Less than 20% of the world's population now live in a “free” country(freedomhouse.org)
freedomhouse.org
Less than 20% of the world's population now live in a “free” country
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2021/democracy-under-siege
94 comments
"India, the world’s most populous democracy, dropped from Free to Partly Free status in Freedom in the World 2021. " - that's basically a 14% drop right there. I live in India and while there are definitely questionable things the Government does, I really don't understand these arbitrary labeling of "Free" or removing such labels. Conflating the handling of the lockdown during the pandemic, as one reason for or even contributing to the "free" derating only makes the whole thing less credible.
Isn’t it caused by the bill that makes it impossible for Muslims to become citizens? I’m not that familiar with Indian politics but from what I read[0] that’s more than just a small detail in my book, that’s a clear authoritarian move.
So far everything I’ve seen regarding Modi’s politics has this same authoritarian flavor.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/11/india-to-bring...
So far everything I’ve seen regarding Modi’s politics has this same authoritarian flavor.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/11/india-to-bring...
There are questionable things the government has done. My point was really about the criteria itself.
How would a criteria of "Is an external territory still under occupation?" do? Or perhaps "Is there freedom for women to get parental planning services?" Or "Are policies on immigration?"
These are just random questions, but I think the questions imply a certain definition of freedom which is where arbitrariness might creep in.
How would a criteria of "Is an external territory still under occupation?" do? Or perhaps "Is there freedom for women to get parental planning services?" Or "Are policies on immigration?"
These are just random questions, but I think the questions imply a certain definition of freedom which is where arbitrariness might creep in.
At the end of day someone defines a criteria, experts, and then they apply it. You can argue they are not valid criteria, but get detailed about which criteria they apply you don't like :).
What has freedom got to do with a change in laws on how it deals with citizenship of illegal migrants.
There is lot of fud spread without understanding
There is lot of fud spread without understanding
In Freedom House's report on India[1] you can read about how they arrived at "partly free" for India. While the COVID lockdowns and their effect on marginalized groups where highlighted as events of 2020, if you look at the particular categories outlined below, you'll see that a lot more is going on that it warrants the rating of "partly free" in their opinion.
1: https://freedomhouse.org/country/india/freedom-world/2021
1: https://freedomhouse.org/country/india/freedom-world/2021
GOI's handling of relocation during the lockdowns was a negative indicator in the same way famines are indicators (https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/01/arts/does-democracy-avert...). It was directed top-down, imposed unreasonable and dangerous burdens on people with no recourse for restitution, and overall just betrayed a total callousness and lack of concern for the difficulties faced by migrant or itinerant laborers.
It's not the ONLY cause of down-ranking India, but it is definitely another piece of evidence on the pile in addition to adoption of fairly authoritarian tactics for suppressing dissent. The corruption and patronage, sending out party goons to rough up detractors, and the corrupt and unprofessional standards in policing have always been black marks on Indian democracy. But once it expands to cutting off communication to regions, laws that are clearly intended to target religious minorities, applying those same goon-squad pressure tactics towards journalists and academics, etc. it all indicates a society that is at risk of crossing a threshold that will be difficult to come back from.
It's not the ONLY cause of down-ranking India, but it is definitely another piece of evidence on the pile in addition to adoption of fairly authoritarian tactics for suppressing dissent. The corruption and patronage, sending out party goons to rough up detractors, and the corrupt and unprofessional standards in policing have always been black marks on Indian democracy. But once it expands to cutting off communication to regions, laws that are clearly intended to target religious minorities, applying those same goon-squad pressure tactics towards journalists and academics, etc. it all indicates a society that is at risk of crossing a threshold that will be difficult to come back from.
Where do you get the 14% from? India went from a 71 score (2019) to a 67 score.
You can read more about the methodology here [1].
[1] https://freedomhouse.org/reports/freedom-world/freedom-world...
You can read more about the methodology here [1].
[1] https://freedomhouse.org/reports/freedom-world/freedom-world...
I think that was a ±14% drop in the number of people living in a free country now that India is relabeled
Presumably saying that India represents 14% of the world population. Recent look suggests it's 17%.
