5 ms·

> "land of the free" That just means we're legally afforded more individual liberties than most (if not all) other countries.

mywittyname 7y ago
Most "western" nations provide roughly the same legal rights to their citizens. There's some variance, but there's also a large amount of variance in laws between states within the USA.
- bhupy 7y ago
  There's no country in the world that provides, to the same degree as the USA, extraordinarily broad freedom of speech (and association) and the right to keep and bear arms. And, to the extent that citizens of other "western" nations enjoy legal rights typical of republican democracies, it's because the US set the trend in the 18th century. At that time, the concept of a creedal nation obtaining its legitimacy from a governing document, in it providing checks & balances to limit the power of government, along with a bill of rights that guarantee broad protection of rights pertaining to speech, bearing arms, impartial trial, privacy (searches and seizures) — was truly unique to the US. That it is now commonplace in the West is a testament to one of America's many lasting contributions to the world.
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    Just because you did it first, doesn’t mean you did it best. There are so many things in the US that have previously or currently systematically denied liberty to large subsets of americans - but I guess you can publicly advocate for violence against specific groups of people, which you can’t do in many other countries, so you win there! :P Since I know that someone is going to reply “like what?!?” here’s an example I recently learned about: it wasn’t until 1963 that public defenders were widely available as a result of a supreme court ruling. So equal protection under the law was clearly not available before 1963. We all know the rich Can afford better defense to this day, but can you call it justice if you don’t even get a lawyer? Contemporary example: drive west from el paso for an hour or so, today. Well, not today, but when it’s safe to travel. The border patrol checkpoint along i-10 will check your papers if you’re visibly latinx. Freedom!
    - bhupy 7y ago
      Yes, it is entirely possible for multiple things to be true at the same time. 1) the US has unique protections of individual liberties (free speech, associations, arms) 2) the US has systematic repression of certain minorities, especially among the police (the vast majority of which is illegal and just inadequately prosecuted) > Since I know that someone is going to reply “like what?!?” here’s an example I recently learned about: it wasn’t until 1963 that public defenders were widely available as a result of a supreme court ruling. So equal protection under the law was clearly not available before 1963. We all know the rich Can afford better defense to this day, but can you call it justice if you don’t even get a lawyer? Right, at the risk of diving into a rabbit-hole of negative vs positive freedoms — the US was never ever the land of positive freedom. It has always been the land of negative freedom, and uniquely so. You can dislike the implications of that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the US truly is the land of negative freedom — and that's not a normative statement.
      - mindslight 7y ago
        Being attacked by a court runs directly contrary to negative freedom though. And with a single systematic infringement of negative freedom, the overarching ideal has been lost due to the contradiction of needing to respond by engaging with a system that requires you to jump through arbitrary "voluntary" hoops.
        bhupy 7y ago
        Sure, but there is no country in the world that satisfies the platonic ideal, in which you are totally immune to attack by the court. No country on the planet is absolutely free. The US just happens to be the most negatively free country.
        mindslight 7y ago
        If you're trying to do justice to the concept of negative freedom, then what definition are you using? To me, it's about being free to be left alone and go your own way, as opposed to being provided for (eg freedom from hunger, or whatever). I would classify a public defender as a mitigation of an impingement on negative freedom rather than a bona fide positive freedom. There are surely other countries where you have less of a chance of being harmed by the courts, because they compensate for their general infringement of freedom by giving you better protections to defend yourself from it. > The US just happens to be the most negatively free country. The US has some of the most draconian copyright laws in the world. Are those outweighed by something else, or should we dispense with this notion of "most" ?
coldtea 7y ago
Which other countries? Most other western European countries are free-er and even have better press, and much less (to almost none) religiously motivated BS and puritanism... Heck, for a while people weren't even allowed to ...drink alcohol...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

mywittyname 7y ago

Most "western" nations provide roughly the same legal rights to their citizens. There's some variance, but there's also a large amount of variance in laws between states within the USA.

bhupy 7y ago
There's no country in the world that provides, to the same degree as the USA, extraordinarily broad freedom of speech (and association) and the right to keep and bear arms. And, to the extent that citizens of other "western" nations enjoy legal rights typical of republican democracies, it's because the US set the trend in the 18th century. At that time, the concept of a creedal nation obtaining its legitimacy from a governing document, in it providing checks & balances to limit the power of government, along with a bill of rights that guarantee broad protection of rights pertaining to speech, bearing arms, impartial trial, privacy (searches and seizures) — was truly unique to the US. That it is now commonplace in the West is a testament to one of America's many lasting contributions to the world.
- kennywinker 7y ago
  Just because you did it first, doesn’t mean you did it best. There are so many things in the US that have previously or currently systematically denied liberty to large subsets of americans - but I guess you can publicly advocate for violence against specific groups of people, which you can’t do in many other countries, so you win there! :P Since I know that someone is going to reply “like what?!?” here’s an example I recently learned about: it wasn’t until 1963 that public defenders were widely available as a result of a supreme court ruling. So equal protection under the law was clearly not available before 1963. We all know the rich Can afford better defense to this day, but can you call it justice if you don’t even get a lawyer? Contemporary example: drive west from el paso for an hour or so, today. Well, not today, but when it’s safe to travel. The border patrol checkpoint along i-10 will check your papers if you’re visibly latinx. Freedom!
  - bhupy 7y ago
    Yes, it is entirely possible for multiple things to be true at the same time. 1) the US has unique protections of individual liberties (free speech, associations, arms) 2) the US has systematic repression of certain minorities, especially among the police (the vast majority of which is illegal and just inadequately prosecuted) > Since I know that someone is going to reply “like what?!?” here’s an example I recently learned about: it wasn’t until 1963 that public defenders were widely available as a result of a supreme court ruling. So equal protection under the law was clearly not available before 1963. We all know the rich Can afford better defense to this day, but can you call it justice if you don’t even get a lawyer? Right, at the risk of diving into a rabbit-hole of negative vs positive freedoms — the US was never ever the land of positive freedom. It has always been the land of negative freedom, and uniquely so. You can dislike the implications of that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the US truly is the land of negative freedom — and that's not a normative statement.
    - mindslight 7y ago
      Being attacked by a court runs directly contrary to negative freedom though. And with a single systematic infringement of negative freedom, the overarching ideal has been lost due to the contradiction of needing to respond by engaging with a system that requires you to jump through arbitrary "voluntary" hoops.
      - bhupy 7y ago
        Sure, but there is no country in the world that satisfies the platonic ideal, in which you are totally immune to attack by the court. No country on the planet is absolutely free. The US just happens to be the most negatively free country.
        mindslight 7y ago
        If you're trying to do justice to the concept of negative freedom, then what definition are you using? To me, it's about being free to be left alone and go your own way, as opposed to being provided for (eg freedom from hunger, or whatever). I would classify a public defender as a mitigation of an impingement on negative freedom rather than a bona fide positive freedom. There are surely other countries where you have less of a chance of being harmed by the courts, because they compensate for their general infringement of freedom by giving you better protections to defend yourself from it. > The US just happens to be the most negatively free country. The US has some of the most draconian copyright laws in the world. Are those outweighed by something else, or should we dispense with this notion of "most" ?

coldtea 7y ago

Which other countries? Most other western European countries are free-er and even have better press, and much less (to almost none) religiously motivated BS and puritanism... Heck, for a while people weren't even allowed to ...drink alcohol...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]