What's a "FREE COUNTRY"?

[Kulindahr]

Not so long ago, in a thread not far away,

this was written:

Just another example of how government distorts reality.


In a free country we could open the Yellow Pages and find....

Bob & Lola's

Proudly Providing Premium Prostitutes
for Half a Century!




MARY'S PLACE

Where whoring ain't boring!

Find a bitch to scratch your itch!

Grab a boy to be your toy!​

Thanks to a few later comments, this raised the issue of what makes a country a free country. The hypothetical ads above give a point to one of my requirements.

How would you define it?

 

[Ambrocious]

A free country is birthed and only gained after much dissension and many years of toiling to give or restore the God given rights to humanity.

A free country is an independent country all the while allowing others to freely take examples of governance from it, not forcing it onto their backs through invasion.

A free country is a nation of people united in support to an idea that can and will flourish, not in a person that can and will be seen as bad or good depending on what is desired by the people.

A free country is a country who doesn't owe debt; while debt is the progenitor of of enslavement, a lack of debt is a tool of liberty and freedom.

A free country is a mindset that continues to look at each other as human beings with compassion; fully and constantly looking for ways to better each other selflessly.

A free country seeks the truth and doesn't bow to the riches and wealth of the world to accept the lies in exchange for power.

A free country can produce and reproduce their own means of staying alive and flourishing.

A free country is a gathering of people together, willing to defend each others liberties and freedoms, even if your beliefs are different than those who surround you.

A free country is a constitution of obligations to install pride towards something bigger and better than mankind all the while realizing the preciousness of human beings and the lives that we live.

A free country is an extension of life to an enslaved planet and it is the opposite of a global government which enforces open enslavement and a lack of enlightenment of truth; if it is ever said that we need global governance to save the planet, be cautious that their plans are the same as their words of promise.

A free country always looks out and beyond it's self and defends the innocent and does not begin the meddling of it's self into other countries unless it is to serve them in a manner that does not bankrupt it's own people.

A free country is a bookmark to the future of what mankind must aim for and it is a look back to realize what made a free world in the far and distant future. It is also a reflection of the past of all forms of tyranny and corruption so that freedom can stand; being filled with knowledge that the past repeats it's self if we are not careful, freedom can continue and fight off tyranny if we will pay attention to the examples of the past.

A free country can and does produce it's own currency; independent of other nationalities and independent of centralized banking institutes.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Thomas Jefferson

 

[Seasoned]

Let's keep god out of it and let's worry more about the people then about countries. The day has long passed where there were notions of self sustaining independent countries. Marx's "workers of the world unite" line makes more sense than ever with the outsourcing being done. The Internet makes communication possible. If call centers in the US got to be too expensive, then surely the Indian call centers will be moved to a place wherepeople will work for less. No one is free when we are pitted against one another for survival.

 

[Kulindahr]

Let's keep god out of it and let's worry more about the people then about countries. The day has long passed where there were notions of self sustaining independent countries. Marx's "workers of the world unite" line makes more sense than ever with the outsourcing being done. The Internet makes communication possible. If call centers in the US got to be too expensive, then surely the Indian call centers will be moved to a place wherepeople will work for less. No one is free when we are pitted against one another for survival.

People live in countries, so worrying about people means worrying about countries.

So... what makes a country a free one?

 

[Nishin]

A free country is utopia ... not gonna happen, never has

 

[SoulSearcher]

A free country is when people, not corporations, not weapons manufacturers, not reconstruction companies, not big Pharma, decide on legislation that affect daily lives.

 

[Kulindahr]

To me it's simple. The collective is less important than the rights of the individual. This turns on it's head the current administration's philosophy as well as most European philosophies.

Even if you have a problem with "created" the idea we're all equal is a salient point. The "collective" notion has no concern for the individual only in that it become subject to the collective (for it's own good, of course).

That's a good one -- right to the core.

I like to paraphrase and then correct Spock in one of the Star Trek movies:

The rights of the many do not outweigh the rights of the one.

The anarchist would do it this way:

The rights of the one outweigh the rights of the many.

But rights are really a non-sum game: the rights of the many don't outweigh the rights of the one, because they're equal; no matter how many people you put on one side of the scales, all that weighs is the rights, and the rights weight the same no matter how many people they fit.

 

[wastingmymind]

free country is a country where you can kill someone and break into someone else's house and no, you don't want that.

 

[Kulindahr]

free country is a country where you can kill someone and break into someone else's house and no, you don't want that.

How is that a free country?

Where's the freedom for the person killed and whose house got broken into?

 

[Ambrocious]

free country is a country where you can kill someone and break into someone else's house and no, you don't want that.

Your freedom ends where mine begins. We can't trample on each others freedom to live well: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not free that a person robs another person of their lives and you enslave yourself by the sealing of their blood and their death over your conscious.

 

[wastingmymind]

Well in that sense individual freedom goes against the freedoms of those around you. Always. Which means this freedom can't ever exist.

But in a free country you can do anything, right? Anything?

 

[Kulindahr]

Well in that sense individual freedom goes against the freedoms of those around you. Always. Which means this freedom can't ever exist.

Freedom does not contradict or go against freedom. If I'm free to punch my neighbor's teeth out, that's not freedom, it's slavery, because I acted as though my neighbor is my property.

Those are the two conditions: either people are free, or they're property. If anyone can just strike out and harm a neighbor, not only has he treated the neighbor as property, he has declared himself to be property by showing the rules he plays by.

For freedom to be freedom, it has to be universal. Wasn't it King who pointed out that so long as one person is oppressed, none are free?

But in a free country you can do anything, right? Anything?

On what grounds?

 

[wastingmymind]

Thanks for the King quote.