India did decline by 4%. But, the headline 20% considers only the population of countries that are "Free". India gets excluded from that list, as far as I can see, because of its new "partly free" status. Hence the entire pop of India, or around 14% of global pop, is a contributor to the drop.
There are also the numerous imprisonment of activists, journalists, opposing politicians etc. Basically an atmosphere of fear for people vocally opposing the government.
Every country should create its own region where people who don't want to be under government's rule can leave to. It's too easy to say 'leave your country if you don't like it'. It's the same or worse everywhere else. There's no free land anymore. Almost everything livable space on Earth is claimed by governments.
Ironically a strong government is what allows to enforce and defend individual freedoms. The same way the GPL only works because the intellectual property laws are strong.
[deleted]
GPL is the antithesis of freedom.
The GPL guarantees very specific freedoms for users by limiting and regulating what developers can and have to do.
These regions would bleed extremism into the government controlled areas. This isn't a theoretical, we have live examples.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Administered_Tribal_...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Administered_Tribal_...
So that's a large article, mind putting a summary?
Here's an excerpt from the article:
"Since the 9/11 attacks in the United States in 2001, the tribal areas are a major theatre of militancy and terrorism. Pakistan Army launched 10 operations against the Taliban since 2001, most recently Operation Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan. The operations have displaced about two million people from the tribal areas, as schools, hospitals, and homes have been destroyed in the war.[1]"
[edit]
A quick internet search also suggest a number of other articles in other areas:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22autonomous+region%22+violent+ex...
"Since the 9/11 attacks in the United States in 2001, the tribal areas are a major theatre of militancy and terrorism. Pakistan Army launched 10 operations against the Taliban since 2001, most recently Operation Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan. The operations have displaced about two million people from the tribal areas, as schools, hospitals, and homes have been destroyed in the war.[1]"
[edit]
A quick internet search also suggest a number of other articles in other areas:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22autonomous+region%22+violent+ex...
>Every country should create its own region where people who don't want to be under government's rule can leave to
Any such territory would become a failed state almost immediately. The eventual outcome will be for it to be re-absorbed by the state it split from (see East and West Germany), or become a puppet state of a larger neighbour that supports it financially for its own geopolitical ends (North Korea).
If the basis of any territory is opposition to centralized government, it's safe to assume that the people it attracts are also ideologically opposed to state-provided services like roads, streetlights, police.
Of course these are ideological objections, and they tend to disappear once it becomes clear what the reality of living in an 'every man for himself' society is like.
The settler's options then are to either rebuild these services from scratch, or partner up with a neighbour state to leverage their infrastructure.
Any such territory would become a failed state almost immediately. The eventual outcome will be for it to be re-absorbed by the state it split from (see East and West Germany), or become a puppet state of a larger neighbour that supports it financially for its own geopolitical ends (North Korea).
If the basis of any territory is opposition to centralized government, it's safe to assume that the people it attracts are also ideologically opposed to state-provided services like roads, streetlights, police.
Of course these are ideological objections, and they tend to disappear once it becomes clear what the reality of living in an 'every man for himself' society is like.
The settler's options then are to either rebuild these services from scratch, or partner up with a neighbour state to leverage their infrastructure.
Free ain't what it used to be.
YaSamPoSebe(2)
Um... a few folks in the comments dont get what "freedom" means. It's not about getting stuff for free, not matter how essential both of us might agree whatever it is. It's more the restrictions the gov and society have in influencing and punishing an individual. A freedom is a legal principle, not a "thing".
You are free to practice whatever religion, or no religion, without being burned at the stake, locked up or put through a re-education camp.
You are free to express an opinion without being stoned to death, imprisoned or disappear.
You're free from entities taking your stuff because they have a lineage name or are part of the correct political party of the time. This is what possession is nine-tenths of the law generally refers to. Protects your ownership of stuff. And yes, this is also very contested.
You're free to associate with people without being guilty of something they did.
Freedom to gather and/or converse with whom you choose even if the gov or society doesn't like them.
