America - The Land of the Free?

[ComradeJunichi]

How free is the "land of the free"? What do you think, is it so free and good for the people?

[concerned]

There is no country with greater freedom than America.

[Sherief]

If we make freedom a relative term, then I suppose that you could say America is the 'land of the free', or the 'land of the increasingly less free'. As far as absolutes go, I would say that there is a good bit of freedom in America, but it could be greater (except in respect to firearms (too many gun-toting rednecks). Being good for the people is a different issue entirely though, and i think one with alot more ambiguity surrounding it. If you happen to be a millionaire, I'm sure America is better than good to you.

[komsomol]

Quote: from concerned on 12:38 am on Aug. 14, 2002
There is no country with greater freedom than America.



What? There are many with just the same or greater freedom. Holland is particullarilly Liberal. The United States of America is only one of many lands of free enterprise.

[Nateddi]

"freedom" is a dogma

[concerned]

Quote: from MOLOCH on 12:51 am on Aug. 14, 2002

Quote: from concerned on 12:38 am on Aug. 14, 2002
There is no country with greater freedom than America.



What? There are many with just the same or greater freedom. Holland is particullarilly Liberal. The United States of America is only one of many lands of free enterprise.


Liberalism is not a synonym for freedom. In Holland it might be easier to get illegal drugs but that doesn't mean the country is more free.

Holland has particullary high taxes. That is money taken away from hard working people to use it for welfare, etc.. i.e. people who have not worked for it.

In that sense the US is much more free because taxes are comparatevely lower, people can stay with a bigger portion of their own produced money, and decide freely what they want to do with it. Now if they decide that they want to give it to charities or welfare programs, they are free to do so, but it is THEIR choice. No big government is there taking away most of your earnings and deciding for you where your money should be spent.



(Edited by concerned at 1:11 am on Aug. 14, 2002)

[ID2002]

"freedom"...in the US?

BULLSHIT!

"freedom" is the lack of control, or anarchy. Sure you might have a few freedoms in the US, but you are far from "free people".

This is how all countries work. Governments need to have some sort of control over the masses.

[Hattori Hanzo]

well, its sometimes the land of the "free", but often the government requires us to give up freedoms, even first amendment rights. i do it every day

also, we are often only as free as we choose to be. if we succumb to the government, like many or even most americans do, then it becomes the land of the enslaved

[Hattori Hanzo]

Cheers, Junichi

[Michael De Panama]

The most free country in the world. At the expense of the rest of the world, of course, which is something to be ashamed of, not proud of.

[ComradeJunichi]

I like the way Michael de Panama put it, best.

Cheers Hanzo!

[Guest]

"The most free country in the world. At the expense of the rest of the world, of course, which is something to be ashamed of, not proud of."

at the expense of the rest of the world?? Isn't that a huge exageration? How is the rest of the world keeping us the most free country?

[Nateddi]

Guest, agreed.

We are not the most free country in the world as a result, we are the largest economy as a result.

We have this right wing dogma of "freedom" which keeps us so high at the expense of the developing world.

[Michael De Panama]

You misunderstood my post, Guest. I did not mean that America is less free because of the rest of the world. I meant that America is in this much luxory because of the exploitation of others outside.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 1:33 am on Aug. 14, 2002
well, its sometimes the land of the "free", but often the government requires us to give up freedoms, even first amendment rights. i do it every day

also, we are often only as free as we choose to be. if we succumb to the government, like many or even most americans do, then it becomes the land of the enslaved



SLAVERY:

Slav"er*y, n.; pl. Slaveries. [See 2d Slave.] 1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another.

Disguise thyself as thou wilt, still, slavery, said I, still thou art a bitter draught! --Sterne.

I wish, from my soul, that the legislature of this state [Virginia] could see the policy of a gradual abolition of slavery. It might prevent much future mischief. --Washington.

2. A condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom


Can a lefty here advise me of how life in the USA fits into this definition?

Slavery is when one is forced into the indentured servitude of another person or body, without regard to the slave's wishes or wants, usually without compensation beyond necessary physical sustenence

no such condition exists in the united states. This, by definition, is closer to what exists in Cuba or the former Soviet Union.

[Tkinter1]

Guest was me (forgot to log in)

I agree that there are exploiters, there always will be. Most of America isn't in much luxory, more middle working class.

"we are the largest economy as a result."
Our key to success has to be more than 'hey i just make wang chung do all the work and watch as my profits roll in'

Freedom has been misinterpreted by ALOT of people.
i say american freedom is the ability to choose success or failure. No success is NOT becoming the second wealthiest man in the world, but it is becoming the best you can be.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 4:55 am on Aug. 14, 2002)

[Nateddi]

>>I agree that there are exploiters, there always will be. Most of America isn't in much luxory, more middle working class.
Do you support progressive measures to cut down on such exploitation; or would you rather live in your “middle class”, work hard, and vote right-wing for your “freedom”?

