4 ms·
You have good points but what is freedom and who is free? Most minorities don't think "we live in a free society" in this same sense. Relatively speaking, ther
by _8j50 5y ago
You have good points but what is freedom and who is free? Most minorities don't think "we live in a free society" in this same sense.
Relatively speaking, there maybe other countries with better freedom to specific groups but America is still the best place to be if the freedom you want is freedom to make a lot of money.
You are confusing the animosity between social groups with lack of freedom.
The incarceration rate, much like the gun ownership rate is a direct result of americans using their freedom to have their elected officials pass specific laws. Being tough on crime is still one of the best policies a politician can advertise in a campaign because that's what people want to hear. The free people use their free ballots to make sure miniroities are kept in check by an army of cops enganged in a "war on drugs".
This is freedom. It includes freedom of the majority to restrict the freedom of the minority. All of the problems you mentioned are caused by freedom, not by oppressive forces that disregard freedom.
Freedom in america means political participation. No one has protests as much as americans or vote at the scale of america (except maybe india). You can free all the prisoners and disband all the cops if enough americans agree.
It's not lack of freedom but quite the opposite, the people, your neighbors excercising their freedoms to an unfortunate end.
Lack of freedom would be wanting to enact changes with popular support but being unable to.
- throwaway684936 5y ago> Lack of freedom would be wanting to enact changes with popular support but being unable to. You mean like how the correlation between public support for a policy and the probability of that policy becoming law is ≈0?[1][2] [1]: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... [2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-people-rule/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/0...
- _8j50 5y agoHow do you interpret that? How many people actually vote? When there are no better politicians, how many people attempt and fail at getting elected to replace them? Also, the changes taking effect may not have correlation but over time, the changes people want, they seem to happen (see drug legalization) Rich people will always run democracies because they can affect the lives of the people, therefore politicians must listen to them. #1 issue being jobs. On issues where rich people are in conflict with the majority, how much impact will the majority accept to affect the change? That is what politicians have to decide.
- throwaway684936 5y ago>Rich people will always run democracies because they can affect the lives of the people, therefore politicians must listen to them. You argue freedom includes freedom of the majority to restrict the freedom of the minority. What you're describing sounds like the minority restricting the freedom of the majority.
- _8j50 5y agoIt is the minority influencing the desire of the majority not coercing them. You can pass laws that will make them do business elsewhere and hurt jobs,economy,etc... if the popular sentiment for the law outweighs popular sentiment against rich people excercising their freedoms. In the end the majority are still free but that does not mean the rich are not allowed influence. Not just the rich, but the well connected and social groups or people in specific geographies like DC. Ultimately, the rich can do many things in retaliation but they cannot actually stop a person from running for office , restrict their speech or restrict others from voting for them. The rich and corporations, as terrible as they are, are not the root cause. "We the people" are.