Which country has more freedom?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:03:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Which country has more freedom?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
A
 
#2
B
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 39

Author Topic: Which country has more freedom?  (Read 8135 times)
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2007, 08:09:45 AM »

Country B is more free. 

You don't HAVE to purchase things with a credit card.  You don't HAVE to surf the internet leaving cookies everywhere.  You don't HAVE to do buisness with companies that sell your info to the highest bidder.  In Country A, you HAVE to pay higher taxes and buiseness HAVE to deal with strict govt interference.  You are more free, by far, in country B.

You don't HAVE to... if you're fine with living in a cave.

Given how much of my time is already taken up by answering the phone only to find a telemarketer on the other end, I shudder to think of what country B would be like.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2007, 08:44:11 AM »

Country B is more free. 

You don't HAVE to purchase things with a credit card.  You don't HAVE to surf the internet leaving cookies everywhere.  You don't HAVE to do buisness with companies that sell your info to the highest bidder.  In Country A, you HAVE to pay higher taxes and buiseness HAVE to deal with strict govt interference.  You are more free, by far, in country B.

You don't HAVE to... if you're fine with living in a cave.
Are you saying you couldn't live without a credit card in 2007 America?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I assumed the OP was refering to the US with Country B.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2007, 08:48:43 AM »

Country B is more free. 

You don't HAVE to purchase things with a credit card.  You don't HAVE to surf the internet leaving cookies everywhere.  You don't HAVE to do buisness with companies that sell your info to the highest bidder.  In Country A, you HAVE to pay higher taxes and buiseness HAVE to deal with strict govt interference.  You are more free, by far, in country B.

It's not the issue of whether one purchases things or not, but whether credit card companies and corporations have access to your private details and liberally exchange them. Whether it's a government wiretapping you, or a company/business having access to your private details, they're both forms of surveillance, and I'm surprised to see many libertarians missing the connection between the two.

Also, note the description of country A - no wiretapping without a warrant, privacy is taken seriously, etc. I cannot comprehend how someone can regard taxation and relatively high business regulation as intrinsically worse and more intrusive than every individual being constantly monitored by private companies.
Sure, if you want to ignore my point, that makes perfect sense.  Citizens CHOSE who they want to do buisness with.  You don't get to CHOSE whether your country over taxes and over regulates you.  I cannot comprehend how someone can regaurd FORCED taxation and FORCED regulation as less intrusive than the ability to CHOSE where you want to spend your money.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2007, 09:08:04 AM »
« Edited: November 30, 2007, 09:11:31 AM by Michael Z »

Country B is more free. 

You don't HAVE to purchase things with a credit card.  You don't HAVE to surf the internet leaving cookies everywhere.  You don't HAVE to do buisness with companies that sell your info to the highest bidder.  In Country A, you HAVE to pay higher taxes and buiseness HAVE to deal with strict govt interference.  You are more free, by far, in country B.

It's not the issue of whether one purchases things or not, but whether credit card companies and corporations have access to your private details and liberally exchange them. Whether it's a government wiretapping you, or a company/business having access to your private details, they're both forms of surveillance, and I'm surprised to see many libertarians missing the connection between the two.

Also, note the description of country A - no wiretapping without a warrant, privacy is taken seriously, etc. I cannot comprehend how someone can regard taxation and relatively high business regulation as intrinsically worse and more intrusive than every individual being constantly monitored by private companies.
Sure, if you want to ignore my point, that makes perfect sense.  Citizens CHOSE who they want to do buisness with.  You don't get to CHOSE whether your country over taxes and over regulates you.  I cannot comprehend how someone can regaurd FORCED taxation and FORCED regulation as less intrusive than the ability to CHOSE where you want to spend your money.

I didn't ignore that point, it just doesn't make sense when you look at the basic crux of the comparison at hand - ie. a government that does not intrude in your private affairs versus corporations that do. "Forced taxation" is in my view not as bad as the Owellian scenario of loss of privacy and/or mass surveillance (be it from a government or a business).

Unless you're talking about a scenario in which ALL of our money is forcibly taxed, which I doubt.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2007, 11:02:30 AM »

But as long as the corporations and the govt stays out of each others business you're not forced into doing anything in Country B.  In country B, you're free to opt out of the badness, in country A, you have no choice.  In country B, if you don't like the way company 1 is dealing with your information, you can take your money to company 2 or company 3 or company 103.  If you don't like the way country A is forcing you to jump through hoops just so you can sell a widget you can't just pick your widget factory up and move to country C.  You might not ever build that widget factory in country A in the first place, not when you can build it in country B or C.

