News America's aversion to socialism ?

[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 Personally, I find neoliberalism as outdated as communism.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 Personally, I find neoliberalism as outdated as communism.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

 

[apeiron]

Representative democracy has trouble in scaling, as one would expect.

Why should we expect that?

Arguably, the US has more cash and more critical mass to get things right if it wanted to.

And if scale is so important, than all Norway-sized countries should look more alike than they do.

Clearly institutional design is the critical factor here. Why pretend that it isn't?

 

[mheslep]

I see Norway has hate speech (Article 135) and blasphemy laws (Article 142) on the books, of all things. More democratic? Give me a break.

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitorin.../national_legal_measures/norway/Norway_SR.pdf

 

[mheslep]

Why should we expect that?

Because the larger the extent of a central government the more remote it must necessarily be from the governed.

Arguably, the US has more cash and more critical mass to get things right if it wanted to.

Thus cash is now required to render an effective democracy? Critical mass? Non-sequitor.

And if scale is so important, than all Norway-sized countries should look more alike than they do.

Fallacy. I said: A (small scale) is a necessary condition for B (effective democracy), and not: If A then B will occur, despite all other conditions like a Mussolini or a Mugabe.

Clearly institutional design is the critical factor here. Why pretend that it isn't?

That's hand waiving where you end up at the conclusion you like. Tedious.

 

[apeiron]

I see Norway has hate speech (Article 135) and blasphemy laws (Article 142) on the books, of all things. More democratic? Give me a break.

I think you are confusing democracy with a lack of social constraints. Democracy is about everyone having a fair say in the collective formation of a society's constraints.

In the spirit of maximising individual freedoms, restrictions on actions that infringe those freedoms are going to be necessary.

It seems that the US is indeed be an outlier on the hate speech issue.

There is an international consensus that hate speech needs to be prohibited by law, and that such prohibitions override or are irrelevant to guarantees of freedom of expression. The United States is perhaps unique among the developed world in that under law hate speech regulation is incompatible with free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

It may be a scale thing of course. But more likely it is an expression of citizen preferences. And so evidence of democracy in action.

Don't you think that one of the risks of a strong constitution is that it freezes a society's thinking in time and so might make it difficult to adapt to a changing world?

Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual life style or orientation or, religion or philosophy of life.

New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.

Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States, outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words.[46][47][48] The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[49]

The "reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[50] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[51] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[52]

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[53][54]

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[55] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[56] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[57]

 

[apeiron]

Because the larger the extent of a central government the more remote it must necessarily be from the governed.

Thus cash is now required to render an effective democracy? Critical mass? Non-sequitor.

Fallacy. I said: A (small scale) is a necessary condition for B (effective democracy), and not: If A then B will occur, despite all other conditions like a Mussolini or a Mugabe.

That's hand waiving where you end up at the conclusion you like. Tedious.

I'm glad you agree with my earlier posts about the need for "decentralised socialism" - the "scandinavian model" I mentioned.

So yes, scale is indeed important. But that can be designed in institutionally. The question would be why the US is not doing a better job of it? An irrational aversion to "socialism" might be a reason?

 

[mheslep]

I think you are confusing democracy with a lack of social constraints. Democracy is about everyone having a fair say in the collective formation of a society's constraints.

I think you confuse democracy with mob rule.

...In the spirit of maximising individual freedoms, restrictions on actions that infringe those freedoms are going to be necessary...

Freedom is not infringed by speech, even offensive speech - absent incitement to violence or harassment. Hate speech and blasphemy laws may start nobly but offer freedom from being offended or insulted. The powerful will inevitably bend the definition of what's hateful or blasphemous to suit their own ends. See Putin's Russia, or Ahmadinejad's Iran.

It seems that the US is indeed be an outlier on the hate speech issue...

The US is exceptional on the issue. Free speech is thin if it excludes that which we would detest.

...But more likely it is an expression of citizen preferences. And so evidence of democracy in action. ...

Citizen's may well prefer extermination of a minority group at a moment in time if they deem their power limitless by means of being the majority. Such has been the case. Mob rule again.

Don't you think that one of the risks of a strong constitution is that it freezes a society's thinking in time and so might make it difficult to adapt to a changing world?

The details of the world change, fundamental human rights and human nature do not. Thus a short, amendable, doctrine of limited government describing fundamental rights, such as the US has, is appropriate to a changing world. An example of something not appropriate to the changing world is the attempt at a 300 page EU constitution which tries to protect everything and therefore will protect nothing well.

 

[apeiron]

I think you confuse democracy with mob rule.

Tsk, tsk.