You have the freedom of legal recourse against someone of a higher class. We take this for granted. This isnt a thing in quite a few societies, especially in history, and western countries are still plagued with the in reality practice, but it is in the legal letter at least.
There's obviously lots more. Obviously a lot of these are infringed often. But that's the thing, they are "infringed" and that's not considered okay, normally. Life is messier than debate and rhetoric circles. The recent freedom of expression issues is a good example of not knowing the slippery slope implications (I'm a Polish-Jew. censoring anyone, including Nazis solves nothing. Only makes it worse. Open debate is the only real cure for stupid. Getting your book or album banned is the fastest way to top the sales charts. History is on my side regarding this one.)
While healthcare is important, free healthcare isn't a "freedom" nor should it be considered as one. We are free to discuss the value, want and vote to implement, as we should. But you dont call a vaccine a fruit just because they're both important. Dont confuse legal principles with necessities. Doing so dilutes the meaning and can cause further harm in the protection of freedoms from corrupt forms of gov and social authorities.
You are free to practice whatever religion, or no religion, without being burned at the stake, locked up or put through a re-education camp.
You are free to express an opinion without being stoned to death, imprisoned or disappear.
You're free from entities taking your stuff because they have a lineage name or are part of the correct political party of the time. This is what possession is nine-tenths of the law generally refers to. Protects your ownership of stuff. And yes, this is also very contested.
You're free to associate with people without being guilty of something they did.
Freedom to gather and/or converse with whom you choose even if the gov or society doesn't like them.
You have the freedom of legal recourse against someone of a higher class. We take this for granted. This isnt a thing in quite a few societies, especially in history, and western countries are still plagued with the in reality practice, but it is in the legal letter at least.
There's obviously lots more. Obviously a lot of these are infringed often. But that's the thing, they are "infringed" and that's not considered okay, normally. Life is messier than debate and rhetoric circles. The recent freedom of expression issues is a good example of not knowing the slippery slope implications (I'm a Polish-Jew. censoring anyone, including Nazis solves nothing. Only makes it worse. Open debate is the only real cure for stupid. Getting your book or album banned is the fastest way to top the sales charts. History is on my side regarding this one.)
While healthcare is important, free healthcare isn't a "freedom" nor should it be considered as one. We are free to discuss the value, want and vote to implement, as we should. But you dont call a vaccine a fruit just because they're both important. Dont confuse legal principles with necessities. Doing so dilutes the meaning and can cause further harm in the protection of freedoms from corrupt forms of gov and social authorities.
>Um... a few folks in the comments dont get what "freedom" means. It's not about getting stuff for free, not matter how essential both of us might agree whatever it is.
Well said. But what to do you? Cannot convincing those simians either. It's tragedy of the masses ... ( quote out of context but I guess it expresses how I feel)
9 Wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner...
Well said. But what to do you? Cannot convincing those simians either. It's tragedy of the masses ... ( quote out of context but I guess it expresses how I feel)
9 Wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner...
Totally understand what you're saying. But I think it's more true that there's 1 wolf, 1 sheepdog and 8 sheep. Probably more my philosophical outlook on society coming through. I think 80% of people are perfectly rational. It's 10% on one extreme and 10% on the other extreme, of the population that are "at battle". They just convince the other 80% that, "It's your problem too".
But circling back to what you said, what can you do? Sheep follow. Someone is going to convince you of the best way to "security".
But circling back to what you said, what can you do? Sheep follow. Someone is going to convince you of the best way to "security".
I agree on the more nuanced split which includes the sheepdog :) The patriotic people who enforce rules of the tyrant...
People who are on the "correct side of history" are extremists too. We just all end up agreeing with them collectively at some point. Freedom of religion was an extremely extremists, fanatical viewpoint at one point. Same goes with abolitionism, equal rights and worker's rights. Plenty of people died for those.
Agree, that is indeed a nuanced observation.