>>Our key to success has to be more than 'hey i just make wang chung do all the work and watch as my profits roll in'
Nonetheless, do you support or condone such methods? Lets cut the sound imitations, how do we “grow” the economy in your mysterious “other” ways? Worker self-management?

>>Freedom has been misinterpreted by ALOT of people.
Freedom is a dogma to the right and the left. There is no clear definition of freedom.

>>i say american freedom is the ability to choose success or failure.
I am guessing most of the 30+ million people that live in poverty were brought up as middle class, later chose to be lazy and fell down. Has it never struck you that some people are born in the ranks and therefore cannot choose the conditions of their schools, their homes, their overall quality of life, their neighborhoods, their healthcare, etc?? Do you support equal opportunity?

>>No success is NOT becoming the second wealthiest man in the world, but it is becoming the best you can be.
Is it in your opinion that Dubya "worked hard" to make it to be the president? Is it in your opinion that blacks are savages? Considering an immensely large percentage make up the lower class, would you consider them to be inferior or do you actually believe this has something to do with economics?

(Edited by Nateddi at 6:22 am on Aug. 14, 2002)

[STALINSOLDIERS]

u$a aint a free country corporations runs people money runs people, and if you dont like it you become poor,or just in a bad situation, moloch is right holland is like the freeist country thier is in the world.....fuck the united states of america fuck this country..

[komsomol]

Here concerned, your right Liberalism isn't a synomyn but liberty (http://www.thesaurus.com/cgi-bin/search?config=roget&words=liberty) is dumbass.

As for the freedom of free enterprise, let me tell you that freedom is steadily deminishing. Now I hear you ask, how can this be?

Simple, the factor is inheritence. As property is bought and passed on like fuedal rights to the heirs then they are automatically put in a position of bourgisie, there is no equal oportunity in that, each day that passes under capitalism further decreases the oportunity of free enterprise. As the property is not being refreshed into the hands of the state then there is no opportunity to buy it. It could come back to fuedalism, where there is no scope for the proles who have not been blessed with the priviledges of inheritence to buy property and become bourgisie.


(Edited by MOLOCH at 6:14 pm on Aug. 14, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from MOLOCH on 6:11 pm on Aug. 14, 2002
Here concerned, your right Liberalism isn't a synomyn but liberty (http://www.thesaurus.com/cgi-bin/search?config=roget&words=liberty) is dumbass.

As for the freedom of free enterprise, let me tell you that freedom is steadily deminishing. Now I hear you ask, how can this be?

Simple, the factor is inheritence. As property is bought and passed on like fuedal rights to the heirs then they are automatically put in a position of bourgisie, there is no equal oportunity in that, each day that passes under capitalism further decreases the oportunity of free enterprise. As the property is not being refreshed into the hands of the state then there is no opportunity to buy it. It could come back to fuedalism, where there is no scope for the proles who have not been blessed with the priviledges of inheritence to buy property and become bourgisie.


(Edited by MOLOCH at 6:14 pm on Aug. 14, 2002)


"Here concerned, your right Liberalism isn't a synomyn but liberty (http://www.thesaurus.com/cgi-bin/search?config=roget&words=liberty) is dumbass."

What is the point? you didn't use the word liberty, and if you did, you would still be wrong.

"As for the freedom of free enterprise, let me tell you that freedom is steadily deminishing. Now I hear you ask, how can this be?"

Yes, how can this be?

"Simple, the factor is inheritence. As property is bought and passed on like fuedal rights to the heirs then they are automatically put in a position of bourgisie"

Hardly.

First of all, the government does take a lot of assets and $$$ back in estate taxes, 2nd, these properties that are passed on are often sold to others, they are not always kept. They are often liqudated. Thirdly, and most importantly, your theory only works in the case that all current housing is limited, but this is hardly the case. New home developments are constantly being built and offered to first time home buyers. So, said buyers are not forced out of land ownership. Besides, just because someone works hard to buy real estate and chooses to pass it on tho their children, that does not equate with feudalism.

, "there is no equal oportunity in that, each day that passes under capitalism further decreases the oportunity of free enterprise."

to the contrary, each day that passes sees a greater population and therefore a greater market, and new ideas and innovations, thus a greater opportunity for free enterprise. This is just common sense. If free enterprise diminished with time, then the USA could not have grown into the greatest economy in world history.

"As the property is not being refreshed into the hands of the state then there is no opportunity to buy it."

???

