12 ms·

I think a lot of folks in the US don't realize that even some (some!) countries we think of as authoritarian feel freer, day to day, than the US does, let alone

I think a lot of folks in the US don't realize that even some (some!) countries we think of as authoritarian feel freer, day to day, than the US does, let alone other liberal democracies. We have elections... but having some wine at your picnic in the park may get you a citation. We have elections... but, this article. We have elections... but civil forfeiture. We have elections... but you'll spend tons of your "free" time fighting with our healthcare system, should you ever actually need to use it. Ditto the time and contortions required to navigate our benefits systems if you ever hit our "social safety net". In either case, you're not gonna be feeling all that "freedom". We have elections... but an LOLWTF-high incarceration rate. We have elections... but are constantly scared shitless of civil litigation and liability and there are rules and disclaimers posted on every flat surface. We have elections... but no mandatory annual leave, with the result that for most people 2 weeks off a year is considered decent. How many people feel "free" at their job? But at least we have the 2nd, to protect our freedom. Seems to be working great. (I actually also think folks here overestimate how hard it is to get guns in some countries with effective gun control—it doesn't have to mean "no guns", and often doesn't)

notch898a 4y ago
As backwards as it sounds my time in near-autocratic 3rd world I've felt the most free. Worst case scenario the police can be bribed for a crisp $20. As long as someone isn't doing some horrible shit (like real violence) a lot can be overlooked. >(I actually also think folks here overestimate how hard it is to get guns Yeah I often imagine myself in the scenario of what to do if I ended up in Schengen or something and without arms. I calculated it would take me about 2 weeks to print an FGC-9 and source the various ammo components (by doing things like using primers from nail gun ammo etc this can be done all from unregulated sources).
- scrose 4y ago
  > As backwards as it sounds my time in near-autocratic 3rd world I've felt the most free. Worst case scenario the police can be bribed for a crisp $20. As long as someone isn't doing some horrible shit (like real violence) a lot can be overlooked. In the US, flashing a PBA card[0] or the fire department/ambulance alternative will get you out of most of what police consider ‘low-level’ infractions(ie. Covering a license plate, speeding, etc…). Or in less corrupt cases(like the ones I unfortunately have used mine for), it gets the cops to leave you alone or listen to you when you get profiled for no good reason. I guess it’s technically not a bribe since no money is exchanging hands, but last I checked, each PBA card raises ~$150/year for the police union. [0] https://www.the-sun.com/news/4212777/what-is-a-pba-card/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/4212777/what-is-a-pba-card/
- giggles_01 4y ago
  You should try to live there as an average local person with average income and without "connections". "Crisp $20" in some countries might be quite a lot. Also: I've seen this many times, foreigners from rich countries get completely different treatment.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    Absolutely. I'm aware of my privilege, but since I have it does it not make sense to use it for my maximum liberty? At the end of the day I have to act with the resources I have, not the resources someone else has.
    - giggles_01 4y ago
      What are we talking about here? You can power trip (literally and figuratively) as much as you are able. Some countries are good for that. That doesn't make those countries "freer" as parent comment suggests.
      - notch898a 4y ago
        I'm not interested in power-tripping, I'm interested in the people power tripping having the least interest in putting me in jail. Maybe that's because the judicial system allows freedom, maybe it's because the police are lazy or understaffed, maybe it's because they want my money. I'm a pragmatic man. As for freedom, it's going to be relative. Each person has unique resources and abilities that dictate where they will find the most freedom. You don't have to victimize others to improve your own freedom.
        giggles_01 4y ago
        I got downvoted and maybe I misunderstood your response. I read: "I'm aware of my privilege, but since I have it does it not make sense to use it for my maximum liberty? At the end of the day I have to act with the resources I have, not the resources someone else has." as I will go to those countries and since 20$ is a crisp change for me I will do whatever I want and pay my way out of it.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago
  so basically you get treated like rich person in the US.
- zirgs 4y ago
  And what would you do with that gun? Commit crimes? Even simple possession of it would be a crime. You would not be able to use it to defend yourself without getting prosecuted yourself. It's not that it's impossible for me to manufacture an illegal gun for myself. What's the point of doing that? I'm not a criminal. I don't plan to overthrow the government or anything like that. Why risk getting a criminal record for no gain?
  - notch898a 4y ago
    I'm not pulling out a gun anywhere populated unless the choice is that or I end up dead. In which case prison is an upgrade. I would consider european jail a great chance to read up on the classics while I enjoy not being dead. Even where I live now (constitutional carry state, extremely lax on guns) pulling from the holster without a threat is gonna get you tossed in prison. Nobody knows you have it until you do that.
    - zirgs 4y ago
      Why not go the legal route and get a gun permit? Seems to be a much better option if you believe that you need a gun for self defence.
      - notch898a 4y ago
        Totally, if that's an option that would be a rational choice. For instance, if I ended up in Poland I would buy a black powder revolver and carry that (legal) and if I ended up in Czech Republic or Austria I think the permit is very easy. The pure hypothetical is ending up someplace where it isn't practical to get the permit. In practice I just live in a place that does not even require a permit.
- kragen 4y ago
