America's aversion to socialism ?

[mheslep]

...From my perspective, the government is like a non-profit organization that can look beyond personal gain and make decisions aimed at improving the society as a whole, whereas corporations need to make a profit, and would thus not care too much about how it affects people as long as they can get away with it (why private health insurance sounds bad)...

Two points. 1) If one is going to fairly assign self interest motives to profit making businesses, then you must also assign the desire to get elected to politicians, and the desire to keep a job without competition for life and obtain large pensions to bureaucrats. 2) It is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fatal_Conceit" to assume anyone or anyone group has the ability to plan for a society, rather than accepting that societies evolve, so that even if the politicians and bureaucrats had only selfless motives (they do not), they'll still end up causing trouble with grand centrally planned schemes.

 

[DoggerDan]

There was no try, you under appreciated the vast cultural differences between countries in Europe.

You misunderstood my point. By "close" I thought he was trying to say they're similar, whereas I was saying in my response they may be close geographically, but geographic closeness does not translate into ideological closeness.

We are in agreement that things vary greatly from one country to the next.

 

[russ_watters]

The phrase was 'hiring decisions' in which pay is certainly one factor. The minimum wage for instance means that for many entry level people and youth with no skills that the hiring decision is "no I'm not hiring", especially in down times like the present.

Though the wording of that phrase may have been a little broad, you missed the context of my post: I was specifically referring to racism. I mostly agree about minimum wage laws: Rights issue aside, I think particularly during times of high unemployment, they do more harm than good. And I don't think there really is a good rights justification for them.

Not who down to the individual, but certainly 'who' at the ethnic group level. If we loosely say the society consists of larger ethnic group A and smaller one B, US law requires employers to higher from B.

That's still an overstatement when referring to quota-based Affirmative Action, but regardless, that has been struck down as unconstitutional. So it's a non-sequitur.

On the part of the employees what fundamental right is infringed?

One of the most fundamental rights and arguably the main reason the US was founded, considering that it makes up the main summary of the complaint in the Declaration of Independence: Equal rights, protected under the law. AKA "equal protection". Now unfortunately, there was some self-contradiction built into the Constitution due to the racism built-in to it, but nevertheless the principle was intended to be there - and was clarified and strengthened after the Civil War.

Employers routinely discriminate, with a small 'd', i.e. the power to distinguish, on all kinds of issues not specifically related to the job requirements: candidate is too arrogant, lacks self confidence, too intro/extro-verted for the existing group, worked for that-Company-with-the-culture-we-deplore, etc.

That you already cited two types of discrimination with a small and large "d" implies you know the answer to your question, which makes it odd that you asked the question, but regardless:

[d]iscrimination on the basis of things that affect job performance is a Constitutionally protected right of both the employers and employees. That's simply the other side of the equal protection coin.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, it's a good point. You do have to trust the government, and maybe that's one of the key issues in the US for not liking social ideas.

From the discussions here, it seems to me that people in the US would rather trust people with money than the government.

No, that's not it at all. There are two parts to the other side:

1. Capitalism is about economic freedom, so we want employees and businesses large and small to have freedom to make their own decisions. Whether those decisions are in the best interest of the country or not is irrelevant. We believe that freedom is a right (that's kinda a tautology) for moral reasons.

1a. Naturally, when given freedom, people and companies will act in their best interest, whatever the particular interest is that is most important to them at the time.

2. We believe that freedom ultimately is good for society, even if specific decisions people make may not be. It helped grow the US economy into the largest economy in the world in a hundred years, right?

From my perspective, the government is like a non-profit organization that can look beyond personal gain and make decisions aimed at improving the society as a whole...

It is my perception that the only thing motivating most politicians is personal gain. What's good for society barely pings on their radar.

I would rather distribute more power to the government, which of course means that the government needs to get and distribute more money, a.k.a. more taxes and better social security/senior citizen payments.

Ok. That's fine for you. I disagree -- which is of course, what the title of the thread is asking.