Freedom is not infringed by speech, even offensive speech - absent incitement to violence or harassment. Hate speech and blasphemy laws may start nobly but offer freedom from being offended or insulted. The powerful will inevitably bend the definition of what's hateful or blasphemous to suit their own ends. See Putin's Russia, or Ahmadinejad's Iran.

Don't forget Hitler's Germany while we are discussing the high ranking of Scandanavian and Commonwealth countries here.

The US is exceptional on the issue. Free speech is thin if it excludes that which we would detest.

I think you need to show that the rules as they exist and are enforced in the countries mentioned (Norway and NZ) are restrictive in some worrisome way.

Likewise, does the US regime make people generally happier, less divided, more creative, etc?

As usual, we need to define our goals in terms of measurables to judge the outcome of the various social experiments being run by different countries. Otherwise we are simply hand-waving as you say.

Citizen's may well prefer extermination of a minority group at a moment in time if they deem their power limitless by means of being the majority. Such has been the case. Mob rule again.

Are we talking about Norway and New Zealand again? Or some bogeyman regime that has nothing to do with the Economist rankings of civil liberties in full democracies?

In fact, if you have read the Economist report, you will see that one of the criteria of strong democracy is the ability of minorities to take decisions on the chin. When a party loses, it does not then spend all its energies disrupting the system.

Which may indeed be one of the reasons the US gets marked down of course.

 

[mheslep]

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. ...

Jefferson used the term in the Declaration. I've seen subtantial discussion about the meaning of inalienability in the philosophy journals about just the conflict you describe, but it seems clear to me: Certain rights are granted to each "by their creator", or if you like they are yours by virtue of being human. The fact that someone might deprive you of their agency by force does not make them any less inalienable. Later Jefferson goes on to add the practicality: "to secure these rights, government are instituted among men." - some government, not necessarily the federal government.

Rather than try to iron out the legal details of your points about conflicts in the constitution, I'll draw your attention to some familiar US history. The Declaration conjured up no central government. We find no great cry for additional protection of the rights of individual after the revolution and prior to the Constitution. The thirteen state governments were already in existence to protect the rights of the individual, many of them already having their own bill of rights. The impatience at the time was with the flawed cooperation between the states, not with any need to protect individuals, and this was the reason for the creation of the federal government. Ten years or so after the revolution, the states grudgingly draw up a federal government to fix foreign policy, raise an army and navy, run the post office, and settle disputes between the states with a court system. That's about it. As Madison expressed at the time the concern about the ability to control the government they were creating:

the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. ​

It is clear to me that the enumeration of powers, and all the of the ten amendments were put there to control that government. The central government was needed only to do things of national scope, not because the people needed it to protect their individual rights. That's my take.

 

[Oltz]

Jefferson used the term in the Declaration. I've seen subtantial discussion about the meaning of inalienability in the philosophy journals about just the conflict you describe, but it seems clear to me: Certain rights are granted to each "by their creator", or if you like they are yours by virtue of being human. The fact that someone might deprive you of their agency by force does not make them any less inalienable. Later Jefferson goes on to add the practicality: "to secure these rights, government are instituted among men." - some government, not necessarily the federal government.

Rather than try to iron out the legal details of your points about conflicts in the constitution, I'll draw your attention to some familiar US history. The Declaration conjured up no central government. We find no great cry for additional protection of the rights of individual after the revolution and prior to the Constitution. The thirteen state governments were already in existence to protect the rights of the individual, many of them already having their own bill of rights. The impatience at the time was with the flawed cooperation between the states, not with any need to protect individuals, and this was the reason for the creation of the federal government. Ten years or so after the revolution, the states grudgingly draw up a federal government to fix foreign policy, raise an army and navy, run the post office, and settle disputes between the states with a court system. That's about it. As Madison expressed at the time the concern about the ability to control the government they were creating:

the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. ​

It is clear to me that the enumeration of powers, and all the of the ten amendments were put there to control that government. The central government was needed only to do things of national scope, not because the people needed it to protect their individual rights. That's my take.

Agreed

 

[DoggerDan]

I agree, too, Oltz and mheslep. Our government was never meant to be more than a cooperative collective between the states for very limited purpose.

If you look at the EU, that's very similar, whereby the individual states retained the full authority of their statehood: "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 independent member states." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union By comparison, our own Constitution delegated very limited powers to the federal government, reserving all other powers to the state or to individually to the people.

We'll see how that experiment is going 217 years from now and compare it with how we're doing today.

Meanwhile, our government has been corrupted nearly since its inception by federal power-grabbing, often leveraged by threats to the states of reduced or eliminated government money, such as highway funds or disaster recovery aid, if a state doesn't knuckle under.