  Did your old account get banned, man? I forget the name but you posted a lot of great comments.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    "Better to burn out than fade away" --Neil Young
- pjc50 4y ago
  > what to do if I ended up in Schengen or something and without arms I don't mean to be rude, but this phrasing makes you sound like an addict trying to work out if you can smoke banana peel to get high. You can just .. not have a gun for a bit on holiday? Rather than engaging in illegal activities? Heck, several countries have tourist hunting industries! (The tourists do the hunting, not hunting the tourists)
- csomar 4y ago
  You don’t sound backward. People on the west have been sold on the idea of freedom because they can criticize their politicians. Many third-world “authoritarian” countries have more freedom than the US, however, the general population doesn’t like a ridiculed leader. Turkey is a much freer country than the US. If the people of Turkey were to enjoy seeing their leader (Erdogan now) being ridiculed, this guy will be showing in circus shows.
slowhadoken 4y ago
Folks in the US are aware of this, it’s all they ever talk about.
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
The difference, of course, is that in the US you could start a campaign to change all those things.
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago
  This man literally is doing the exact same thing the comment above is describing. Incredible.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  People do, and they fail. Often, bad policies and laws stick around even when most people don't like them. I will live my whole life seeing few or none of those issues solved, no matter what I personally do—that's just a fact. I could, today, devote the rest of my life to this, and if I moved the needle at all on even one of them it'd be a miracle. We have a uniquely-bad electoral system, which is why so much of this day-to-day stuff ends up so insanely dysfunctional compared to most other developed democracies, and we've had mass-media special interest propaganda running rampant in a way it doesn't elsewhere, since the 80s (loss of the fairness doctrine—which, admitted ickiness aside, did seem to keep things on the rails a bit—and deregulation of media outlet ownership leading to unprecedented, extreme levels of consolidation; hard to tell which of those is most responsible, since they both happened around the same time) and that propaganda's able to be unusually effective in part because of our bad electoral system. The result is that as long as factions in favor of these shitty things can stay under one of the two big tents, they get the tacit support of all the rest of the factions under those tents, even if most of them don't like that first group of factions. "Of course civil forfeiture's bullshit, obviously it is... but I can't vote for a pro-choicer/communist/whatever!" et c. (and, yes, the effect is on "both sides"—it's why we hear a ton of noise from "no abortion ever!" and "zero restrictions until the baby takes its first breath!" while the majority of voters, who just want more-or-less what Roe guaranteed, get little attention) So, our freedom to vote is even, arguably, quite a bit less-free than for a fair proportion of our peers, since our ability, in practice, to express our actual desires through the electoral process is much more curtailed than in most of them—though, obviously, that part doesn't apply to authoritarians states.
- xtian 4y ago
umvi 4y ago
America has a lot of quirks and problems, but in not many other countries can you flagrantly criticize/insult the government/leaders/policy without repercussion. USA has arguably the greatest freedom of speech protections on earth which is one liberty that is not worth trading for the freedom to drink wine more easily when picnicking in certain places - hence why people are not flocking to authoritarian states that "feel freer" than USA.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > America has a lot of quirks and problems, but in not many other countries can you flagrantly criticize/insult the government/leaders without repercussion. This is possible in most of the developed world. You don't have to have the peculiarities of the American concept of "freedom" to have this one. Someone in Norway gets to enjoy both healthcare and being able to make mean comments about the Prime Minister.
  - umvi 4y ago
    Not so. UK, Germany, and indeed most of the EU have significant speech restrictions accompanied by censorship or jail time if you violate them. I'm not super familiar with Norway's speech protections, but it has a smaller population than the US state of Maryland, so it seems to be the exception more than the rule or at least not an easily scalable solution to America's problems. Saying "[Insert Scandinavian country proves it's possible]" is like saying "Look at how well Hacker News is moderated! Facebook and Twitter should take notes on how to do it right and fix the moderation issues with their services."
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      They have very specific speech restrictions around things like Holocaust denial, not "flagrantly criticizing the government". I'll happily give up freedom to publicly be a neo-Nazi if it gives me freedom from "out of network" healthcare bills. Neither society is 100% free; that's the point, really. The trade-offs like this that the American system has selected seem insane.
Nitramp 4y ago
Without commenting on the other issues, but something that struck me as very odd living in the USA, was how people in California appeared fully disenfranchised during presidential elections. Yes, as a Californian you can vote, but your vote is near guaranteed to have no effect, and as a result, neither of the sides cares to address your interests, solicit your opinion, advertise for your vote. It struck me as really bizarre.
- terr-dav 4y ago
  This is true for the vast majority of states, and the vast majority of people's interests. The political systems in this country have been shaped by -- and frankly, designed by -- by wealthy interests to make the US an oligarchy with various performances of democratic representation.
  - yywwbbn 4y ago
    I’m not sure that’s the reason why it’s only worth campaigning in Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona and some other states during presidential elections. Also it is the system that was designed over 100-200 years ago. The problem is the lack of meaningful reform because the people in power are there only because of the current system. That’s the reason why is it so hard to change electoral system without some external/internal shock. And “unfortunately” US has been way too stable politically during the 20th century compared to most other countries.
