What's a "FREE COUNTRY"?

[Kulindahr]

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

Any country where rights depend on the government is already not free. Rights belong to people inherently, by the fact that they are people; governments can only protect rights or penalize their exercise.

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.

What you're really saying here is that people as individuals don't count, only people as statistics do.

You speak of gun crime, without conceding that there is no way to prevent criminals from having guns; all you propose to do is to help the criminals by making sure that their victims are unarmed.

But you're wrong that people would be safer without guns: firearms are used in the U.S. some two million times a year to provide safety to people; you're suggesting that having two million or more crimes be carried out would be "safer". Further, police shoot innocent people far more often than do armed citizens -- so why should any sane citizen rely on police "protection"?

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.

China's dictators only recently allowed anyone to make money; before that, "a good life" was whatever those dictators decided it was, from their privileged and pampered position. Allowing people to make money is antithetical to Communism, so your argument here is in favor of authoritarianism -- a philosophy which allows for no rights at all except to the elite, of whom the rest of the people are property.

Political revolution need not bring down the economy, BTW, because it doesn't have to be done -- contrary to the ignorant elite in D.C. -- all at once and overnight. Divide the country into villages and neighborhoods, and let them vote on who will run things in their little pieces, and that won't upset the economy at all -- in fact it could improve things, because the people certainly know who is corrupt in their locations, so corruption could be slashed tremendously. That's one of the benefits of real self-government: local people making decisions for their locations almost invariably keep corruption low and make better decisions for things in their locale.

It's interesting that the U.S. is growing steadily more like China, which is one reason it has economic troubles: people have to have government permission to do so many things that prosperity is strangled.

 

[VanHiscers]

Any country where rights depend on the government is already not free. Rights belong to people inherently, by the fact that they are people; governments can only protect rights or penalize their exercise.

I agree with you, but also not, maybe I just misunderstood you: you say the government can only penalize the exercise of my rights, so if I think I had the right to kill the person I hate, and I did it, and I got punished by the government because I exercised my own right, by which you mean I do have a RIGHT to kill, it's just the government doesn't allow it?

People can do a lot of things, but they don't have the right to do some certain things, so people need to know their rights that are objectively important to them, and they also need a democratic government to protect their rights and to tell them what they cannot do. That's what I originally mean, sorry if I've used a wrong verb that confused you.

What you're really saying here is that people as individuals don't count, only people as statistics do.

You speak of gun crime, without conceding that there is no way to prevent criminals from having guns; all you propose to do is to help the criminals by making sure that their victims are unarmed.

But you're wrong that people would be safer without guns: firearms are used in the U.S. some two million times a year to provide safety to people; you're suggesting that having two million or more crimes be carried out would be "safer". Further, police shoot innocent people far more often than do armed citizens -- so why should any sane citizen rely on police "protection"?

Yes, people as a whole, how can a government satisfy everyone? Why Barack Obama became the president, because the majority of the American people voted for him, not everyone.

If you do believe people as individual counts, then California was SUPPOSED to lose gay marriage, because some individual decided to put the ban on the ballot and got enough signatures, and a lot of gay people didn't even care to vote, so we lost, but just by a little.

About gun violence, you cannot overlook the case where the shooters' guns are traceable under legal system, which means they got the guns in a legal way. I don't really quite get the bad police part, I believe there are bad cops everywhere, but I just cannot convince myself or anyone else to own guns because some cops may shoot you randomly, I do hope that's the origin of the gun violence of the U.S. because at least their guns are traceable.

China's dictators only recently allowed anyone to make money; before that, "a good life" was whatever those dictators decided it was, from their privileged and pampered position. Allowing people to make money is antithetical to Communism, so your argument here is in favor of authoritarianism -- a philosophy which allows for no rights at all except to the elite, of whom the rest of the people are property.

