8 ms·

The UK is a good demonstration of why the US constitution is important. They have substantially weaker rights to freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and prot

The UK is a good demonstration of why the US constitution is important. They have substantially weaker rights to freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Of course the United States has tried hard in many cases to weaken or get around these protections, but it seems reasonable to say that Americans are still much more protected than citizens of the UK.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
Your tradeoff, of course, is that you have no freedom in the US because you live with a gun pointed at you at all times, blanket surveillance, free speech only if it matches what your government approves of, and no rights. In the US you can be shot and killed by the police at any time, for any reason. You don't have any rights to retaliate. Yeah, I don't think I'll trade places.
hnlmorg 4y ago
- freedom of speech. Most Americans misunderstand what their freedom of speech actually entitles them to. What your freedom of speech actually covers is represented via other legislations over here. And much as I think our government is a farce, we do have access to tell our politicians that. Frankly, if recent politics have taught us anything, it’s that freedom of speech doesn’t protect us from a shitty government being formed. - right to bear arms I’m glad we don’t. It’s a fucking stupid right in our modern age. How many shootings do you guys need before you wake up and join the rest of the civilised world with tighter gun control. And for what it’s worth, you can own guns legally in the UK. We just don’t allow unhinged people to roam the streets with guns. - protection from unreasonable search and seizure We have that in the U.K. Given all the problems the US police force suffer from, you’re really not in a position to be gloating about protections from crooked cops. Don’t get me wrong, the US does get a lot of things right too. But I wouldn’t say it’s ahead of the U.K. (nor most of Europe) in terms of rights. Roughly equivalent perhaps, but not so far ahead that we should all be modelling ourselves after you.
- balls187 4y ago
  In the US our rights are mostly protected by one’s ability to pay for legal protection. I don’t know how it works in the UK. Having rights is all well and good, but in the US we’ve see. countless cases of government infringing on those rights requiring government to resolve them (via legal proceedings).
- nsnick 4y ago
  Legislation doesn’t guarantee rights. If the same body trying to violate your rights with a bill can just pass another bill to repeal your rights, your rights are not protected. Two things are required to guarantee rights from a government: a constitution or charter that is extraordinarily difficult to modify, and a court system whose decisions can’t be overturned by the elected government, neither of which the UK has.
  - sjy 4y ago
    > a constitution or charter that is extraordinarily difficult to modify, and a court system whose decisions can’t be overturned by the elected government Remember Brexit? It took them almost four years to achieve after the referendum, in part due to decisions by the constitutional court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_Stat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...
  - hnlmorg 4y ago
    This is just a hypothetical destination at the end of the day. For example the POTUS gets to appoint judges which has lead to the courts becoming increasingly partisan. And Trump did a pretty good job of abusing his power left right and centre without any repercussions. Whereas on the flip side, UK politicians have been taken to court over the lawfulness of various decisions (such as “brexit”) and PMs forced to step down over incidents far less serious than anything that has resulted in POTUS impeachments. And as much as the US constitution guarantees rights, the constitution can be changed. In fact 2 of the rights described here are amendments themselves. We can all argue about which political system offers greater safeguards but ultimately it’s all just theoretical debate. A bad actor with sufficient support in either political system could do serious damage to the rights of their citizens. So I think it’s a erroneous to distil the argument down to such a simplistic model and then argue that America is somehow more free than the U.K. because of it. A more valid argument would be that we are roughly equivalent in a subject that is clearly very complex.
ClapperHeid 4y ago
>rights to freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure... The trouble with this is that, while it's fine in principal [I'm a firm believer in the old agage "People shouldn't fear their governments. Governments should fear their people" ] it doesn't really stand up to reality. The people who enshrined the "Right to bear arms" into your constitution envisioned it as a way to keep govenrment in check. If "The Man" has a musket he can oppress me. If I have a musket too, he can't. Unfortunately, in the 21st century, "The Man" is always going to have a shitload of bigger, more lethal "muskets" than you and could swat you like a fly if he felt like it. All the right to bear arms does is lead to a situation where your streets are full of guns, violent crime is rampant and your police force is armed to the teeth and more akin to a paramilitary army than your friendly neighbourhood bobby. So that every encounter --even for the likes of a trivial motoring offence, which would be a 5 minute telling off, a bit of grovelling and possibly a fine, anywhere else in Europe or UK-- has the potential to escalate into an armed stand-off or a shooting. It's just amazing that so many Americans can simply not see this and still have that almost evangelical belief that the microscopically small chance that they could overthrow some future government if it got out of hand [spoiler alert: you couldn't!] is worth the trade-off of living day to day in a society awash with guns, violent crime and mass shootings.
- margorczynski 4y ago
  > Unfortunately, in the 21st century, "The Man" is always going to have a shitload of bigger, more lethal "muskets" than you and could swat you like a fly if he felt like it. I think you should study how it went down in Afghanistan. This argument simply doesn't hold up to reality. And we're talking about a civil war where using mass destruction weapons like bombardment is much more likely to be out of the question. Additionally it is much harder to differentiate friend from foe.
  - ClapperHeid 4y ago
    >I think you should study how it went down in Afghanistan. This argument simply doesn't hold up to reality... That's a different scenario. It's a lot easier [relatively speaking] to foment an uprising against an external enemy in the cause of "ridding your country of the invader". than it is against "the enemy within". You've only got to look at all the unpopular laws that get passed year after year [and not just in the US]. When the possibility of <unpopular law> is first broached, there are dark mutterings that "People won't stand for it!". Then <unpopular law> comes into force, a couple of isolated people resist and get fined or imprisoned and, before you know it, <unpopular law> is an accepted part of "the system" --even if many people don't agree with it. You've also got to bear in mind that, when <unpopular law> is implemented by your own government, they will sell it as being for the national good. No government is ever going to say 'We're doing this coz we're bastards and want to oppress you!'. It'll be for "national security" or "anti-terrorism" or "to protect the children". And it will fool enough of the people, so that the ones who do "make a stand" won't only be doing so against "The Man" but against most of the rest of the general populace too. They'll see you as being "unpatriotic", a "terrorist sympathiser" or a "defender of paedos" for taking a stand against said law. Also, oppression is incremental. It's very rare that a country's government moves from [perceived] democracy to [perceived] tyranny over night. And, there again, even amongst the people who would conceivably rise up, everyone will have their own individual "red line" beyond which they'll feel aggrieved enough to act. And who wants to be the first to stick their head above the parapet?