Yea, I didnt mean to harp on you about that distinction. I try to pull apart concepts maybe too much. Like, would you consider Dick Cheney a wolf or a sheepdog from my description? I think most would think wolf, which I agree to. But think of this, what if that man's personality was exactly the same, but he put his tenacity to saving rainforests instead of oil? Pushing a massive, violent war to save all the trees. Then gets on TV and says he doesn't care what the public thinks, what are they going to do about it? Is he still a wolf? I kind of still think so, but is it because I hate his goals, his methods, or am I just jealous of his capabilities? Because seriously, anyone that clear cuts trees will shit themselves the day Cheney hits his head and gets the idea of saving all the woodland creatures. International laws dont apply to that man. Those same folks dont fear a save the trees article or FB post. So yea, do people hate the man, the goals or the capabilities of the man? Both wolves and sheepdogs are capable of the exact same thing, we just judge on the morality of their goals, segmenting them to how they benefit our own interests. Escobar and El Chapo were legit heroes to some people after all. Maybe I just dont like how the current populus discourse is hand wavy on treating morality, judgement and a person's character.
Got it.
( didn't think you were harping on anyway - I'm not _that_ judgemental you know... :) )
But at least the case of healthcare in the US is a very special case. They are literally looting the people. Even an ambulance ride costs huge amounts.
No, again, you're confusing services (and desperate desire) with legalities. This idea that words shouldn't have definite and finite meaning is the biggest problem. Freedoms are legal concepts, not services.
I am for universal healthcare. But, universal healthcare is not a "freedom" anymore than electricity or running water is.
Getting a service for free is not a freedom. It's a benefit. A vital, important, necessary benefit. Absolutely. But, the same goes for water and electricity. How many people recently IMMEDIATELY died due to lack of water and power from those winter storms? I would argue free water and electricity should come before healthcare. You cut off 3rd party provided water and 3rd party provided electricity to the country, more people would die faster in 1 year than cutting off 3rd party provided healthcare. Of course it's a compounding problem at that, but you get the point.
But just like taking your freedoms for granted, you take your standard of living for granted. Why not start making more services for free? It's not a bad idea at first, but where do you actually draw the line? Healthcare is important for life expectancy and general living for a population, but the exact same can be said about running water or electricity... or natural gas if used for heating. I'm not going to argue for natural gas services to be paid for 100% by the gov for obvious reasons. But you know what, if I argue that electricity is vital for heating/cooling and basic living standards to keep people alive, thus must be paid for 100% by the gov... well... why can't natural gas say the same? Arguing for free running water is even easier than electricity.
I am for universal healthcare. But, universal healthcare is not a "freedom" anymore than electricity or running water is.
Getting a service for free is not a freedom. It's a benefit. A vital, important, necessary benefit. Absolutely. But, the same goes for water and electricity. How many people recently IMMEDIATELY died due to lack of water and power from those winter storms? I would argue free water and electricity should come before healthcare. You cut off 3rd party provided water and 3rd party provided electricity to the country, more people would die faster in 1 year than cutting off 3rd party provided healthcare. Of course it's a compounding problem at that, but you get the point.
But just like taking your freedoms for granted, you take your standard of living for granted. Why not start making more services for free? It's not a bad idea at first, but where do you actually draw the line? Healthcare is important for life expectancy and general living for a population, but the exact same can be said about running water or electricity... or natural gas if used for heating. I'm not going to argue for natural gas services to be paid for 100% by the gov for obvious reasons. But you know what, if I argue that electricity is vital for heating/cooling and basic living standards to keep people alive, thus must be paid for 100% by the gov... well... why can't natural gas say the same? Arguing for free running water is even easier than electricity.
Well said.
This type of analysis is subject to a lot of argument. You could argue that qualitative looks like this are prone to error, because if a country's change (in either direction) is slow and doesn't make the news then a third party is unlikely to notice and incorporate the change into their analysis. Okay, then the answer must be a strict quantitative analysis of a country's laws and scoring based on whether freedom of speech, ownership of property, certain protections, and whatever else is codified by law. However, looking at written laws often misses the reality of life- sometimes a country is a democracy on paper but one party runs everything and corruption is rampant. So keep in mind that it's plausible that multiple teams could do this analysis and come up with different conclusions.
