad start to argue for more civil liberties. Everyone should be equal under the law and I talk about civil liberties that are enshrined in law. People belabor the minority point because that is the cornerstone of a real democracy. You don't have a proper democracy if you have free elections - but only for the right kind of people. The US voting system right now is designed to exclude certain kinds of people. This something most other industrialized countries don't do. That is a main reason for the low ranking in the list I linked. > Germany has some better rankings but really lacks in freedom when compared to the US. Care to qualify what kind of freedoms Germany is lacking compared to the US?
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  You secure the rights of minorities through universal human rights. These protect you from abuse. Nothing else matters. Why shouldn't the minority suppress the majority? Thinking of Iraq here for example, where it was a religious minority. Exactly the same problem, or what do you suggest here? In most of human history minorities have suppressed the majority. It isn't even close. > People belabor the minority point because that is the cornerstone of a real democracy. That sentence doesn't make sense. In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition. That applies to everyone of course.
  - bildung 7y ago
    > You secure the rights of minorities through universal human rights. No, you just declare them that way. You secure them through actual instiutional measures. > In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition. That's an insufficient definion. Please have a look at introductory material about the topic before stating things like this. The english wikipedia entry is quite good.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      > You secure them through actual instiutional measures. Partially correct, you secure them by law which is policed by the states monopoly on violence. And any institution is forced to follow that to the letter. Otherwise you have a right to legal compensation in any constitutional state. > The english wikipedia entry is quite good. It states exactly what I said. Maybe substitute universal human rights, which was admittedly optimistic, with constitutional rights and you have exactly the same statements. Otherwise, since people do vote, they could indeed strip any anyone from rights, minority or not, protective institutions or not. So some rights are off limits to change by the sovereign. To rule a people, you need either force or consent. So better make those constitutional rights generic and accepted by everyone. Otherwise you do not have consent and are not a democracy. Autocracy and its derivations are on the other side of the pole. It is not a better way to secure minority rights, it is the only way. > In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition. Out of context quote and I was not denying mob rule. The tyranny of the majority is restricted by human rights by the way (may they be universal or constitutional, doesn't matter).