Gordonjcp 4y ago

Your tradeoff, of course, is that you have no freedom in the US because you live with a gun pointed at you at all times, blanket surveillance, free speech only if it matches what your government approves of, and no rights. In the US you can be shot and killed by the police at any time, for any reason. You don't have any rights to retaliate. Yeah, I don't think I'll trade places.

hnlmorg 4y ago

- freedom of speech. Most Americans misunderstand what their freedom of speech actually entitles them to. What your freedom of speech actually covers is represented via other legislations over here. And much as I think our government is a farce, we do have access to tell our politicians that. Frankly, if recent politics have taught us anything, it’s that freedom of speech doesn’t protect us from a shitty government being formed. - right to bear arms I’m glad we don’t. It’s a fucking stupid right in our modern age. How many shootings do you guys need before you wake up and join the rest of the civilised world with tighter gun control. And for what it’s worth, you can own guns legally in the UK. We just don’t allow unhinged people to roam the streets with guns. - protection from unreasonable search and seizure We have that in the U.K. Given all the problems the US police force suffer from, you’re really not in a position to be gloating about protections from crooked cops. Don’t get me wrong, the US does get a lot of things right too. But I wouldn’t say it’s ahead of the U.K. (nor most of Europe) in terms of rights. Roughly equivalent perhaps, but not so far ahead that we should all be modelling ourselves after you.