I understand that you guys prefer country A.  That's cool.  You feel the need to have elected officials protect you from the evils of business.  That's a totally reasonable way to think about things.  I don't agree with it, but I understand it.  Just don't tell me I'm wrong because I picked the country that forces you do less against your will.  I call that being more free, but I can certainly understand how one could see otherwise.

edit-Corporations can't force you to do something you don't want to do, countries can.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2007, 01:52:23 PM »
« Edited: November 30, 2007, 02:00:38 PM by Michael Z »

I understand that you guys prefer country A.  That's cool.  You feel the need to have elected officials protect you from the evils of business.  That's a totally reasonable way to think about things.  I don't agree with it, but I understand it.  Just don't tell me I'm wrong because I picked the country that forces you do less against your will.  I call that being more free, but I can certainly understand how one could see otherwise.

There's no need to get defensive, not to mention cocky, condescending and sarcastic, just because someone's disagreeing with you. No-one's telling you you're "wrong", either; I simply said I didn't understand your viewpoint. There's no right or wrong in this sort of debate, because at the end we are talking about personal philosophies of what actually constitutes "freedom"; clearly, ours differ. That's cool. I'm not forcing you to accept my definition of it (and I certainly don't think I have in the course of this debate), but I would expect you to do likewise instead of getting all sarcastic about it -- surely the free exchange of ideas is also a basic component of liberty, or do you only ever accept economic freedoms?
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2007, 10:32:35 PM »

Country B is more free. 

You don't HAVE to purchase things with a credit card.  You don't HAVE to surf the internet leaving cookies everywhere.  You don't HAVE to do buisness with companies that sell your info to the highest bidder.  In Country A, you HAVE to pay higher taxes and buiseness HAVE to deal with strict govt interference.  You are more free, by far, in country B.

You don't HAVE to... if you're fine with living in a cave.

Given how much of my time is already taken up by answering the phone only to find a telemarketer on the other end, I shudder to think of what country B would be like.
Damn, they gotta get Caller ID up to Canada Tongue
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 18, 2007, 12:03:05 AM »

Country B is more free. 

You don't HAVE to purchase things with a credit card.  You don't HAVE to surf the internet leaving cookies everywhere.  You don't HAVE to do buisness with companies that sell your info to the highest bidder.  In Country A, you HAVE to pay higher taxes and buiseness HAVE to deal with strict govt interference.  You are more free, by far, in country B.

You don't HAVE to... if you're fine with living in a cave.

Given how much of my time is already taken up by answering the phone only to find a telemarketer on the other end, I shudder to think of what country B would be like.
Damn, they gotta get Caller ID up to Canada Tongue
Caller ID doesn't help my ass.

...this is still really open ended.

If anything that the private sector retrieves from you can be used as criminal evidence against you, then A. If this is not the case, and you have the right to your credit score, your information, and a DNC listing, then B. To me, economic issues and the profit/public spheres are not big issues. I want to know my real civil liberties....

So far, I would say B so long as no long as there is a bar on criminal evidence that the government itself would not be able to investigate or find. So long as industry is not used as a constitutional loophole, B sounds peachy to me.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2007, 09:07:02 PM »


Both are far from absolute freedom, but I vote for country A.  .  Port Arthur, Texas native and acid-head Janis Joplin used to sing that "Freedom's just another word for nuthin' left to lose."  Given her definition, I'd have to go with A, since it describes a society with not much else to lose, whereas B describes a situation in which a reasonable degree of physical comfort--albeit in a fishbowl sort of existence--may be fairly achieved.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2007, 07:17:26 PM »

Neither are free enough, but B is more free.

That would be correct. But what if what the corporations find out about you could be used to prosecute you without a warrant?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 26, 2007, 12:12:27 AM »

Neither are free enough, but B is more free.

That would be correct. But what if what the corporations find out about you could be used to prosecute you without a warrant?
But that wasn't the question.  Still B though because you don't HAVE to do business with companies that gather, sell and trade your info.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: December 26, 2007, 01:17:35 AM »

To me, individual freedom is the most important.

In country B, as the original poster has pointed out, privacy is not taken seriously, and though there are laws in place, companies ignore them and trade your information.

In such a situation, there is good reason to suspect that a company could result to blackmail or extortion in order to get a desired result from you.  This is the basis of personal privacy in the first place:  to protect you from others taking advantage of you.

Sure, you don't HAVE to do business with these companies, but with little regulation, how do you know which companies collect your information and which ones don't (remember, they can simply trade or buy the info from another company that you already gave the info to.. or they could simply get it from the government).