- cpurdy 4y ago
  California has already passed the National Popular Vote bill. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation Republican controlled states don't want people's votes to count, so none of them have passed the bill.
  - starkd 4y ago
    Not the point of this thread. Popular vote has nothing to do with how responsive or attentive a government is to voter's interests. You vote for a candidate as a whole, but there are likely still issues you disagree with. Voters' interests are largely unaddressed or ignored altogether.
nhchris 4y ago
You have elections.. but which party can you vote for if you want a stop to Middle East wars?
- pjc50 4y ago
  The Iraq war was overwhelmingly popular with the US electorate when it started. It had far more approval than almost any other policy at the time.
  - yterdy 4y ago
    The US was overwhelmingly propagandized toward, but all you had to do to find resistance was to open the funny pages: https://www.gocomics.com/boondocks/2003/01/15 https://www.gocomics.com/boondocks/2003/01/15 https://www.gocomics.com/boondocks/2003/01/09 https://www.gocomics.com/boondocks/2003/01/09 (I HIGHLY suggest reading at least a few weeks forward, starting from the second link.) I'm sure Doonesbury got in on it, too. Eventually. After the Napster arc.
- roywiggins 4y ago
  The US did end one foreign war quite recently. It was pretty messy, since it was definitely not a victory, and cratered the president's approval ratings. It turns out there is almost no political constituency for visibly losing a war. Additionally, the US' kinetic operations in the Middle East have shrunk substantially as the drone strikes have been substantially curtailed, again under the same president that recently extracted the US from a long-running foreign war. He got no credit for that either; it turns out nobody in the US really cares very much, and even the people who generally disapprove of US foreign military involvements don't seem excited to give credit to the current guy. The US has always ping-ponged between loving foreign wars and hating foreign wars. Not having a reliably anti-war party is not great, but that's at least as much the fault of the voters.
  - xtian 4y ago
    They ended the occupation of Afghanistan abruptly in order to redirect resources to a certain other conflict, more critical to US elite interests.
timeon 4y ago
> We have elections... but two parties. (Still better then one.)
ryaniscool 4y ago
Valid points but a lot of frustrations and injustices you hear about in the USA are told by our own press because freedom of press. We are a very transparent people. This is not the case for other places. My brother lived and worked in China for many years as a professional photographer and basically made the same points as you when we would ask him about what life is like over there. That was until he fell under suspicion at some point because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time taking pictures. He was under house arrest for over a year. They confiscated his passport but eventually let him leave because of Covid. He had zero due process. It was decided by the local police that he should be under house arrest. My family hired a lawyer but he had to present the lawyer to the police as a "concerned family friend who lives in China". That anecdote is relatively tame compared to what some people go through in authoritarian countries. If the government targets you in one of those countries, your life is over with near zero chance of getting out of trouble.
- Laaas 4y ago
  What did your embassy in China say? Did they not try to help?
  - ryaniscool 4y ago
    Yes, they helped us find the "lawyer" and told us based on their experience that it was very likely he would spend time in a Chinese prison regardless of guilt or innocence. He got lucky in one sense because this was right before Covid hit. When everything started going a little crazy over there because Covid was spreading, they decided to let him leave for whatever reason.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Sure, I wasn't trying to be all "rah, rah, authoritarianism!" in my post (though several posters seem to have taken it that way, so maybe I wasn't clear enough). My point was more that our notions of freedom can sometimes be rather myopic, and miss the forest for the trees, such that we can become so un-free that even (some!) authoritarian states can feel much freer (until, as you note, you piss off the wrong people, which is obviously a huge problem—or you happen to be of the wrong ethnicity, or wrong religion, et c.—I am not trying to defend authoritarianism).
giggles_01 4y ago
I think a lot of folks in US over-romanticize those "feel freer" authoritarian countries. In some cases like this it might be better but I don't think systematic cases of: "inconvenient" people disappearing, being at complete mercy of local oligarch/overlord, inability to leave your country are such rampant in US as in those countries. Usually people who write something like this never lived in an authoritarian country as a local but were there on a 2 weeks trip or heard it from someone who was on a trip or someone who moved to US (why moving if it is such a great place to live?).
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  I'm not claiming authoritarian states are sunshine and roses, just that freedom is a lot more complex and fuzzier than is sometimes appreciated, and that in some regards we're noticeably less free than some (some!) of those states, despite their being authoritarian. I'm not saying we should switch to being authoritarian in the name of freedom—most other liberal democracies also manage to be freer on several of these issues than we are, though, sure, some are less-free by other measures (but, on balance, I think we're pretty far on the less-free-as-felt-day-to-day-by-most-people side, as liberal democracies go).
- BeetleB 4y ago
