3 ms·

> Why not just accept the fact that Russia, the US and China are most alike when It comes to freedom. Because it's not true. For example, observe how the US c

> Why not just accept the fact that Russia, the US and China are most alike when It comes to freedom. Because it's not true. For example, observe how the US consistently beats China and Russia by significant margins in freedom indexes: In the Democracy Index compiled by the UK-based Economist Intelligence Unit, the US is considered a Full Democracy and both Russia and China are considered Authoritarian Regimes. In the Press Freedom Index, compiled by the French organization Reporters Without Borders, the US is 47th out of 179, Russia is 142nd and China is 174th. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index) In the Economic Freedom of the World Index, published by the Fraser Institute (based in Canada), the US is 10th out of 141, Russia is 81st and China is 92nd. I chose indexes that were compiled outside the United States to avoid attempts to paint these numbers as biased. Other numbers compiled inside the US concerning human rights also strongly favor the US over Russia and China. You say we should "be honest," but your claims are not supported by the facts.

ericd 14y ago
Could it be that those aren't completely unbiased, despite being based outside the US? Maybe others give it the benefit of the doubt when compiling these things whereas they don't with those other regimes.
- haberman 14y ago
  While we could debate the possible biases of people outside the US, a much more interesting question is whether there is any support whatsoever for the idea that the US is like Russia and China when it comes to freedom. It's an absurd comparison, and the purpose of citing the indexes is to show just how absurd it is, since they measure such things in absolute terms. A little bias isn't going to make the difference between "Full Democracy" (the most free in the Democracy Index) and "Authoritarian Regime" (the least free).
- CapitalistCartr 14y ago
  Maybe lots of things are true, but the evidence supports his assertion. He provided three excellent references for his position; you provide a leading question. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The USA is getting steadily less free, but is still far ahead of Russia or China.
mindslight 14y ago
From an individualist perspective, 'Full Democracy' and 'Authoritarian Regime' sound quite similar.
- haberman 14y ago
  No, the Democracy Index also makes its evaluation on the basis of Civil Liberties. To quote from their report: > All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic. In a democracy majority rule must be combined with guarantees of individual human rights and the rights of minorities. In 2011 the US scored 8.53 in Civil Liberties (out of 10) compared with 4.71 for Russia and 1.18 for China.
  - mindslight 14y ago
    All of your cited indexes examine only macro-freedoms, especially the ones that institutions in western societies are generally built upon, while completely ignoring the concept of personal freedom. Specifically, this 'Civil Liberties' category is only a subset of civil liberties as applied to the inputs of democracy. Most autonomous governments directly attack political free expression, which is what this category is designed to measure. (USG however has become quite autonomous and oppressive while allowing free expression. This takes longer to develop, but is much more robust) As for examples of civil liberties that are not reflected in this category - presumption of innocence, equal protection under the law, the sorry excuse for "due process", unintelligible and de-facto private laws, rights granted by the "supreme law of the land" being somehow mostly inapplicable, excessive punishment, drug laws and every other area where government meddles with individuals' lives to make society "better". Your standard Frito Pendejo celebrates his "excellent" rights while simultaneously cheering on fascism against those in positions of actually requiring said rights. The fact that the process is democratic is of little importance when the results are poor.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - 14y ago
ralfn 14y ago
You are right. Take the press freedom list, where you guys are at 47, and say Holland is at position 3. 44 positions difference is less than 142 ( the difference in ranking between the US and Russis ) Except rankings do not represent range. And you did seem to completely miss my point: you are a superpower. You have the whole word lobbying you. You have the strongest financial interests to protect, and you protect, just by the virtue of the size of your military, more free nations ( all of them higher ranked in your lists ) than the other superpowers. My point was, that that does not come free. And to some extend liberty is the price. I dont even think it makes sense comparing the US and its civil and political dynamics with any other nation, than the two remaining superpowers. It was not some kind of mean rant against the states. Just that the idea of a free superpower is by definition a contradiction. That you provide freedom to many natioms, but can not to the same extend experience it yourself, because you are just too high value of a target in any dimension (poltically, financially, socially, militairily)
- haberman 14y ago
  You are presupposing your conclusion. It absolutely makes sense to compare freedom between countries, and these organizations have very detailed ways of doing it. In these comparisons, the US comes out looking pretty good, beating other first-world, western countries such as France, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Israel. The idea that "super-powers" are fundamentally different than all other countries when it comes to freedom is an argument you have made without support or evidence.
  - ralfn 14y ago
    I made that statement without emperical evidence, since i consider it a logical implication. Consider credit ratings: a few tiny nations have the highest ratings. But their combined assets represent nothing compared to the states. The US is rated lower, because the US is expected to fight its own fights. These tiny nations are rated higher, because the big guys are expected to cover their stability. The same is true for my freedom: it is garantueed by the states, based on a sacrifice the people of my country would not make themselves. That sacrifice is huge: economic extortion of your social underclass to risk their life; the financial investments that leave very little of tax payers money for any "ordinary purpose" like education. And dont just look at your defense budget, your and mine security depends on your intelligence spendings just as much. Remember WW2 where you saved our ass? The marshal plan were you rebuild my country? The war on Serbia, where you cleaned up our backyard? The war in Libia, where you allowed us to distance ourselves from a dictator we were doing bussiness with? You have our back. In your shadow, we are not only safe from China or Russia, but even from ourselves. But we get all that, without the sacrifice. We can be anti-war. We can spent all our money on education, rather than security. We can have freedom of the press, because our government does not represent any meaningfull stakes. Even our southern neigbours, Belgium. They did not have a government for more than a year. Imagine that! If you guys would be truly free to vote in your own interest, to be informed correctly about that interest, to have true civil rights ... You would not be a superpower, you would be Canada. For a short while that is, until China would invade, or the rich middle eastern countries would take full control.