 

[skeptic2]

No, that's not it at all. There are two parts to the other side:

1. Capitalism is about economic freedom, so we want employees and businesses large and small to have freedom to make their own decisions. Whether those decisions are in the best interest of the country or not is irrelevant. We believe that freedom is a right (that's kinda a tautology) for moral reasons.

I don't think the bolded part is true. I think we don't mind employees and businesses having freedom insofar as their freedom does not infringe on the freedom of others nor hurt the welfare of the United States.

1a. Naturally, when given freedom, people and companies will act in their best interest, whatever the particular interest is that is most important to them at the time.

2. We believe that freedom ultimately is good for society, even if specific decisions people make may not be. It helped grow the US economy into the largest economy in the world in a hundred years, right?

#2. does not follow from #1a. The US did have a free market until about the 1890s when flaws in the free market philosophy started to become apparent and numerous laws to limit the freedom of businesses were passed in order to prevent them from taking unfair advantage of consumers and workers.

 

[WhoWee]

This is what happens - IMO - when generosity is confused with weakness and when a vote is cast due to name recognition or straight Party choices.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ll-unemployed-americans-for/?intcmp=obnetwork

"Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. has offered his own $804 billion jobs plan that calls on the federal government to hire the nation’s 15 million unemployed Americans for jobs paying roughly $40,000 each, and bail out all the states and cities facing budget crises."

To put this $40K number into perspective:
http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm

"Per Capita Personal Income by State, 1990 to 2010"

 

[MarcoD]

No, that's not it at all. There are two parts to the other side:

Okay.

1. Capitalism is about economic freedom, so we want employees and businesses large and small to have freedom to make their own decisions. Whether those decisions are in the best interest of the country or not is irrelevant. We believe that freedom is a right (that's kinda a tautology) for moral reasons.

Capitalism is about private ownership. The whole, 'Capitalism is about Freedom' is a popularized populist notion of Friedman of his book 'Capitalism and Freedom' countering the communist 'agenda' that private property takes away individual rights.

It's an extremist reaction against another extremist.

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. -- Joplin

1a. Naturally, when given freedom, people and companies will act in their best interest, whatever the particular interest is that is most important to them at the time.

'Economic freedom,' not freedom. The whole OWS movement at the moment is about that democratic 'freedom' can be bought in a neoliberal capitalist society.

2. We believe that freedom ultimately is good for society, even if specific decisions people make may not be. It helped grow the US economy into the largest economy in the world in a hundred years, right?

You believe. And it is a position which the US will lose again, history progresses.

It is my perception that the only thing motivating most politicians is personal gain. What's good for society barely pings on their radar. Ok. That's fine for you. I disagree -- which is of course, what the title of the thread is asking.

Personal gain is the definition of a neoliberal capitalist system. By that definition, a politician who acts only for personal gain is a given, and something to be heralded.

It doesn't make sense to discuss freedom in the context of capitalism, I've said that before, they're orthogonal notions.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think the bolded part is true. I think we don't mind employees and businesses having freedom insofar as their freedom does not infringe on the freedom of others nor hurt the welfare of the United States.


#2. does not follow from #1a. The US did have a free market until about the 1890s when flaws in the free market philosophy started to become apparent and numerous laws to limit the freedom of businesses were passed in order to prevent them from taking unfair advantage of consumers and workers.

Skeptic, it is true, both as a matter of belief (as in: that is, in fact, what I and other capitalists believe) and legally (as in: that's how the American system was set up and works). Ask yourself why individuals are given freedom to act as they choose and then extend that to businesses: why wouldn't businesses be given similar freedoms? Why would it be morally acceptable to allow individuals to act against the best interests of the country and not allow businesses to? And why does a business acting within certain rights (such as in a big issue today: deciding to pocket their profits or give them to CEOs as bonuses rather than use them to hire more workers) necessarily infringe on the rights of others? (unless we're again going to play word-games and broaden the word "rights" beyond its original meaning).