  I'll bite. I lived in an authoritarian country. People occasionally did disappear (usually temporarily). A lot of things were worse, but a lot were better. You're definitely not going to be arrested or harassed for letting your kids walk alone. Not sure how good their record is for actual child abuse (bad cases would make the news, so there was some enforcement). While they could prevent you from leaving the country, they didn't have no fly lists, and I believe many more were impacted from the latter than prevented from leaving that country. No one is disputing things can get really bad in those countries. It's more about probabilities. One thing that becomes very clear in the US if you poke around: It's ridiculously easy to end up with felony charges, and I know plenty who faced them (some convicted). The number of people I knew in the authoritarian country who had a criminal record? Miniscule. Raising my kid here, the chances of him getting a criminal record is significantly higher here than there and is a source of worry. And typically no one has to worry whether they'll find an apartment due to some crime they committed a decade ago. And sorry, but no. No local oligarch/overlord. That's orthogonal to authoritarian governments (and is often more about ineffective governments). > someone who moved to US (why moving if it is such a great place to live?). Classic false dichotomy.
1024core 4y ago
We have elections... but offering water to a voter standing in line to vote on a hot sunny day may get you arrested in some states (like Georgia).
- ranger_danger 4y ago
  That law is prefaced with "No person shall solicit votes in any manner"... clearly making it more about stopping political influence at the polls by giving things away. Also it only applies within 150 feet of the building anyway.
vkou 4y ago
The 2nd will also happily get you killed during a no-knock raid (that, for bonus points, was for the wrong house), or a traffic stop, or a cop hallucinating that he saw you reaching for a nonexistent gun on your waistband.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  I've, further, got some strong suspicions that a look at history and whatever limited and noisy data are available, is more likely to support the notion that our kind of gun laws are at least as much a risk to the maintenance of liberal democracy, as a protector of it. Yet, that's a common justification for why we mustn't question the 2nd. AFAIK they've contributed at least as often to imposing oppression as to resisting oppression, on the local scale in the US. Then there's revolutions in other countries, where they seem at least as often to aid overthrowing a democracy as to play a pivotal role in defending it (though, from what I can tell, they hardly matter in either case—foreign aid and gaining the support of elements of the military are usually far, far more effective in actually forcing an outcome). That's in addition to the hard-to-quantify harm to freedom from having to worry about terrified, trigger-happy cops. Got half a mind to research it and write a book about whatever I find....
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
"But at least we have the 2nd, to protect our freedom. Seems to be working great. (I actually also think folks here overestimate how hard it is to get guns in some countries with effective gun control—it doesn't have to mean "no guns", and often doesn't)" We have elections... but everyone is so terrified of the LOLWTF numbers of guns in society that we never leave the house
curun1r 4y ago
The other part of authoritarianism that’s less popular to talk about is that, in many ways, it works very well. In many parts of the “free” US, you can’t leave a visible bag in your vehicle for more than a few minutes because you’ll return to a smashed window. In places where that kind of petty crime is dealt with harshly, it’s almost non-existent. As trite as it sounds, Mussolini made the trains run on time. So authoritarianism often gets a lot of the small stuff right at the cost of the big stuff while freedom often means sacrificing a lot of those small things to get the big stuff right. Having a society where you’ve got the best of both worlds is a really hard balance to strike. And while it’s really easy to say that the big stuff is more important, the subjective feeling of freedom can be more affected by the small stuff because it’s much more a part of daily life. I don’t need to criticize my government on a daily basis, I only need to do that at critical moments. But I have to park my car multiple times a day, and needing to keep it safe becomes a front-of-mind concern that makes me feel less free.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > The other part of authoritarianism that’s less popular to talk about is that, in many ways, it works very well. In many parts of the “free” US, you can’t leave a visible bag in your vehicle for more than a few minutes because you’ll return to a smashed window. In places where that kind of petty crime is dealt with harshly, it’s almost non-existent. As trite as it sounds, Mussolini made the trains run on time. Actually that semi quote is typically used in relation to the Spanish civil war and it's an old lady saying "the anarchists were certainly a weird bunch, but they did make the trains run on time). Also the correlation between harsh punishment and lower crime rates is dubious at best. The US has harsher penalties than most other Western democracies, but higher crime rates. This applies in particular to murder, where the rates are higher despite the death penalty. To add some anecdotal evidence, the only place I was ever pickpocketed was in Shanghai (where punishment is extremely harsh) and I have visited places like Nigeria which has a much less functioning law enforcement system.
- qwytw 4y ago
  You can also get the same outcome (i.e. not smashed windows) without an authorization government. I'm not even sure these are meaningfully related, there are many countries which are both less authoritarian (in certain ways at least) than the US and also have less crime.
ashwagary 4y ago
>We have elections... but, this article. >We have elections... but civil forfeiture. We have elections... but once in a while a shadowy organization within the government assassinates the President if he becomes too much of a threat to the establishment, allegedly.
themitigating 4y ago
You don't like some park regulation vote for someone who will change it. If no one running is willing to do that then you can run for office. If no one votes for you that sucks. Democracy isn't about getting what you want. This reminds me of people who say "not my president " or "I didn't vote for that"
pjc50 4y ago
> We have elections... but Maybe the real enemy of the American people is ... the American electorate?