It is much better and more efficient for property to be refreshed between private parties compared to always having to be filtered through the bureacracy of the state

"It could come back to fuedalism, where there is no scope for the proles who have not been blessed with the priviledges of inheritence to buy property and become bourgisie."

history shows us otherwise. Homeownership in the US is not that difficult, and there are programs specifically tailored to 1st-time and low--income buyers, and again, new property develops daily, so there is not a limited supply of existing housing (save,of course, for the eventual depletion of developable physical land, a far off scenario, and even then it is a general population problem, not a capitalism problem)




(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 12:01 am on Aug. 15, 2002)

[new democracy]

god damet panama!!! i want to say that!!!!!!

[Tkinter1]

"Do you support progressive measures to cut down on such exploitation; or would you rather live in your “middle class”, work hard, and vote right-wing for your “freedom”?"

absolutely. Theres not much i can do at 15 though. I never have nor will i ever condone the exploitation of people. If they however, understand and accept the jobs that some people may call exploitation i say to each their own.

"I am guessing most of the 30+ million people that live in poverty were brought up as middle class, later chose to be lazy and fell down. ,Has it never struck you that some people are born in the ranks and therefore cannot choose the conditions of their schools their homes, their overall quality of life, their neighborhoods, their healthcare, etc?? Do you support equal opportunity?"

I do whole heartly support equal oppurtunity. There is no denying that the poor have been and continue to be oppressed. But that should be reformed over time, as it slowly is. I don't think we have given the system enough time to progress to a more equal, less corrupt one. People should have the oppurtinuty to become the best they can be, and i do believe they should not be held back based on backgrounds. Its not a one week event to fix the problem, but it still shouldn't be looked over.

"Freedom is a dogma to the right and the left. There is no clear definition of freedom"

I never said there was. i should have clarified that I ment American freedom has, in my opinion been misinterpreted by alot of people. My opinion on American freedom is based on what i think it is and not on a defintion.

The US has come along way in such a short period of time. Don't say it hasn't gotten any better. Can't we just stick to one system and reform and tweak it to the most ideal and fair form? Instead of just switching to some other unproperly tested system. (I dont know if thats what your suggesting.)


(Edited by Tkinter1 at 3:56 am on Aug. 15, 2002)

[Tkinter1]

"u$a aint a free country corporations runs people money runs people, and if you dont like it you become poor,or just in a bad situation, moloch is right holland is like the freeist country thier is in the world.....fuck the united states of america fuck this country.."

Very enlightening and profound stalinssoldier. Crawl into a pit and die somewhere becuase you are affecting progression


(Edited by Tkinter1 at 3:18 am on Aug. 15, 2002)

[vox]

Nateddi,

What you've written has confused me a bit. On the one hand you say freedom is a dogma, but then you say that there is no set definition of freedom. I'm not sure I understand how you can have it both ways.

Also, we can narrow it down. I don't think it's a stretch to say that when US citizens speak of freedom they generally mean freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, freedom to practice religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, you know, that whole bill of rights thing. Are you opposed to these rights or, in the context of this thread, freedoms?

vox


(Edited by vox at 8:06 pm on Aug. 14, 2002)

[STALINSOLDIERS]

i just dont feel like talking that much anymore this isnt fun any more like when i first got here...

[Hattori Hanzo]

"
Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 1:33 am on Aug. 14, 2002
well, its sometimes the land of the "free", but often the government requires us to give up freedoms, even first amendment rights. i do it every day

also, we are often only as free as we choose to be. if we succumb to the government, like many or even most americans do, then it becomes the land of the enslaved



SLAVERY:

Slav"er*y, n.; pl. Slaveries. [See 2d Slave.] 1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another.

Disguise thyself as thou wilt, still, slavery, said I, still thou art a bitter draught! --Sterne.

I wish, from my soul, that the legislature of this state [Virginia] could see the policy of a gradual abolition of slavery. It might prevent much future mischief. --Washington.

2. A condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom


Can a lefty here advise me of how life in the USA fits into this definition?

Slavery is when one is forced into the indentured servitude of another person or body, without regard to the slave's wishes or wants, usually without compensation beyond necessary physical sustenence"

ok, you are right. these people that i have described are not being held against their will, rather they are being held and controlled without an independent will. the will of the government is their will.

"no such condition exists in the united states. This, by definition, is closer to what exists in Cuba or the former Soviet Union."

oh, please, most of the US's allies are closer to slavery that Cuba, and insulting the USSR does not offend me, CI

[komsomol]

Let me start with saying, that this of course was a theory.



"Here concerned, your right Liberalism isn't a synomyn but liberty (http://www.thesaurus.com/cgi-bin/search?config=roget&words=liberty) is dumbass."

What is the point? you didn't use the word liberty, and if you did, you would still be wrong.

I didn't say Liberalism either.Ok, maybe you are right, I am sure sick and tired of bullshit words being thrown about, may I ask of you though a clear definition backed up with official sources?


"As for the freedom of free enterprise, let me tell you that freedom is steadily deminishing. Now I hear you ask, how can this be?"

Yes, how can this be?