ericd 14y ago

Could it be that those aren't completely unbiased, despite being based outside the US? Maybe others give it the benefit of the doubt when compiling these things whereas they don't with those other regimes.

haberman 14y ago
While we could debate the possible biases of people outside the US, a much more interesting question is whether there is any support whatsoever for the idea that the US is like Russia and China when it comes to freedom. It's an absurd comparison, and the purpose of citing the indexes is to show just how absurd it is, since they measure such things in absolute terms. A little bias isn't going to make the difference between "Full Democracy" (the most free in the Democracy Index) and "Authoritarian Regime" (the least free).
CapitalistCartr 14y ago
Maybe lots of things are true, but the evidence supports his assertion. He provided three excellent references for his position; you provide a leading question. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The USA is getting steadily less free, but is still far ahead of Russia or China.

mindslight 14y ago

From an individualist perspective, 'Full Democracy' and 'Authoritarian Regime' sound quite similar.

haberman 14y ago
No, the Democracy Index also makes its evaluation on the basis of Civil Liberties. To quote from their report: > All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic. In a democracy majority rule must be combined with guarantees of individual human rights and the rights of minorities. In 2011 the US scored 8.53 in Civil Liberties (out of 10) compared with 4.71 for Russia and 1.18 for China.
- mindslight 14y ago
  All of your cited indexes examine only macro-freedoms, especially the ones that institutions in western societies are generally built upon, while completely ignoring the concept of personal freedom. Specifically, this 'Civil Liberties' category is only a subset of civil liberties as applied to the inputs of democracy. Most autonomous governments directly attack political free expression, which is what this category is designed to measure. (USG however has become quite autonomous and oppressive while allowing free expression. This takes longer to develop, but is much more robust) As for examples of civil liberties that are not reflected in this category - presumption of innocence, equal protection under the law, the sorry excuse for "due process", unintelligible and de-facto private laws, rights granted by the "supreme law of the land" being somehow mostly inapplicable, excessive punishment, drug laws and every other area where government meddles with individuals' lives to make society "better". Your standard Frito Pendejo celebrates his "excellent" rights while simultaneously cheering on fascism against those in positions of actually requiring said rights. The fact that the process is democratic is of little importance when the results are poor.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - 14y ago

ralfn 14y ago

You are right. Take the press freedom list, where you guys are at 47, and say Holland is at position 3. 44 positions difference is less than 142 ( the difference in ranking between the US and Russis ) Except rankings do not represent range. And you did seem to completely miss my point: you are a superpower. You have the whole word lobbying you. You have the strongest financial interests to protect, and you protect, just by the virtue of the size of your military, more free nations ( all of them higher ranked in your lists ) than the other superpowers. My point was, that that does not come free. And to some extend liberty is the price. I dont even think it makes sense comparing the US and its civil and political dynamics with any other nation, than the two remaining superpowers. It was not some kind of mean rant against the states. Just that the idea of a free superpower is by definition a contradiction. That you provide freedom to many natioms, but can not to the same extend experience it yourself, because you are just too high value of a target in any dimension (poltically, financially, socially, militairily)

haberman 14y ago
You are presupposing your conclusion. It absolutely makes sense to compare freedom between countries, and these organizations have very detailed ways of doing it. In these comparisons, the US comes out looking pretty good, beating other first-world, western countries such as France, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Israel. The idea that "super-powers" are fundamentally different than all other countries when it comes to freedom is an argument you have made without support or evidence.
- ralfn 14y ago
  I made that statement without emperical evidence, since i consider it a logical implication. Consider credit ratings: a few tiny nations have the highest ratings. But their combined assets represent nothing compared to the states. The US is rated lower, because the US is expected to fight its own fights. These tiny nations are rated higher, because the big guys are expected to cover their stability. The same is true for my freedom: it is garantueed by the states, based on a sacrifice the people of my country would not make themselves. That sacrifice is huge: economic extortion of your social underclass to risk their life; the financial investments that leave very little of tax payers money for any "ordinary purpose" like education. And dont just look at your defense budget, your and mine security depends on your intelligence spendings just as much. Remember WW2 where you saved our ass? The marshal plan were you rebuild my country? The war on Serbia, where you cleaned up our backyard? The war in Libia, where you allowed us to distance ourselves from a dictator we were doing bussiness with? You have our back. In your shadow, we are not only safe from China or Russia, but even from ourselves. But we get all that, without the sacrifice. We can be anti-war. We can spent all our money on education, rather than security. We can have freedom of the press, because our government does not represent any meaningfull stakes. Even our southern neigbours, Belgium. They did not have a government for more than a year. Imagine that! If you guys would be truly free to vote in your own interest, to be informed correctly about that interest, to have true civil rights ... You would not be a superpower, you would be Canada. For a short while that is, until China would invade, or the rich middle eastern countries would take full control.