Maybe I have a nihilistic view of freedom. But in a society when I have to pay taxes and can't really roam the streets and where jails exist, there's no freedom.

Freedom is a nice word, but it's misleading.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

Let's keep god out of it and let's worry more about the people then about countries. The day has long passed where there were notions of self sustaining independent countries. Marx's "workers of the world unite" line makes more sense than ever with the outsourcing being done. The Internet makes communication possible. If call centers in the US got to be too expensive, then surely the Indian call centers will be moved to a place wherepeople will work for less. No one is free when we are pitted against one another for survival.

The trouble is that all the people the Soviets murdered probably didn't feel very fee as they died.

 

[Kulindahr]

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson

Ambrocious, I've pointed this out before, but Jefferson never said that. He did have some comments about banks, and some of the phrases in it are his, but mostly it's a fabrication.

I verified that with the Jefferson Archives, BTW, the final authority on things Jefferson-wise.

The first clue, BTW, is that the terms "inflation" and "deflation" weren't used in Jefferson's lifetime in an economic sense -- that's what got me looking.

 

[bankside]

A free country recognises that people have competing interests, and it has processes for reconciling or prioritising those interests - process which are principled, rules-based, consistent, and based on a popular mandate rather than the whims or interests of an unaccountable ruler.

A free country imposes duties on every citizen to make use of those processes for reconciling interests where they do not mesh naturally or through negotiation. A free country recognises certain interests which serve the dignity of the individual which may not be negotiated away.

A free country ensures that any person making a reasonable effort within their abilities will be able to meet those duties and obligations.

A free country has the freedom to leave if a person opts for a different country instead.

A free country does not abandon its youngest citizens to the caprice of the family they happen to have been born into as though they were the physical property of the parents.

A free country ensures that citizens can pool their inherent personal sovereignty if in their view it serves their interests to do so, and it institutes governance that is responsive to the changing views of those citizens.

A free country recognises not only individual interests and pooled interests, but also shared interests whose nature precludes them from being divisible or reducible to each citizen. A free country will rightly require common defence of that which gives common benefit.

And the citizens of a free country never consider the leader of any other free country to be their own leader.

 

[Jack Springer]

Without reading any of the other posts, a free country is where an individual can live their life, raise their family, work, worship, play . . . basically do what they want if it includes THE RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSE that the way they lead their life doesn't take away the freedoms of others.

The common goal between these freedom loving people must be respect for one other.

In such a self-serving world I'm not sure if there has been or ever will be a truly free country -- but it is something to aspire to.

 

[Kulindahr]

A free country does not abandon its youngest citizens to the caprice of the family they happen to have been born into as though they were the physical property of the parents.

Nor will a free country abandon its youngest to the caprice of social workers who think they know better than parents -- a sort of government functionary which greatly abounds.

I agree with my dad that the old system of moving the kids to a close relative if they have to be taken from their immediate family should be re-established. The children are far more correctly considered 'property' of their kin than of the State.

And the citizens of a free country never consider the leader of any other free country to be their own leader.

I like that one.

 

[Kulindahr]

Without reading any of the other posts, a free country is where an individual can live their life, raise their family, work, worship, play . . . basically do what they want if it includes THE RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSE that the way they lead their life doesn't take away the freedoms of others.

The common goal between these freedom loving people must be respect for one other.

In such a self-serving world I'm not sure if there has been or ever will be a truly free country -- but it is something to aspire to.

I'd say that mutual respect wouldn't be so much a common goal as a part of the common ground.

Otherwise a darned good description.

 

[VanHiscers]

The definition of freedom, i think, has always been narrowed down to political aspect.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930918.html

The website above ranked all the countries the the world in terms of freedom, and according to the introduction, they consider political and civil rights as their criteria.

Take a look at the free countries, the United States are considered the most free with most of the European countries, but gay marriage, an civil right that we all care about, is not even passed under the federal law, while a number of countries in Europe has passed it nation-wide, such as Sweden, the U.K., Netherlands, etc.

Haiti is considered a free country, and it's also one of the free countries that allow Chinese citizens inside their border without a visa, but do I really want to stay there because it's free? No, it's just political free, as the country has serious economic challenges, people there even have difficulties to fulfill their most basic right: to live.

Take a look at the countries that are not free, to my surprise, Iran and the U.A.E are considered better than China. I heard women in Iran are required by law to wear hijabs (the scarf) all the time, and I also heard about a piece of news the other day that an American couple were arrested for making out in public... Those will not happen in China. I understand that political rights are more important than dressing codes or public display of affection, but should more basic rights be considered more important as the people of a country encounter them everyday?

Therefore, I believe a free country is a country where all the people's objectively important rights can be fulfilled by the government.

By which do I mean "objectively important"? Sometimes the people want to have a right, because they think it's vital for them, but actually, it brings more harm to the society. For example, the gun ownership in the United States. The reason why people can still own guns legally is that most of Americans think they are safer with guns, but the fact of the non-stop American gun violence over the years and the good quality of public security in other free countries where people are not allowed to own guns have proved that allowing people to own guns legally is a bad idea, so this right of the people should be denied as it is not objectively important.

I guess a lot of people here have wondered why Chinese people can put up with Communism for such a long time, one of the most common reasons that we believe being able to make more money to have a good life under a stable regime is more important than being able to vote. Thinking about Haiti, I still believe so, but having been living in the U.S. make me realize that political rights can also enhance people economic life to a large extent. I think a lot of Chinese people know that too, but we are facing a dilemma: any kind of political revolution will for sure bring down the economy for a while.

Nevertheless, it is very hard for both the people and the governments to decide which right is truly objectively important, and even when they know, they need time to fix it, so I think we still have a long way to perfected freedom world-wide.