Case in point: I claim that the USA's 11 point decline in "freedom" from 2010 to 2020 is more of an indictment on Freedom House's methods than an actual shift in freedom. Of the three cited reasons in their "infographic" only one (immigration) has shown concrete movement in the past decade, and that only occurred in the past four years, which wouldn't explain a continued decline in the "freedom line" over the whole decade (DACA is from 2012, and certainly should be responsible for an uptick if immigration is a main contributor to freedom, and then a corresponding decrease as Trump unwound as much as he could). The corruption in politics and lack of transparency has always been there and has not seen any major movement (IMHO) in decades, certainly not enough to explain a 11 point decline. I cannot think of any continued slide in corruption or transparency that would have persisted for the last six year's of Obama's presidency through the Trump administration to make the freedom line decline monotonically as it does in their infographic. So then I have to think that either:
1) That line is totally bogus and is just meant to convey the concept of a decline, in which case why wasn't it just a straight line connecting the two points? Adding in a bunch of squigglyness if their data isn't that granular would make me suspect that they care more about aesthetics than conveying information in their infographic. I might as well disregard the rest of their report if that is the standard they work to, or...
2) Their assessment of freedom is wholly different from mine in the country that I live in, so if they can't even get that right then how am I supposed to trust their evaluation of all the other countries, so I might as well disregard the rest of their report.
Case in point: I claim that the USA's 11 point decline in "freedom" from 2010 to 2020 is more of an indictment on Freedom House's methods than an actual shift in freedom. Of the three cited reasons in their "infographic" only one (immigration) has shown concrete movement in the past decade, and that only occurred in the past four years, which wouldn't explain a continued decline in the "freedom line" over the whole decade (DACA is from 2012, and certainly should be responsible for an uptick if immigration is a main contributor to freedom, and then a corresponding decrease as Trump unwound as much as he could). The corruption in politics and lack of transparency has always been there and has not seen any major movement (IMHO) in decades, certainly not enough to explain a 11 point decline. I cannot think of any continued slide in corruption or transparency that would have persisted for the last six year's of Obama's presidency through the Trump administration to make the freedom line decline monotonically as it does in their infographic. So then I have to think that either:
1) That line is totally bogus and is just meant to convey the concept of a decline, in which case why wasn't it just a straight line connecting the two points? Adding in a bunch of squigglyness if their data isn't that granular would make me suspect that they care more about aesthetics than conveying information in their infographic. I might as well disregard the rest of their report if that is the standard they work to, or...
2) Their assessment of freedom is wholly different from mine in the country that I live in, so if they can't even get that right then how am I supposed to trust their evaluation of all the other countries, so I might as well disregard the rest of their report.
Most countries reversed the decade of progress in favor of CCP dystopian bullshit.
I could not visit my friends and extended family abroad because "IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TRAVEL".
I could not visit my friends and extended family abroad because "IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TRAVEL".
Sure but… we are in a global pandemics. My place is locked down since October now, my family in a different country I cannot visit and that has a massive impact on my mental abilities. But, like, … there is a GLOBAL pandemics that we do not have under control!
It’s not about government controlling the people, it’s about avoiding even more catastrophic situations.
It’s not about government controlling the people, it’s about avoiding even more catastrophic situations.
That's not an excuse for implementing draconian CCP measures in democratic societies.
Freedom of movement is a human right.I repeat.Freedom of movement is a human right.
Free countries should take every possible ways first before they stomp our human rights.The law of proportionality should apply here.
This is basically an implementation of the CCP's social score system.I absolutely assure you that privileged people fly these days.Regularly.
And I am not taking about billionaires or millionaires here but about people that are able to convince the government that they are important businessmen.
And this is not talking about politicians that can fly whenever they want avoiding quarantines and what not.
Rules for thee but not for me.
Free countries should take every possible ways first before they stomp our human rights.The law of proportionality should apply here.
This is basically an implementation of the CCP's social score system.I absolutely assure you that privileged people fly these days.Regularly.
And I am not taking about billionaires or millionaires here but about people that are able to convince the government that they are important businessmen.
And this is not talking about politicians that can fly whenever they want avoiding quarantines and what not.