balls187 4y ago
In the US our rights are mostly protected by one’s ability to pay for legal protection. I don’t know how it works in the UK. Having rights is all well and good, but in the US we’ve see. countless cases of government infringing on those rights requiring government to resolve them (via legal proceedings).
nsnick 4y ago
Legislation doesn’t guarantee rights. If the same body trying to violate your rights with a bill can just pass another bill to repeal your rights, your rights are not protected. Two things are required to guarantee rights from a government: a constitution or charter that is extraordinarily difficult to modify, and a court system whose decisions can’t be overturned by the elected government, neither of which the UK has.
- sjy 4y ago
  > a constitution or charter that is extraordinarily difficult to modify, and a court system whose decisions can’t be overturned by the elected government Remember Brexit? It took them almost four years to achieve after the referendum, in part due to decisions by the constitutional court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_Stat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  This is just a hypothetical destination at the end of the day. For example the POTUS gets to appoint judges which has lead to the courts becoming increasingly partisan. And Trump did a pretty good job of abusing his power left right and centre without any repercussions. Whereas on the flip side, UK politicians have been taken to court over the lawfulness of various decisions (such as “brexit”) and PMs forced to step down over incidents far less serious than anything that has resulted in POTUS impeachments. And as much as the US constitution guarantees rights, the constitution can be changed. In fact 2 of the rights described here are amendments themselves. We can all argue about which political system offers greater safeguards but ultimately it’s all just theoretical debate. A bad actor with sufficient support in either political system could do serious damage to the rights of their citizens. So I think it’s a erroneous to distil the argument down to such a simplistic model and then argue that America is somehow more free than the U.K. because of it. A more valid argument would be that we are roughly equivalent in a subject that is clearly very complex.

ClapperHeid 4y ago

>rights to freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure... The trouble with this is that, while it's fine in principal [I'm a firm believer in the old agage "People shouldn't fear their governments. Governments should fear their people" ] it doesn't really stand up to reality. The people who enshrined the "Right to bear arms" into your constitution envisioned it as a way to keep govenrment in check. If "The Man" has a musket he can oppress me. If I have a musket too, he can't. Unfortunately, in the 21st century, "The Man" is always going to have a shitload of bigger, more lethal "muskets" than you and could swat you like a fly if he felt like it. All the right to bear arms does is lead to a situation where your streets are full of guns, violent crime is rampant and your police force is armed to the teeth and more akin to a paramilitary army than your friendly neighbourhood bobby. So that every encounter --even for the likes of a trivial motoring offence, which would be a 5 minute telling off, a bit of grovelling and possibly a fine, anywhere else in Europe or UK-- has the potential to escalate into an armed stand-off or a shooting. It's just amazing that so many Americans can simply not see this and still have that almost evangelical belief that the microscopically small chance that they could overthrow some future government if it got out of hand [spoiler alert: you couldn't!] is worth the trade-off of living day to day in a society awash with guns, violent crime and mass shootings.

margorczynski 4y ago
> Unfortunately, in the 21st century, "The Man" is always going to have a shitload of bigger, more lethal "muskets" than you and could swat you like a fly if he felt like it. I think you should study how it went down in Afghanistan. This argument simply doesn't hold up to reality. And we're talking about a civil war where using mass destruction weapons like bombardment is much more likely to be out of the question. Additionally it is much harder to differentiate friend from foe.
- ClapperHeid 4y ago
  >I think you should study how it went down in Afghanistan. This argument simply doesn't hold up to reality... That's a different scenario. It's a lot easier [relatively speaking] to foment an uprising against an external enemy in the cause of "ridding your country of the invader". than it is against "the enemy within". You've only got to look at all the unpopular laws that get passed year after year [and not just in the US]. When the possibility of <unpopular law> is first broached, there are dark mutterings that "People won't stand for it!". Then <unpopular law> comes into force, a couple of isolated people resist and get fined or imprisoned and, before you know it, <unpopular law> is an accepted part of "the system" --even if many people don't agree with it. You've also got to bear in mind that, when <unpopular law> is implemented by your own government, they will sell it as being for the national good. No government is ever going to say 'We're doing this coz we're bastards and want to oppress you!'. It'll be for "national security" or "anti-terrorism" or "to protect the children". And it will fool enough of the people, so that the ones who do "make a stand" won't only be doing so against "The Man" but against most of the rest of the general populace too. They'll see you as being "unpatriotic", a "terrorist sympathiser" or a "defender of paedos" for taking a stand against said law. Also, oppression is incremental. It's very rare that a country's government moves from [perceived] democracy to [perceived] tyranny over night. And, there again, even amongst the people who would conceivably rise up, everyone will have their own individual "red line" beyond which they'll feel aggrieved enough to act. And who wants to be the first to stick their head above the parapet?