Political revolution need not bring down the economy, BTW, because it doesn't have to be done -- contrary to the ignorant elite in D.C. -- all at once and overnight. Divide the country into villages and neighborhoods, and let them vote on who will run things in their little pieces, and that won't upset the economy at all -- in fact it could improve things, because the people certainly know who is corrupt in their locations, so corruption could be slashed tremendously. That's one of the benefits of real self-government: local people making decisions for their locations almost invariably keep corruption low and make better decisions for things in their locale.

Eh, in Chinese, dictatorship means "a brutal system ran by one single specific person," like North Korea and Nazi Germany, so I believe we're over dictatorship ever since Mao Zedong has died in this case, but maybe we have different ideas for dictatorship...

We live a bitter life about 30 years ago, and that was why the Tian'anmen Protest happened, the movement failed, but it did strike the heart of the Communist Party, after all, China is not a small country like North Korea, and as a big country, China wants to have an important role in the world, so China should and can never be ruled like North Korea. A political party's main goal is to rule a country, and in order to do that, they need to give their people what they want, 30 years ago, Chinese people were poor, so the government decided to improve our economic life.

Your theory of political revolution sounds good, but not practical, how can Communist Party just give up their regime overnight? Therefore, people need to fight for it, and when they started to protest, who are going to work at the banks, the factories, the train stations, etc? How can that not affect the economy?

It's funny that you are extremely pessimist about the police in the U.S., but extremely optimistic about a political revolution in China... I believe things need to be considered on many aspects.

It's interesting that the U.S. is growing steadily more like China, which is one reason it has economic troubles: people have to have government permission to do so many things that prosperity is strangled.

I agree.

P.S. I wasn't arguing about anything, I just expressed what I think of the topic.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree with you, but also not, maybe I just misunderstood you: you say the government can only penalize the exercise of my rights, so if I think I had the right to kill the person I hate, and I did it, and I got punished by the government because I exercised my own right, by which you mean I do have a RIGHT to kill, it's just the government doesn't allow it?

Um, no -- there is no right to kill.

Rights are no more determined by what I want or like than they are by a government. Rights arise from the fact that each person owns himself, and extend as far as the balancing point(s) of that self-ownership. Since by the fact that I own myself I have a right not to have my self destroyed, i.e. killed, that right belongs to all; since each other person has self-ownership, there is no right to murder.

The sole justification for the existence of government is to protect those rights against people who would deny them. So to forbid murder is a legitimate function of government, whereas to forbid taking certain substances into my body is not (as an example).

If you do believe people as individual counts, then California was SUPPOSED to lose gay marriage, because some individual decided to put the ban on the ballot and got enough signatures, and a lot of gay people didn't even care to vote, so we lost, but just by a little.

No, what happened in California says that the majority believes that individuals don't count. It was a vote against self-ownership, and thus against rights. That's why democracy is a dangerous thing: majorities come to think they own the other people, and that the rights of minorities not only don't matter, but don't even exist.

About gun violence, you cannot overlook the case where the shooters' guns are traceable under legal system, which means they got the guns in a legal way. I don't really quite get the bad police part, I believe there are bad cops everywhere, but I just cannot convince myself or anyone else to own guns because some cops may shoot you randomly, I do hope that's the origin of the gun violence of the U.S. because at least their guns are traceable.

Legal guns are not traceable in the U.S. There is no legal gun registration; any efforts to implement that would be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, which forbids restrictions on even peripheral matters surrounding the right to keep and bear arms.

Cops rarely shoot anyone randomly; there is however a high incidence of them shooting innocent people at the scene of a crime or what they think is the scene of a crime. If I remember the figure correctly, a cop at the scene of a crime is eleven times as likely to shoot someone innocent as a regular armed citizen at the scene of a crime.

Your theory of political revolution sounds good, but not practical, how can Communist Party just give up their regime overnight? Therefore, people need to fight for it, and when they started to protest, who are going to work at the banks, the factories, the train stations, etc? How can that not affect the economy?