Rules for thee but not for me.
I think the irony might be lost here that life in China had returned largely to normal since summer 2020 because of 'CCP dystopian bullshit' which managed to effectively curtail the spread of the virus, in contrast to the paragons of freedom in the West, where everyone has been in periodic lockdowns for over a year.
Almost ever major crisis that has plagued Western democracies over the last two decades can largely be traced back to weakness, not strength of states, yet people seem to be constantly afraid of 'totalitarianism' rather than dysfunction.
Almost ever major crisis that has plagued Western democracies over the last two decades can largely be traced back to weakness, not strength of states, yet people seem to be constantly afraid of 'totalitarianism' rather than dysfunction.
Oh yeah the irony of actually believing in human rights.
I guess you use the same twisted CCP logic when it comes to building infrastructure.
Lets just totally ignore human rights because we can build trains and roads much faster than those fools in the West.
If you believe that you can herd people like cattle, weld them in their homes, spy on their every step then you dont deserve to live in the West.
I guess you use the same twisted CCP logic when it comes to building infrastructure.
Lets just totally ignore human rights because we can build trains and roads much faster than those fools in the West.
If you believe that you can herd people like cattle, weld them in their homes, spy on their every step then you dont deserve to live in the West.
it's not twisted logic, it's about having a grounded definition of freedom. Freedom is going over the street at night and being safe, or being able to open your shop and not getting sick, or having clean water coming out of the tap.
Governments derive their legitimacy from their ability to function and deliver for their constituents, if you think lofty notions of human rights are a replacement for safety and prosperity, if you're actually creating a narrative where you imply the Western model is free but broke, rather than free and improves material conditions, you may not like how quickly people reject said values.
Governments derive their legitimacy from their ability to function and deliver for their constituents, if you think lofty notions of human rights are a replacement for safety and prosperity, if you're actually creating a narrative where you imply the Western model is free but broke, rather than free and improves material conditions, you may not like how quickly people reject said values.
>of human rights are a replacement for safety and prosperity,
CCP logic right here.We cant suppress your human rights because of development and lifting people from poverty.
Oh yeah same thing that Park Chung Hee said and what lead to Gwangju Uprising.
The whole point of human rights is to not compromise on them.
CCP logic right here.We cant suppress your human rights because of development and lifting people from poverty.
Oh yeah same thing that Park Chung Hee said and what lead to Gwangju Uprising.
The whole point of human rights is to not compromise on them.
Does democracy = freedom?
I don't really feel free in the US because the laws don't represent me and the police have too much power
I don't really feel free in the US because the laws don't represent me and the police have too much power
A democratic system is a way to reach a freer world, yes. It doesn’t imply freedom. Instead of a central authority that imposes decisions people gather in parties and negotiate to reach some level of consensus.
That doesn’t say anything about the level of corruption and still gives lot of powers to elected people, but in a way more distributed way than the alternatives.
Now, regarding the US, the political system seems to be completely broken. Just the fact that only two parties exist for such a large country is a clear sign there is a huge problem. And the president has a ridiculous amount of power compared to other democratic countries.
That doesn’t say anything about the level of corruption and still gives lot of powers to elected people, but in a way more distributed way than the alternatives.
Now, regarding the US, the political system seems to be completely broken. Just the fact that only two parties exist for such a large country is a clear sign there is a huge problem. And the president has a ridiculous amount of power compared to other democratic countries.
Have you ever lived in a country regarded as unfree?
I think if you live in a free country, then the amount of freedom that can be taken away without criticism is extremely low. The US is a great example, there has been, and still is, a high level of freedom, trying to tamper with that, just a little, will be meet with massive criticism.
On the other hand, in a non-free country, you can give just the tiniest amount of freedom back to the people and it will be seen as a huge positive move.
Of cause anyone in the US or the EU is objectively much more free than someone in almost any random African country, but any attempt at tampering with those freedoms will be seen as a massive move in the wrong direction by the population.
On the other hand, in a non-free country, you can give just the tiniest amount of freedom back to the people and it will be seen as a huge positive move.
