> Someone always scoffs, but I think it is usually a sign that they don’t really understand freedom. Others understand freedom from the perspective of the indi

> Someone always scoffs, but I think it is usually a sign that they don’t really understand freedom. Others understand freedom from the perspective of the individual. Americans understand freedom from the perspective of the state. In the first case, you're free if you can practically do something. In the second case you're free if the government doesn't ban it, regardless of whether you can actually do it. Take for example the issue of ads on Smart TVs. There's no law that says you have to have ads on them, but in practice it's impossible to buy a TV which doesn't flood you with ads. People in the first case consider that if a law is passed to ban embedding ads on TVs, then that increases the freedom in the world. Americans consider that banning such ads is a horrible government overreach which hurts the feelings of poor billionaires, and that if people want, they can always buy TVs with no ads, even though no such TVs exist. They prefer an imaginary freedom to a practical one.