notch898a 4y ago

As backwards as it sounds my time in near-autocratic 3rd world I've felt the most free. Worst case scenario the police can be bribed for a crisp $20. As long as someone isn't doing some horrible shit (like real violence) a lot can be overlooked. >(I actually also think folks here overestimate how hard it is to get guns Yeah I often imagine myself in the scenario of what to do if I ended up in Schengen or something and without arms. I calculated it would take me about 2 weeks to print an FGC-9 and source the various ammo components (by doing things like using primers from nail gun ammo etc this can be done all from unregulated sources).

scrose 4y ago
> As backwards as it sounds my time in near-autocratic 3rd world I've felt the most free. Worst case scenario the police can be bribed for a crisp $20. As long as someone isn't doing some horrible shit (like real violence) a lot can be overlooked. In the US, flashing a PBA card[0] or the fire department/ambulance alternative will get you out of most of what police consider ‘low-level’ infractions(ie. Covering a license plate, speeding, etc…). Or in less corrupt cases(like the ones I unfortunately have used mine for), it gets the cops to leave you alone or listen to you when you get profiled for no good reason. I guess it’s technically not a bribe since no money is exchanging hands, but last I checked, each PBA card raises ~$150/year for the police union. [0] https://www.the-sun.com/news/4212777/what-is-a-pba-card/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/4212777/what-is-a-pba-card/
giggles_01 4y ago
You should try to live there as an average local person with average income and without "connections". "Crisp $20" in some countries might be quite a lot. Also: I've seen this many times, foreigners from rich countries get completely different treatment.
- notch898a 4y ago
  Absolutely. I'm aware of my privilege, but since I have it does it not make sense to use it for my maximum liberty? At the end of the day I have to act with the resources I have, not the resources someone else has.
  - giggles_01 4y ago
    What are we talking about here? You can power trip (literally and figuratively) as much as you are able. Some countries are good for that. That doesn't make those countries "freer" as parent comment suggests.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      I'm not interested in power-tripping, I'm interested in the people power tripping having the least interest in putting me in jail. Maybe that's because the judicial system allows freedom, maybe it's because the police are lazy or understaffed, maybe it's because they want my money. I'm a pragmatic man. As for freedom, it's going to be relative. Each person has unique resources and abilities that dictate where they will find the most freedom. You don't have to victimize others to improve your own freedom.
      - giggles_01 4y ago
        I got downvoted and maybe I misunderstood your response. I read: "I'm aware of my privilege, but since I have it does it not make sense to use it for my maximum liberty? At the end of the day I have to act with the resources I have, not the resources someone else has." as I will go to those countries and since 20$ is a crisp change for me I will do whatever I want and pay my way out of it.
dukeofdoom 4y ago
so basically you get treated like rich person in the US.
zirgs 4y ago
And what would you do with that gun? Commit crimes? Even simple possession of it would be a crime. You would not be able to use it to defend yourself without getting prosecuted yourself. It's not that it's impossible for me to manufacture an illegal gun for myself. What's the point of doing that? I'm not a criminal. I don't plan to overthrow the government or anything like that. Why risk getting a criminal record for no gain?
- notch898a 4y ago
  I'm not pulling out a gun anywhere populated unless the choice is that or I end up dead. In which case prison is an upgrade. I would consider european jail a great chance to read up on the classics while I enjoy not being dead. Even where I live now (constitutional carry state, extremely lax on guns) pulling from the holster without a threat is gonna get you tossed in prison. Nobody knows you have it until you do that.
  - zirgs 4y ago
    Why not go the legal route and get a gun permit? Seems to be a much better option if you believe that you need a gun for self defence.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      Totally, if that's an option that would be a rational choice. For instance, if I ended up in Poland I would buy a black powder revolver and carry that (legal) and if I ended up in Czech Republic or Austria I think the permit is very easy. The pure hypothetical is ending up someplace where it isn't practical to get the permit. In practice I just live in a place that does not even require a permit.
kragen 4y ago
Did your old account get banned, man? I forget the name but you posted a lot of great comments.
- notch898a 4y ago
  "Better to burn out than fade away" --Neil Young
pjc50 4y ago
> what to do if I ended up in Schengen or something and without arms I don't mean to be rude, but this phrasing makes you sound like an addict trying to work out if you can smoke banana peel to get high. You can just .. not have a gun for a bit on holiday? Rather than engaging in illegal activities? Heck, several countries have tourist hunting industries! (The tourists do the hunting, not hunting the tourists)
csomar 4y ago
You don’t sound backward. People on the west have been sold on the idea of freedom because they can criticize their politicians. Many third-world “authoritarian” countries have more freedom than the US, however, the general population doesn’t like a ridiculed leader. Turkey is a much freer country than the US. If the people of Turkey were to enjoy seeing their leader (Erdogan now) being ridiculed, this guy will be showing in circus shows.

slowhadoken 4y ago

Folks in the US are aware of this, it’s all they ever talk about.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

The difference, of course, is that in the US you could start a campaign to change all those things.