Regarding "the welfare of the United States". That's a responsibility of the government, not a responsibility of the citizens. Don't misunderstand that part of the Constitution to mean that the government has unlimited power to force you to do what it thinks is in the best interest of the country. It doesn't.

...and up until the 1890s is that first 100 years I was referring to. Flaws or not, our economy advanced faster than other economies when it was freer. Also don't misconstrue my argument to imply I don't believe in worker and consumer protection laws. I do. The logic there should be obvious: if someone is "abusing" you, they are violating your rights. Making workers work in a building without ventilation or fire protection? That's abuse. Hoarding profits? Not abuse. Our restrictions on business have gotten pretty broad, but at least in theory they are supposed to be based on that type of justification. 'It would be better for the country if you did this...' is not an acceptable justification for any restriction of rights.

 

[russ_watters]

MarcoD, "capitalism is about freedom" is not just a belief, it is a historical fact of the founding and at the very least the first half of American history. Don't confuse ideology and reality. It would have been impossible for Friedman to popularize something that predated him.

Beyond that, the logical flaw in your position could not be clearer: the OWS protestors are upset partly because money = power. Money = power because of freedom. OWS protestors want to decrease the power by siezing the money. Government siezing the money reduces the control, power and freedom of those who currently have it.

 

[MarcoD]

MarcoD, "capitalism is about freedom" is not just a belief, it is a historical fact of the founding and at the very least the first half of American history. Don't confuse ideology and reality. It would have been impossible for Friedman to popularize something that predated him.

Well, you asked for working with definitions. On the Wikipedia page, there's nothing about freedom in relation to capitalism. There only is the populist book by Friedman. It's a fairytale.

 

[WhoWee]

MarcoD, "capitalism is about freedom" is not just a belief, it is a historical fact of the founding and at the very least the first half of American history. Don't confuse ideology and reality. It would have been impossible for Friedman to popularize something that predated him.

Beyond that, the logical flaw in your position could not be clearer: the OWS protestors are upset partly because money = power. Money = power because of freedom. OWS protestors want to decrease the power by siezing the money. Government siezing the money reduces the control, power and freedom of those who currently have it.

I'd like to know WHO the people in favor of socialism TRUST to make decisions for them - regarding their lives and futures?

 

[Oltz]

Well, you asked for working with definitions. On the Wikipedia page, there's nothing about freedom in relation to capitalism. There only is the populist book by Friedman. It's a fairytale.

I think the point he is trying to make is that without Freedom its not capitalism.

You need to be free to buy and sell and produce what you like when ou like where you like.

You need to be free to negotiate the price of your goods/service/time/effort.

You need to be free to preform these tasks without fear of theft/attack/sabatoge.

We already have an impure form of capitalism with minimum wage and trade agreements as well as forced union memberships. Then you add in expanded government interference and we end up with cronny capitalism.

IMO we need to return to a more "free market" form of capitalism.

 

[MarcoD]

I think the point he is trying to make is that without freedom it's not capitalism.

You need to be free to buy and sell and produce what you like when you like where you like.

You need to be free to negotiate the price of your goods/service/time/effort.

You need to be free to preform these tasks without fear of theft/attack/sabatoge.

We already have an impure form of capitalism with minimum wage and trade agreements as well as forced union memberships. Then you add in expanded government interference and we end up with cronny capitalism.

IMO we need to return to a more "free market" form of capitalism.

Yeah, I get it. You're neoliberals. I personally don't see anything good coming out of that position, that's why I disagree.

[ Anyway, I am going to give up. Just not in the mood to discuss fairytales. Everything you stated can only be done by a government holding the guns and enforcing the rules of 'free' trade. What freedom? It's BS. ]

 

[skeptic2]

Why would it be morally acceptable to allow individuals to act against the best interests of the country and not allow businesses to?