"Simple, the factor is inheritence. As property is bought and passed on like fuedal rights to the heirs then they are automatically put in a position of bourgisie"

Hardly.

First of all, the government does take a lot of assets and $$$ back in estate taxes

This doesn't alter the fact that they own the property, and will continue to own the property until it is no longer profitable (yes, with the taxes). Or indeed they get a guilty conscience.


, 2nd, these properties that are passed on are often sold to others, they are not always kept. They are often liqudated.

If the means of production is liquidated it is assumed that it has no value, if it has retained a value then it would most likely be at a lower level, most probable a renewable means of production such as having tenants or a farm.



Thirdly, and most importantly, your theory only works in the case that all current housing is limited, but this is hardly the case. New home developments are constantly being built and offered to first time home buyers. So, said buyers are not forced out of land ownership.

House development is limited, it just is far off in the distance. Or is it? Sure we can supply loads of houses but like any organism we have a maximum population in our habitat, there may not be demand.


Besides, just because someone works hard to buy real estate and chooses to pass it on tho their children, that does not equate with feudalism.

It is not so much personal property as having a commodity with use-value. That is a means of production in which the owner of the land is the employer or landowner, and the labour is the workers or tenants, though tenants technically arent labour. I recognize my theory may need a bit more explanation, perhaps I shall try to formulate it and explain it specifically for you. Though I cannot take credit for it, it is Marx' theory.


, "there is no equal oportunity in that, each day that passes under capitalism further decreases the oportunity of free enterprise."

to the contrary, each day that passes sees a greater population and therefore a greater market, and new ideas and innovations, thus a greater opportunity for free enterprise.

The population is increasing in your country, in my country the population is declining and the bougisie is scrambling for foreign property. Your economy is slowing down, that suggests that the rate of population growth is less than the rate at which oportunity is lessening. As for new ideas and innovations, they are limited, and too bad there is a copyright. There is a limit to our technological capabilities. Also, there hasn't been any great advancements in the past few years, sure things are getting faster, more powerfull, but Windows 98 isn't that different from Windows 95, (i know they got XP out which is a bit of a gimmick) and people are predicting when the full capabillities of the silicon chip will have been exhausted.



This is just common sense. If free enterprise diminished with time, then the USA could not have grown into the greatest economy in world history.

Free enterprise will continue to grow, (but it is decellerating) and flatten off until the non-renewable resources have been exhausted and all ideas thought of.


"As the property is not being refreshed into the hands of the state then there is no opportunity to buy it."

???

It is much better and more efficient for property to be refreshed between private parties compared to always having to be filtered through the bureacracy of the state

In going through the state private party A would recieve no inheritence, while it would in your "better" idea, that is the point.


"It could come back to fuedalism, where there is no scope for the proles who have not been blessed with the priviledges of inheritence to buy property and become bourgisie."

history shows us otherwise.

Time changes that.


Homeownership in the US is not that difficult, and there are programs specifically tailored to 1st-time and low--income buyers, and again, new property develops daily, so there is not a limited supply of existing housing (save,of course, for the eventual depletion of developable physical land, a far off scenario, and even then it is a general population problem, not a capitalism problem)

So, an admission that property is not limitless. The buying of a house is not that important however, its the buying of houses to rent, or of land in which to have a means of production.

Lets think of it like this.

A man inherits an oil field from his father. He like most people keeps it.

The man never works a day in his life, he lets his proles bring in the money. The man dies.

His son then inherits the land and his fathers fortune. The son realises the limited resource that oil is and invests into agriculture and housing, as well as a hydro-electric plant.

The family are in possession of the property for generations, as they are renewable sources they are allways recieving money.

Then, suddenly all non-renewable resources are gone. All that is left are the non-renewable resources, and technology has reached its peak.

All proletarians do not have the capability, as any man put in the same position would not have the capability, of buying profitable property off the the bougisie man.

So the only way for capitalism to survive would be for the owners to simply give-up thier property. Now what is the likelyhood of that. Landowners had to be forced to give up thier land in history.

[Anonymous]

Like Einstein said: " i wanted to choose a contry with the most freedom possible, i choosed america, today i regret that choice!" read my latest post abot the 11 September investigations and you will have a litle cle abot american freedom!

[anti machine]

ok cappy-the slavery issue:

Americans are enslaved by their minds. THe American mindset is one of greed and power, the strive to climb the corporate ladder to the top and oppress the lower classes. Who instills this mindset? THe machine. The gov't that knows it will thrive as long as the people think in this fashion. we think we have this great freedom to vote, while the decision has been made before we even cast our ballots. Americans dont give a shit about their fellow man, they trust the cruelest, shadiest gov't in the world with their lives, they carry its flag, and they bow before its president. they have been taught that communism is wrong, they have been brainwashed to believe they have these "freedoms" and "liberty". It is the sickest form of slavery, one they dont even realize exists.