SQueeeeeL 4y ago
This man literally is doing the exact same thing the comment above is describing. Incredible.
yamtaddle 4y ago
People do, and they fail. Often, bad policies and laws stick around even when most people don't like them. I will live my whole life seeing few or none of those issues solved, no matter what I personally do—that's just a fact. I could, today, devote the rest of my life to this, and if I moved the needle at all on even one of them it'd be a miracle. We have a uniquely-bad electoral system, which is why so much of this day-to-day stuff ends up so insanely dysfunctional compared to most other developed democracies, and we've had mass-media special interest propaganda running rampant in a way it doesn't elsewhere, since the 80s (loss of the fairness doctrine—which, admitted ickiness aside, did seem to keep things on the rails a bit—and deregulation of media outlet ownership leading to unprecedented, extreme levels of consolidation; hard to tell which of those is most responsible, since they both happened around the same time) and that propaganda's able to be unusually effective in part because of our bad electoral system. The result is that as long as factions in favor of these shitty things can stay under one of the two big tents, they get the tacit support of all the rest of the factions under those tents, even if most of them don't like that first group of factions. "Of course civil forfeiture's bullshit, obviously it is... but I can't vote for a pro-choicer/communist/whatever!" et c. (and, yes, the effect is on "both sides"—it's why we hear a ton of noise from "no abortion ever!" and "zero restrictions until the baby takes its first breath!" while the majority of voters, who just want more-or-less what Roe guaranteed, get little attention) So, our freedom to vote is even, arguably, quite a bit less-free than for a fair proportion of our peers, since our ability, in practice, to express our actual desires through the electoral process is much more curtailed than in most of them—though, obviously, that part doesn't apply to authoritarians states.
xtian 4y ago

umvi 4y ago

America has a lot of quirks and problems, but in not many other countries can you flagrantly criticize/insult the government/leaders/policy without repercussion. USA has arguably the greatest freedom of speech protections on earth which is one liberty that is not worth trading for the freedom to drink wine more easily when picnicking in certain places - hence why people are not flocking to authoritarian states that "feel freer" than USA.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> America has a lot of quirks and problems, but in not many other countries can you flagrantly criticize/insult the government/leaders without repercussion. This is possible in most of the developed world. You don't have to have the peculiarities of the American concept of "freedom" to have this one. Someone in Norway gets to enjoy both healthcare and being able to make mean comments about the Prime Minister.
- umvi 4y ago
  Not so. UK, Germany, and indeed most of the EU have significant speech restrictions accompanied by censorship or jail time if you violate them. I'm not super familiar with Norway's speech protections, but it has a smaller population than the US state of Maryland, so it seems to be the exception more than the rule or at least not an easily scalable solution to America's problems. Saying "[Insert Scandinavian country proves it's possible]" is like saying "Look at how well Hacker News is moderated! Facebook and Twitter should take notes on how to do it right and fix the moderation issues with their services."
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    They have very specific speech restrictions around things like Holocaust denial, not "flagrantly criticizing the government". I'll happily give up freedom to publicly be a neo-Nazi if it gives me freedom from "out of network" healthcare bills. Neither society is 100% free; that's the point, really. The trade-offs like this that the American system has selected seem insane.

Nitramp 4y ago

Without commenting on the other issues, but something that struck me as very odd living in the USA, was how people in California appeared fully disenfranchised during presidential elections. Yes, as a Californian you can vote, but your vote is near guaranteed to have no effect, and as a result, neither of the sides cares to address your interests, solicit your opinion, advertise for your vote. It struck me as really bizarre.

terr-dav 4y ago
This is true for the vast majority of states, and the vast majority of people's interests. The political systems in this country have been shaped by -- and frankly, designed by -- by wealthy interests to make the US an oligarchy with various performances of democratic representation.
- yywwbbn 4y ago
  I’m not sure that’s the reason why it’s only worth campaigning in Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona and some other states during presidential elections. Also it is the system that was designed over 100-200 years ago. The problem is the lack of meaningful reform because the people in power are there only because of the current system. That’s the reason why is it so hard to change electoral system without some external/internal shock. And “unfortunately” US has been way too stable politically during the 20th century compared to most other countries.
cpurdy 4y ago
California has already passed the National Popular Vote bill. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation Republican controlled states don't want people's votes to count, so none of them have passed the bill.
- starkd 4y ago
  Not the point of this thread. Popular vote has nothing to do with how responsive or attentive a government is to voter's interests. You vote for a candidate as a whole, but there are likely still issues you disagree with. Voters' interests are largely unaddressed or ignored altogether.