I'm having a little difficulty with your term "morally acceptable" which implies adherence to a standard of conduct which is not evident. Are you referring to the Federal Statutes, the Bible or what? To whom must the act be morally acceptable? What may be moral to some citizens may not be to others. For instance, the act of donating money to a terrorist cause may be morally acceptable to the person doing it. Can you cite an example of an action, against the best interests of the US, which if performed by an individual would be "morally acceptable" but which would not be allowed for businesses?

And why does a business acting within certain rights (such as in a big issue today: deciding to pocket their profits or give them to CEOs as bonuses rather than use them to hire more workers) necessarily infringe on the rights of others? (unless we're again going to play word-games and broaden the word "rights" beyond its original meaning).

Regarding "the welfare of the United States". That's a responsibility of the government, not a responsibility of the citizens. Don't misunderstand that part of the Constitution to mean that the government has unlimited power to force you to do what it thinks is in the best interest of the country. It doesn't.

I think possibly you have pigeon holed me and assumed that I believe the same things as others you have put in the same pigeon hole, because I have not made statements contrary to the above.

...and up until the 1890s is that first 100 years I was referring to. Flaws or not, our economy advanced faster than other economies when it was freer. Also don't misconstrue my argument to imply I don't believe in worker and consumer protection laws. I do. The logic there should be obvious: if someone is "abusing" you, they are violating your rights. Making workers work in a building without ventilation or fire protection? That's abuse. Hoarding profits? Not abuse. Our restrictions on business have gotten pretty broad, but at least in theory they are supposed to be based on that type of justification. 'It would be better for the country if you did this...' is not an acceptable justification for any restriction of rights.

Then how do you explain the at least equally rapid expansion of the Chinese economy without the freedoms to which you attribute to the success of the United States? I'm not sure what you mean "rights" nor by "original meaning". Certainly "rights" do not have the same meaning in China as they do here.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, you asked for working with definitions. On the Wikipedia page, there's nothing about freedom in relation to capitalism. There only is the populist book by Friedman. It's a fairytale.

Huh? What wiki page are you looking at?! It is all over the page for "capitalism", including a redirect from the page for "free enterprise"!, with historical context back to the 1600s! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

 

[MarcoD]

Huh? What wiki page are you looking at?! It is all over the page for "capitalism", including a redirect from the page for "free enterprise"!, with historical context back to the 1600s! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Free doesn't mean personal freedom of the individual, and I know the Dutch invented, or are the first reference for, the term capitalist. Heck, we even invented the first stock market.

If you look for all references for 'freedom' on that page, you end up with the populist book of Friedman, "Capitalism and Freedom," University of Chicago Press, 1962. What the heck do you think the guy was advocating against in 1962? Personally, I find neoliberalism as outdated as communism. Communism crashed in the previous century, neoliberalism crashed in 2008.

 

[WhoWee]

Free doesn't mean personal freedom of the individual, and I know the Dutch invented, or are the first reference for, the term capitalist. Heck, we even invented the first stock market.

If you look for all references for 'freedom' on that page, you end up with the populist book of Friedman, "Capitalism and Freedom," University of Chicago Press, 1962. What the heck do you think the guy was advocating against in 1962? Personally, I find neoliberalism as outdated as communism. Communism crashed in the previous century, neoliberalism crashed in 2008.

Strictly speaking in reference to the US and given the definition of neoliberalism requires that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - unless the description of the point where "poverty" begins is increased (as it has been manipulated to a point where a family of 4 earning $22K is considered poor) the poor are not getting poorer in the US - are they?

 

[MarcoD]

Strictly speaking in reference to the US and given the definition of neoliberalism requires that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - unless the description of the point where "poverty" begins is increased (as it has been manipulated to a point where a family of 4 earning $22K is considered poor) the poor are not getting poorer in the US - are they?

That depends if you add the nation's debt to their belongings, and if you consider non-economic liberties, opportunities, or motives. But I don't live in the US, that's up to you. I only comment on neoliberalism.

 

[russ_watters]

Free doesn't mean personal freedom of the individual...

You need to start explaining such statements and justifying them. It seems like you are making this up as you go along and saying things that are clearly false.