But, you don't really HAVE to do anything (except eat, drink water, and stay warm).  I COULD go live in the forest and live off the land completely and not pay taxes and drop out of society.  But that is not feasible.

In country A, you still have the option of going into business if you wish.  That choice is still there.. it just comes with the consequences of higher regulation by the government... just like it is my choice in country B to do business with a company that, as a consequence, might take personal information from me that I might not be too happy to give out.

At least in country A I am secure in my person and I, as an individual, get to decide who knows what about me as my RIGHT rather than having a universal system of personal data collection that I must actively "opt out" of without any help.

The business as an entity has to follow rules and regulations that protect the rights of the individual and don't unduly harm the resources of the individual.

This is a shallow argument, but in country A, every company is held to the same standard.  And as competition is the basis of a free market, it would not necessarily be hindered by regulations that protect the individual.

If we were talking price supports or regulations against specific companies, it would be another story.  But we're not, and the individual should be the focus of freedom, not the choices of business as an entity.

But then again, I also believe that the freest market is one that individuals can easily enter into without the de facto "regulations" of other companies (monopolies that prevent new businesses from competing, etc.)

Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2007, 11:52:55 AM »

Neither are free enough, but B is more free.

That would be correct. But what if what the corporations find out about you could be used to prosecute you without a warrant?
But that wasn't the question.  Still B though because you don't HAVE to do business with companies that gather, sell and trade your info.

Would they still be able to, even if you didn't?
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2007, 12:36:48 PM »

Neither are free enough, but B is more free.

That would be correct. But what if what the corporations find out about you could be used to prosecute you without a warrant?
But that wasn't the question.  Still B though because you don't HAVE to do business with companies that gather, sell and trade your info.

Well, okay, but the absolute demand of "freedom for the sake of freedom" is not really any better than others and probably worse. I like freedom, but I am willing to see where small compromises are a better idea. And don't come back at me with a Ben Franklin quote; the Founders were well aware of the Social Contract.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2007, 02:13:36 PM »

Neither are free enough, but B is more free.

That would be correct. But what if what the corporations find out about you could be used to prosecute you without a warrant?
But that wasn't the question.  Still B though because you don't HAVE to do business with companies that gather, sell and trade your info.

Well, okay, but the absolute demand of "freedom for the sake of freedom" is not really any better than others and probably worse. I like freedom, but I am willing to see where small compromises are a better idea. And don't come back at me with a Ben Franklin quote; the Founders were well aware of the Social Contract.
That's a good response. Also, Freedom can bite back. You may trade one oppressor for another. Perhaps it is best that both...say...big government and big business are comprimised....at the minimium loss of freedom. Perhaps there are conditions where freedom is at its ultimate highest point.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2007, 09:57:46 PM »

Neither are free enough, but B is more free.

That would be correct. But what if what the corporations find out about you could be used to prosecute you without a warrant?
But that wasn't the question.  Still B though because you don't HAVE to do business with companies that gather, sell and trade your info.

Well, okay, but the absolute demand of "freedom for the sake of freedom" is not really any better than others and probably worse. I like freedom, but I am willing to see where small compromises are a better idea. And don't come back at me with a Ben Franklin quote; the Founders were well aware of the Social Contract.

I've always seen freedom as a means to an end, not an end in itself.  That end being, of course, the ability of people to pursue and obtain happiness, which is really the only thing that matters in life in the end.  If a particular freedom is actively impeding that end, then I would say that it is not a good freedom.

Everyone supports restriction of freedoms in some way.  You wouldn't be able to support the incarceration of criminals if you didn't, since that is obviously impeding their freedom.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: December 28, 2007, 03:20:26 PM »

Neither are free enough, but B is more free.

That would be correct. But what if what the corporations find out about you could be used to prosecute you without a warrant?
But that wasn't the question.  Still B though because you don't HAVE to do business with companies that gather, sell and trade your info.

Well, okay, but the absolute demand of "freedom for the sake of freedom" is not really any better than others and probably worse. I like freedom, but I am willing to see where small compromises are a better idea. And don't come back at me with a Ben Franklin quote; the Founders were well aware of the Social Contract.

I've always seen freedom as a means to an end, not an end in itself.  That end being, of course, the ability of people to pursue and obtain happiness, which is really the only thing that matters in life in the end.  If a particular freedom is actively impeding that end, then I would say that it is not a good freedom.

Everyone supports restriction of freedoms in some way.  You wouldn't be able to support the incarceration of criminals if you didn't, since that is obviously impeding their freedom.
So it is about the Persuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness than freedom or "freedom".
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.048 seconds with 14 queries.