nhchris 4y ago

You have elections.. but which party can you vote for if you want a stop to Middle East wars?

pjc50 4y ago
The Iraq war was overwhelmingly popular with the US electorate when it started. It had far more approval than almost any other policy at the time.
- yterdy 4y ago
  The US was overwhelmingly propagandized toward, but all you had to do to find resistance was to open the funny pages: https://www.gocomics.com/boondocks/2003/01/15 https://www.gocomics.com/boondocks/2003/01/15 https://www.gocomics.com/boondocks/2003/01/09 https://www.gocomics.com/boondocks/2003/01/09 (I HIGHLY suggest reading at least a few weeks forward, starting from the second link.) I'm sure Doonesbury got in on it, too. Eventually. After the Napster arc.
roywiggins 4y ago
The US did end one foreign war quite recently. It was pretty messy, since it was definitely not a victory, and cratered the president's approval ratings. It turns out there is almost no political constituency for visibly losing a war. Additionally, the US' kinetic operations in the Middle East have shrunk substantially as the drone strikes have been substantially curtailed, again under the same president that recently extracted the US from a long-running foreign war. He got no credit for that either; it turns out nobody in the US really cares very much, and even the people who generally disapprove of US foreign military involvements don't seem excited to give credit to the current guy. The US has always ping-ponged between loving foreign wars and hating foreign wars. Not having a reliably anti-war party is not great, but that's at least as much the fault of the voters.
- xtian 4y ago
  They ended the occupation of Afghanistan abruptly in order to redirect resources to a certain other conflict, more critical to US elite interests.

timeon 4y ago

> We have elections... but two parties. (Still better then one.)

ryaniscool 4y ago

Valid points but a lot of frustrations and injustices you hear about in the USA are told by our own press because freedom of press. We are a very transparent people. This is not the case for other places. My brother lived and worked in China for many years as a professional photographer and basically made the same points as you when we would ask him about what life is like over there. That was until he fell under suspicion at some point because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time taking pictures. He was under house arrest for over a year. They confiscated his passport but eventually let him leave because of Covid. He had zero due process. It was decided by the local police that he should be under house arrest. My family hired a lawyer but he had to present the lawyer to the police as a "concerned family friend who lives in China". That anecdote is relatively tame compared to what some people go through in authoritarian countries. If the government targets you in one of those countries, your life is over with near zero chance of getting out of trouble.

Laaas 4y ago
What did your embassy in China say? Did they not try to help?
- ryaniscool 4y ago
  Yes, they helped us find the "lawyer" and told us based on their experience that it was very likely he would spend time in a Chinese prison regardless of guilt or innocence. He got lucky in one sense because this was right before Covid hit. When everything started going a little crazy over there because Covid was spreading, they decided to let him leave for whatever reason.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Sure, I wasn't trying to be all "rah, rah, authoritarianism!" in my post (though several posters seem to have taken it that way, so maybe I wasn't clear enough). My point was more that our notions of freedom can sometimes be rather myopic, and miss the forest for the trees, such that we can become so un-free that even (some!) authoritarian states can feel much freer (until, as you note, you piss off the wrong people, which is obviously a huge problem—or you happen to be of the wrong ethnicity, or wrong religion, et c.—I am not trying to defend authoritarianism).

giggles_01 4y ago

I think a lot of folks in US over-romanticize those "feel freer" authoritarian countries. In some cases like this it might be better but I don't think systematic cases of: "inconvenient" people disappearing, being at complete mercy of local oligarch/overlord, inability to leave your country are such rampant in US as in those countries. Usually people who write something like this never lived in an authoritarian country as a local but were there on a 2 weeks trip or heard it from someone who was on a trip or someone who moved to US (why moving if it is such a great place to live?).

yamtaddle 4y ago
I'm not claiming authoritarian states are sunshine and roses, just that freedom is a lot more complex and fuzzier than is sometimes appreciated, and that in some regards we're noticeably less free than some (some!) of those states, despite their being authoritarian. I'm not saying we should switch to being authoritarian in the name of freedom—most other liberal democracies also manage to be freer on several of these issues than we are, though, sure, some are less-free by other measures (but, on balance, I think we're pretty far on the less-free-as-felt-day-to-day-by-most-people side, as liberal democracies go).
BeetleB 4y ago
I'll bite. I lived in an authoritarian country. People occasionally did disappear (usually temporarily). A lot of things were worse, but a lot were better. You're definitely not going to be arrested or harassed for letting your kids walk alone. Not sure how good their record is for actual child abuse (bad cases would make the news, so there was some enforcement). While they could prevent you from leaving the country, they didn't have no fly lists, and I believe many more were impacted from the latter than prevented from leaving that country. No one is disputing things can get really bad in those countries. It's more about probabilities. One thing that becomes very clear in the US if you poke around: It's ridiculously easy to end up with felony charges, and I know plenty who faced them (some convicted). The number of people I knew in the authoritarian country who had a criminal record? Miniscule. Raising my kid here, the chances of him getting a criminal record is significantly higher here than there and is a source of worry. And typically no one has to worry whether they'll find an apartment due to some crime they committed a decade ago. And sorry, but no. No local oligarch/overlord. That's orthogonal to authoritarian governments (and is often more about ineffective governments). > someone who moved to US (why moving if it is such a great place to live?). Classic false dichotomy.