If you look for all references for 'freedom' on that page, you end up with the populist book of Friedman, "Capitalism and Freedom,"….

That just plain isn't true. The wiki includes discussion of and a link to a whole page on "laissez-faire", which basically means free from government intervention. This was applied at the founding of the US.

 

[MarcoD]

You need to start explaining such statements and justifying them. It seems like you are making this up as you go along and saying things that are clearly false. That just plain isn't true. The wiki includes discussion of and a link to a whole page on "laissez-faire", which basically means free from government intervention. This was applied at the founding of the US.

Well, you claimed capitalism is about freedom. It isn't, and that wikipedia page clearly shows it. Who's making things up? "Laissez-faire" is just one of the few models mentioned, therefor your statement "Capitalism is about freedom" was false from the point you wrote it down.

 

[WhoWee]

That depends if you add the nation's debt to their belongings, and if you consider non-economic liberties, opportunities, or motives. But I don't live in the US, that's up to you. I only comment on neoliberalism.

The "poor" people in the US benefit directly from US debt - $.40 of each $1.00 Dollar spent is borrowed - I'm not certain that national debt is a concern to the poor?

 

[mheslep]

Though the wording of that phrase may have been a little broad, you missed the context of my post: I was specifically referring to racism.

Yes that was clear; I was overly argumentative.

One of the most fundamental rights and arguably the main reason the US was founded, considering that it makes up the main summary of the complaint in the Declaration of Independence: Equal rights, protected under the law. AKA "equal protection". Now unfortunately, there was some self-contradiction built into the Constitution due to the racism built-in to it, but nevertheless the principle was intended to be there - and was clarified and strengthened after the Civil War.

Ok you are referring to the 14th amendment's "equal protection" law which requires that government, including the state governments, must treat all equally before the law. I think equal application of the law is just and necessary in a free society; I agree such treatment in application of the law is a right. However, it is a misconception that this applies to how citizens or employers must, by right, treat other citizens. I deny individuals have a right, enforced by government, to have all other individuals (and employers) treat them equally. I quickly add i) that I believe people have a moral obligation to treat others equitably, and ii) that I recognize nonetheless that there is substantial federal law in place that attempts to force the issue on matters of race, gender, sexual preference, disability; with another category added every ten years or so it seems.

...[d]iscrimination on the basis of things that affect job performance is a Constitutionally protected right of both the employers and employees. That's simply the other side of the equal protection coin.

The rules for non-government employers* came not from the US Constitution but from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII", sexual preference, and so on. Such federal laws would not have been permissible under the constitution before the New Deal era SCOTUS decisions expanded the federal government's power.

*Government employers (public schools, etc) are subject to the equal protection clause as demonstrated by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education" , etc.

 

[MarcoD]

The "poor" people in the US benefit directly from US debt - $.40 of each $1.00 Dollar spent is borrowed - I'm not certain that national debt is a concern to the poor?

Well, it probably will [be a concern to the "poor"] by the time (which already kind-of happened) the US runs out of money to subsidize the economy - or welfare.

(Anyway, let's get back on topic.)

 

[WhoWee]

Well, it probably will [be a concern to the "poor"] by the time (which already kind-of happened) the US runs out of money to subsidize the economy - or welfare.

(Anyway, let's get back on topic.)

Actually, it is on topic - the discussion in the US is how to pay for Government spending - there are limits.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok you are referring to the 14th amendment's "equal protection" law which requires that government, including the state governments, must treat all equally before the law. I think equal application of the law is just and necessary in a free society; I agree such treatment in application of the law is a right. However, it is a misconception that this applies to how citizens or employers must, by right, treat other citizens. I deny individuals have a right, enforced by government, to have all other individuals (and employers) treat them equally. I quickly add i) that I believe people have a moral obligation to treat others equitably, and ii) that I recognize nonetheless that there is substantial federal law in place that attempts to force the issue on matters of race, gender, sexual preference, disability; with another category added every ten years or so it seems.