Of cause anyone in the US or the EU is objectively much more free than someone in almost any random African country, but any attempt at tampering with those freedoms will be seen as a massive move in the wrong direction by the population.
Democracy in the USA is...not great.
The election system basically hands power to the two big parties, and distorts the political process.
The election system basically hands power to the two big parties, and distorts the political process.
Political parties, unending terms, and lack of accountability on electeds' wages/benefits/post-office work have all hurt the US in my opinion.
I think freedom as in free to run any business without regulations, bribe politicians, and starve if you lack the wherewithal to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps".
-- tongue-in-cheek --
In all seriousness though, honestly the entire world is ran by oligarchs like Papa John Schnatter who took 20 months to purge the "N" word from his vocabulary...what exactly "counts" as a free country?
My "view" of a free country must include the following: A country with guaranteed healthcare, education (k-college), safety nets, and a decent plan for global warming induced famines and water shortages, parental leave, and maybe a UBI if we continue hemorrhaging jobs due to globalization, climate change, machines replacing workers,and of course a country that has fought (and won) against systemic racism (esp. in policing and workforce-equality).
By my count there's ...0 countries that fit my criteria for a "free" country. I mean maybe Finland comes close, not sure on the racism. I'm white so, I don't always "notice" myself, I'm only more aware because of the past year all the atrocities that occured by white supremacists in blue uniforms.
-- tongue-in-cheek --
In all seriousness though, honestly the entire world is ran by oligarchs like Papa John Schnatter who took 20 months to purge the "N" word from his vocabulary...what exactly "counts" as a free country?
My "view" of a free country must include the following: A country with guaranteed healthcare, education (k-college), safety nets, and a decent plan for global warming induced famines and water shortages, parental leave, and maybe a UBI if we continue hemorrhaging jobs due to globalization, climate change, machines replacing workers,and of course a country that has fought (and won) against systemic racism (esp. in policing and workforce-equality).
By my count there's ...0 countries that fit my criteria for a "free" country. I mean maybe Finland comes close, not sure on the racism. I'm white so, I don't always "notice" myself, I'm only more aware because of the past year all the atrocities that occured by white supremacists in blue uniforms.
In your free country, am I free to not pay for all your good ideas? What happens to me if I refuse to contribute to your ideas?
If you want to maximize autonomy in the sense you're hinting at, I suggest looking into Liberland, a currently undeveloped piece of swampland that will no doubt be a prospering night-watchman city-state one day. It's a project that's already completely unencumbered by good ideas.
It could perhaps be offered as an emigration option to people who are opposed to paying into a system that everyone will benefit from.
It could perhaps be offered as an emigration option to people who are opposed to paying into a system that everyone will benefit from.
You can try to push your own idea through a political party, or create a new one. Or you protest in the street to express your position and try to attract others. By definition a democratic system isn’t stable, rules you don’t like can be changed and can evolve, but given the number of “stakeholders” (citizens) that takes a while to reach decisions.
>am I free to not pay for all your good ideas
Depends where you live. In most European countries, as long as you are a resident with a legal address, past a certain amount of time lived here, you're expected to contribute a certain proportion of your earnings as taxes to fund all public and social services.
Depends where you live. In most European countries, as long as you are a resident with a legal address, past a certain amount of time lived here, you're expected to contribute a certain proportion of your earnings as taxes to fund all public and social services.
That's just an affluent and advanced economy. None of what you says classifies as free. GNU even says it's stuff is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer." All of what you said is free as in beer.
Free education and healthcare isn't "free as in beer" in that you could have a "tax" on education when/if the education pays dividends (i.e. the person becomes a doctor) then they can pay it off, if their income never exceeds say 100k then they never have to pay it off.
If we can value one career over another then surely we can pay for those who choose to go into less pay-worthy but still necessary jobs like teachers.
As for healthcare single-payer would save lives and money and cut costs across the board, pretty sure that's a win-win for everybody without anything being "free" because you know we all pay for it out of taxes.
Free as in Beer would be my tax money going to pay for fancy toys for military and police that I'll never use, or the money that politicians get for siding against the people and for big business.