1024core 4y ago

We have elections... but offering water to a voter standing in line to vote on a hot sunny day may get you arrested in some states (like Georgia).

ranger_danger 4y ago
That law is prefaced with "No person shall solicit votes in any manner"... clearly making it more about stopping political influence at the polls by giving things away. Also it only applies within 150 feet of the building anyway.

vkou 4y ago

The 2nd will also happily get you killed during a no-knock raid (that, for bonus points, was for the wrong house), or a traffic stop, or a cop hallucinating that he saw you reaching for a nonexistent gun on your waistband.

yamtaddle 4y ago
I've, further, got some strong suspicions that a look at history and whatever limited and noisy data are available, is more likely to support the notion that our kind of gun laws are at least as much a risk to the maintenance of liberal democracy, as a protector of it. Yet, that's a common justification for why we mustn't question the 2nd. AFAIK they've contributed at least as often to imposing oppression as to resisting oppression, on the local scale in the US. Then there's revolutions in other countries, where they seem at least as often to aid overthrowing a democracy as to play a pivotal role in defending it (though, from what I can tell, they hardly matter in either case—foreign aid and gaining the support of elements of the military are usually far, far more effective in actually forcing an outcome). That's in addition to the hard-to-quantify harm to freedom from having to worry about terrified, trigger-happy cops. Got half a mind to research it and write a book about whatever I find....

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

"But at least we have the 2nd, to protect our freedom. Seems to be working great. (I actually also think folks here overestimate how hard it is to get guns in some countries with effective gun control—it doesn't have to mean "no guns", and often doesn't)" We have elections... but everyone is so terrified of the LOLWTF numbers of guns in society that we never leave the house

curun1r 4y ago

The other part of authoritarianism that’s less popular to talk about is that, in many ways, it works very well. In many parts of the “free” US, you can’t leave a visible bag in your vehicle for more than a few minutes because you’ll return to a smashed window. In places where that kind of petty crime is dealt with harshly, it’s almost non-existent. As trite as it sounds, Mussolini made the trains run on time. So authoritarianism often gets a lot of the small stuff right at the cost of the big stuff while freedom often means sacrificing a lot of those small things to get the big stuff right. Having a society where you’ve got the best of both worlds is a really hard balance to strike. And while it’s really easy to say that the big stuff is more important, the subjective feeling of freedom can be more affected by the small stuff because it’s much more a part of daily life. I don’t need to criticize my government on a daily basis, I only need to do that at critical moments. But I have to park my car multiple times a day, and needing to keep it safe becomes a front-of-mind concern that makes me feel less free.

cycomanic 4y ago
> The other part of authoritarianism that’s less popular to talk about is that, in many ways, it works very well. In many parts of the “free” US, you can’t leave a visible bag in your vehicle for more than a few minutes because you’ll return to a smashed window. In places where that kind of petty crime is dealt with harshly, it’s almost non-existent. As trite as it sounds, Mussolini made the trains run on time. Actually that semi quote is typically used in relation to the Spanish civil war and it's an old lady saying "the anarchists were certainly a weird bunch, but they did make the trains run on time). Also the correlation between harsh punishment and lower crime rates is dubious at best. The US has harsher penalties than most other Western democracies, but higher crime rates. This applies in particular to murder, where the rates are higher despite the death penalty. To add some anecdotal evidence, the only place I was ever pickpocketed was in Shanghai (where punishment is extremely harsh) and I have visited places like Nigeria which has a much less functioning law enforcement system.
qwytw 4y ago
You can also get the same outcome (i.e. not smashed windows) without an authorization government. I'm not even sure these are meaningfully related, there are many countries which are both less authoritarian (in certain ways at least) than the US and also have less crime.

ashwagary 4y ago

>We have elections... but, this article. >We have elections... but civil forfeiture. We have elections... but once in a while a shadowy organization within the government assassinates the President if he becomes too much of a threat to the establishment, allegedly.

themitigating 4y ago

You don't like some park regulation vote for someone who will change it. If no one running is willing to do that then you can run for office. If no one votes for you that sucks. Democracy isn't about getting what you want. This reminds me of people who say "not my president " or "I didn't vote for that"

pjc50 4y ago

> We have elections... but Maybe the real enemy of the American people is ... the American electorate?