The rules for non-government employers* came not from the US Constitution but from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII", sexual preference, and so on. Such federal laws would not have been permissible under the constitution before the New Deal era SCOTUS decisions expanded the federal government's power.

*Government employers (public schools, etc) are subject to the equal protection clause as demonstrated by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education" , etc.

Basically, you're saying that Constitutional protections are about how the government treats the people, not how the people treat each other. A fair point and a big issue. Whether this is historical fact, I'm not clear on, but if it is a historical fact, it is probably borne of the racism and sexism flaws built-in to the Constitution. I've seen arguments that the 14th Amendment is superfluous/redundant since the Constitution was already the "supreme law of the land": State laws could not contradict Constitutional protections without creating an internal inconsistency (also called "incorporation").

But the same inconsistency applies to people. Does "shall not be infringed" just mean "shall not be infringed by the government" or does it mean "shall not be infringed by anyone"? I think the answer is simple: if the government were not able to protect the individual rights of one person against infringement by another, then there would be no basis for the existence of a criminal or civil justice system.

That's, imo, a clear case for the logical necessity of incorporation, but I'm not completely clear on the historical path that led to the present-day reality of it.

This also means that logically, the Civil rights act must either be superfluous or unconstitutional:

-If the 10th Amendment saying that other rights are reserved for the people really also means that the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are only to/from the federal government, then the Civil Rights act must be unconstitutional, since it is extending those rights beyond what the Constitution allows.

-If it was already intended by the Constitution that the rights apply downhill, then the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act must be superfluous.

I'm not entirely clear on the history, though...

 

[mheslep]

...
But the same inconsistency applies to people. Does "shall not be infringed" just mean "shall not be infringed by the government" or does it mean "shall not be infringed by anyone"? I think the answer is simple: if the government were not able to protect the individual rights of one person against infringement by another, then there would be no basis for the existence of a criminal or civil justice system.

The amendments and most of the constitution are clearly about what the federal government may not do. At the founding there were only a handful of federal crimes like treason and counterfeiting. Crimes against individuals and civil remedies for them were matters for the states. Several states even had their own official state religions about which the first amendment ("Congress shall pass no law...") had nothing to say.

That's, imo, a clear case for the logical necessity of incorporation, but I'm not completely clear on the historical path that led to the present-day reality of it.

This also means that logically, the Civil rights act must either be superfluous or unconstitutional:

-If the 10th Amendment saying that other rights are reserved for the people really also means that the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are only to/from the federal government, then the Civil Rights act must be unconstitutional, since it is extending those rights beyond what the Constitution allows.

-If it was already intended by the Constitution that the rights apply downhill, then the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act must be superfluous.
I'm not entirely clear on the history, though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_II" case which allowed government regulation of individuals through the interstate commerce clause (Filburn was ordered to burn his crops and pay a fine). As far as I can tell, every modern intervention by the federal government in business or in the lives of individual Americans comes through the same path - that 1942 interpretation of the commerce clause.

 

[DoggerDan]

But the same inconsistency applies to people. Does "shall not be infringed" just mean "shall not be infringed by the government" or does it mean...

It does say "Congress shall make no law," so I'm not sure how that could be misconstrued as to apply to the people.

 

[Zarqon]

No, that's not it at all. There are two parts to the other side:

1. Capitalism is about economic freedom, so we want employees and businesses large and small to have freedom to make their own decisions. Whether those decisions are in the best interest of the country or not is irrelevant. We believe that freedom is a right (that's kinda a tautology) for moral reasons.

1a. Naturally, when given freedom, people and companies will act in their best interest, whatever the particular interest is that is most important to them at the time.

2. We believe that freedom ultimately is good for society, even if specific decisions people make may not be. It helped grow the US economy into the largest economy in the world in a hundred years, right?

The US is indeed the largest economy, but there are other measures of success for a country. If democracy is any indicator, then all the nordic countries are significantly ahead of the US (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index" ). Which is more important, having more money or more democracy?