If we can value one career over another then surely we can pay for those who choose to go into less pay-worthy but still necessary jobs like teachers.
As for healthcare single-payer would save lives and money and cut costs across the board, pretty sure that's a win-win for everybody without anything being "free" because you know we all pay for it out of taxes.
Free as in Beer would be my tax money going to pay for fancy toys for military and police that I'll never use, or the money that politicians get for siding against the people and for big business.
Real freedom would be freedom from the institution of wage labor
You can start a business in order to escape wage labor, with you being the boss.
Or did you mean escape from labor?
Or did you mean escape from labor?
No that would count. But the way we arrange things makes it impossible for everyone to escape wage labor. The way to do that would be to eliminate the legal framework for corporations and replace it with a framework for worker cooperatives which are run democratically by workers. The theory is if workers collectively employ themselves they're not being employed by someone else. Similar to how in political democracy, if citizens collectively govern themselves then they aren't being governed by someone else.
But cooperatives are a thing. They exist and they actually do work. And you can start one whenever you want with whoever you want.
Do you just want to force every company to be a cooperative? If so, have you thought about why business owners tend to opt to own what they worked on?
Do you just want to force every company to be a cooperative? If so, have you thought about why business owners tend to opt to own what they worked on?
I don't think it's appropriate for the state to enforce contracts of wage labor, for similar reasons that they shouldn't enforce contracts of child labor or indentured servitude. No one would be forced to do anything, they can hire or do wage labor if they want, but the state wouldn't participate.
[deleted]
No, it wouldn't be, because without wage labor there would be no food, shelter and technological progress. Even in a post scarcity world we would still need people who at least develop new product ideas.
Don’t you use “free” as a way to say “something that matches your politics and wishes for the world”? The “free world” is generally about individual freedoms, and democratic systems vs authoritarian regimes. It’s not something that englobes every political topics. Of course a “free” world is more an ideal than an actual reality and isn’t binary, but that gives some direction.
"I don't really feel free in the US because the laws don't represent me"
What laws (and it has to way more than one or two) would you like to change to feel represented? (whatever that means)
What laws (and it has to way more than one or two) would you like to change to feel represented? (whatever that means)
Which are those "free countries"? What makes them more free than others?
I see oligarchies backed by overwhelming fire power everywhere, just with a different label.
Sure you can open your mouth a bit wider in the usa when talking crap against senators or potus compared to the north Korean leader figure.
Sure you can open your mouth a bit wider in the usa when talking crap against senators or potus compared to the north Korean leader figure.
I cannot imagine the level of cynisme required to arrive to this conclusion. A free country isn’t a place where everything works great and everything is fine. It’s a place where you’re quasi-free to live as you would like, with limited government control. You’re free to have and express your religious views, free to do business, free to criticize your government, etc. Lot of places in the world do not have this.
You have corrupt oligarchs everywhere, even in free countries. That’s a problem of course but that’s not a reason to ignore that some countries guarantee way more individual freedoms than others.
You have corrupt oligarchs everywhere, even in free countries. That’s a problem of course but that’s not a reason to ignore that some countries guarantee way more individual freedoms than others.
> Which are those "free countries"? What makes them more free than others?
Did you bother clicking on the actual link?
Did you bother clicking on the actual link?
Freedom House is a pretty nutty web site. They have a map of countries which has some unusual aspects, the most bizarre of which is you can't find China on the map. Apparently they have carved it up to their own western satisfaction, just like in that old 19th century French cartoon ( https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:China_imperialism_... ).
https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2021
https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2021
"Consider the source" is very good advice.
For instance, your ad hominem fallacy along with an unrelated 19th century racist straw man makes your response sound like pro-China propaganda. I found China on that map just fine, but other readers might take you at your word.
For instance, your ad hominem fallacy along with an unrelated 19th century racist straw man makes your response sound like pro-China propaganda. I found China on that map just fine, but other readers might take you at your word.
I see it as more representative of the reality. It splits up "Indian Kashmir" v/s "India" as well, due to the disparity in freedom levels, even though its the same country.
Tibetans aren't Westerners.