In addition to this, I think the fact that the US is the largest economy in the world, and still can't afford to keep good social security/health care/retirement funds for everyone, is a sign of that wealth being sub-optimally distributed. The rich simply has too much of it. I'm not saying that you should cut away all the money from the rich or that you should remove all financial incentives to be rich, but SOME re-distribution does appear to be needed, and this can be accomplished for example, by taxing the rich more.

It is my perception that the only thing motivating most politicians is personal gain. What's good for society barely pings on their radar. Ok. That's fine for you. I disagree -- which is of course, what the title of the thread is asking.

Yeah, I guess a major problem in these type of discussions is that it's simply very hard to convey these ideas to someone who's grown up with different experiences. When I look at the typical politicians in the US I indeed see many people who are in it for the personal gain only, but having grown up in a different country (sweden) I can simply say that I believe many of the top politicians there feel the responsibility part of the job much stronger than the personal gain part. With this experience in my mind, I feel confident in saying that a country can be made more socialistic than the US is today and and be better off for it. Even considered more free by my standards.

 

[apeiron]

If democracy is any indicator, then all the nordic countries are significantly ahead of the US (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index" ).

That's an interesting ranking by the Economist.

Looking at the full study for the explanation - http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf - it seems the US scores actually bottom among the 26 "full democracies" for civil liberties!

It is also brought down by its "functioning of government" rating.

France and Italy have managed to drop down into the "flawed democracies" category, mostly because of Sarkozy and Berlusconi perhaps.

Norway gets an extraordinary 10 for political participation, well ahead of anyone else.

 

[DoggerDan]

That's an interesting ranking by the Economist.

Looking at the full study for the explanation - http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf - it seems the US scores actually bottom among the 26 "full democracies" for civil liberties!

Without a clear, well-explained description of all the criteria, this claim as it exists here on PF is meaningless.

 

[russ_watters]

The amendments and most of the constitution are clearly about what the federal government may not do. At the founding there were only a handful of federal crimes like treason and counterfeiting. Crimes against individuals and civil remedies for them were matters for the states. Several states even had their own official state religions about which the first amendment ("Congress shall pass no law...") had nothing to say.

You've ignored some of the contradictions I mentioned and added new ones: If every article in the Bill of rights was only about Federal protection, why would it be necessary to state it and why the inconsistency of only stating it for some rights and not others? For the establishment clause, it seems clearly to be talking about the federal level -- but that makes sense, since many states were founded by religious groups escaping Europe (I live in the Quaker State).

But by the same token, if some rights are intended only to exist at the federal level, why doesn't it say so?

And for the 10th Amendment, if no protections are extended to the state level or reserved for the people, why is this amendment even there? The Bill of Rights can't reserve rights for the people if the states can violate any rights.

And lastly, while it isn't part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights talks about inalienable rights: if the Constitution doesn't mandate their protection at all levels, then they aren't inalienable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_II" case which allowed government regulation of individuals through the interstate commerce clause (Filburn was ordered to burn his crops and pay a fine). As far as I can tell, every modern intervention by the federal government in business or in the lives of individual Americans comes through the same path - that 1942 interpretation of the commerce clause.

Seems cumbersome to me. If that was the court's attempt to get around an unclear or difficult to utilize aspect of the Constitution, I would have preferred they recommend an amendment. I'll need to read up on this some more though.

 

[russ_watters]

The US is indeed the largest economy, but there are other measures of success for a country. If democracy is any indicator, then all the nordic countries are significantly ahead of the US (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index" ). Which is more important, having more money or more democracy?

Note, I was explicitly referring to the turn of the 20th century. A lot has changed since then, including that the US has become substantially less free due to, among other things, the rise of socialistic policies.

But as far as how it compares to other countries - I echo, DD: we need to know the criteria. Clearly, different people are using different definitions for the words. Ie, if the writer of the study doesn't recognize "economic freedom" as a logical and grammatical subset of "freedom", as we saw with a poster above, then it might not be included in the poll. If the writers of the poll consider government handouts to be rights, the US would also tend to score low.

In addition to this, I think the fact that the US is the largest economy in the world, and still can't afford to keep good social security/health care/retirement funds for everyone, is a sign of that wealth being sub-optimally distributed. The rich simply has too much of it. I'm not saying that you should cut away all the money from the rich or that you should remove all financial incentives to be rich, but SOME re-distribution does appear to be needed, and this can be accomplished for example, by taxing the rich more.

That's chock-full of mis-characterizations:

-We can afford it. We choose not to do it.
-"Sub-optimally distributed" and "the rich simply have too much of it" is a matter of opinion.
-"Some re-distribution does appear to be needed" - well "some" certainly exists. Heck, depending on one's preferred characterization of Social security, it could be said that the US government's primary economic function is wealth redistribution!

 

[russ_watters]

Without a clear, well-explained description of all the criteria, this claim as it exists here on PF is meaningless.

Actually, it's not hard to come up with a scoring system that measures the US to be less free than Europe, using the twisted, socialistic definition of rights popular here (and apparently a lot of places):

1. Start with the original/traditional definition of rights, as codified in the Bill of Rights (things the government can't take from you) and apply it as intended.
2. Take the original/traditional definition of rights, invert it (things the government must give you) and apply it to those social issues that make for improved quality of life.
2a. In case of conflict, such as where something like healthcare involves passive redistribution of wealth, #2 supercedes #1.

I haven't gone through the poll yet to confirm, but I've seen similar things before.

 

[mheslep]

That's an interesting ranking by the Economist.

Looking at the full study for the explanation - http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf - it seems the US scores actually bottom among the 26 "full democracies" for civil liberties!

It is also brought down by its "functioning of government" rating.

France and Italy have managed to drop down into the "flawed democracies" category, mostly because of Sarkozy and Berlusconi perhaps.

Norway gets an extraordinary 10 for political participation, well ahead of anyone else.

Representative democracy has trouble in scaling, as one would expect. So if you want a meaningful comparison, then compare like to like, the US's federal government to the EU government in Brussels. Otherwise compare Norway's homogeneous five million to a US state of similar size. My state would easily max the categories chosen by the Economist.

 

[apeiron]

Actually, it's not hard to come up with a scoring system that measures the US to be less free than Europe, using the twisted, socialistic definition of rights popular here (and apparently a lot of places):

The US's bottom place on civil liberties is based on these questions. Which are the ones that are the "twisted, socialistic definition of rights" and so you would believe it right that the US should score low?

Civil liberties
44. Is there a free electronic media?
45. Is there a free print media?
46. Is there freedom of expression and protest (bar only generally accepted restrictions such as banning advocacy of violence)?
47. Is media coverage robust? Is there open and free discussion of public issues, with a reasonable diversity of opinions?
48. Are there political restrictions on access to the Internet?
49. Are citizens free to form professional organisations and trade unions?
50. Do institutions provide citizens with the opportunity to successfully petition government to redress grievances?
51. The use of torture by the state
52. The degree to which the judiciary is independent of government influence - Consider the views of international legal and judicial watchdogs. Have the courts ever issued an important judgement against the government, or a senior government official?
53. The degree of religious tolerance and freedom of religious expression. Are all religions permitted to operate freely, or are some restricted? Is the right to worship permitted both publicly and privately? Do some religious groups feel intimidated by others, even if the law requires equality and protection?
54. The degree to which citizens are treated equally under the law - Consider whether favoured members of groups are spared prosecution under the law.
55. Do citizens enjoy basic security?
56. Extent to which private property rights protected and private business is free from undue government influence
57. Extent to which citizens enjoy personal freedoms - Consider gender equality, right to travel, choice of work and study.
58. Popular perceptions on human rights protection; proportion of the population that think that basic human rights are well-protected.
59. There is no significant discrimination on the basis of people’s race, colour or creed.
60. Extent to which the government invokes new risks and threats as an excuse for curbing civil liberties