I said NOT "overnight", but in small steps, starting with village/neighborhood, and explained how that would benefit the economy.

It's funny that you are extremely pessimist about the police in the U.S., but extremely optimistic about a political revolution in China... I believe things need to be considered on many aspects.

The U.S. is on the downside of a demonstrated historical curve: a free society which begins to surrender freedoms will continue to lose them until despotism is reached. China is on the other side of the arc: rising from despotism toward liberty.

Though I'm not excessively optimistic about any revolution in China; I think the wrinkled old men in charge aren't going to give up any power unless they think it will benefit them.

 

[wastingmymind]

Um, no -- there is no right to kill..

Heads of state have that right.

Anyway, I still stand by my belief that freedom is a misleading word/concept. There's an Islamic adage that "freedom is when you have nothing to lose."

 

[kallipolis]

Freedom is only understood, when we have lost our freedom.

 

[VanHiscers]

Legal guns are not traceable in the U.S. There is no legal gun registration; any efforts to implement that would be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, which forbids restrictions on even peripheral matters surrounding the right to keep and bear arms.

Cops rarely shoot anyone randomly; there is however a high incidence of them shooting innocent people at the scene of a crime or what they think is the scene of a crime. If I remember the figure correctly, a cop at the scene of a crime is eleven times as likely to shoot someone innocent as a regular armed citizen at the scene of a crime.

Just one question, if legal guns can not be traced in any way, then why would criminals sometimes try to burn away or destroy the serial numbers on guns? Or sometimes they also try to alter guns' bullet tunnels...

I've also heard about the crime scene incidents, but that cannot be improved by letting innocent owning guns, right? Guns are not bullet-proof vests, having a gun make you able to shoot, but it doesn't guarantee that you won't get shot... Even you are stuck in a situation where the police is shooting at a crime scene, and you happened to have a gun, what do you do? Shoot the police to protect yourself?

Anyway, the whole gun crime thing is just my example to show that not every right the people of a country they think they should have is really as important as they think it is. Over the years, I haven't heard a single American say: "OMG, my country is so cool, we can own guns!" Nevertheless somehow, guns are still there legally...

 

[Kulindahr]

Heads of state have that right.

No, they don't -- unless you maintain they can walk down the street and kill anyone they want.

But that still wouldn't be a right, because there is no such right. There is no right to do to someone else what they aren't to do to you. if a head of state has a right to kill others, so does every human.

Anyway, I still stand by my belief that freedom is a misleading word/concept. There's an Islamic adage that "freedom is when you have nothing to lose."

There's a country song to that effect, too. And it's true, in a way: if you're tied to possessions, or friends, or whatever, you're not free, but it's a lack of freedom you've made for yourself.

But that doesn't render freedom a misleading concept, it only gives perspective. Freedom is a very clear concept; it's only the fringes that are unclear, and disagreement over where rights come from. But the obvious source is the fact of self-ownership.

 

[Jack Springer]

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.

Thank you Kulindahr

 

[bankside]

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.

Yes, this comes about (and you may have heard me rant about this before on here) from people who call the American president the "leader of the free world." Well, no; he's not. He's the leader of the Americans. Happy to have him represent our neighbour. But I didn't vote for him.

On the other hand, if we all had a crack at voting for the Secretary General of the UN, then I'd probably call New York my other Capital.

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.

I can't agree. Often a bureaucrat (who may well be a competent, caring parent in his or her own right) is better qualified than some knuckle-dragging moron who just happened to be fertile at the right moment. Often the relatives are no better, though sometimes they are - a situation I have seen firsthand in another branch of my family.

I would endorse a proposal to bring these cases before a "jury" - say, 12 parents of children who are all healthy and doing well in school, and have the "jury" decide whether a social worker has grounds for removal. The criteria would not be "Is this ideal" or even "Is this in the child's best interests" but "Is this at least adequate?" and "Does this child at least have a shot in this family?"

 

[Kulindahr]

Just one question, if legal guns can not be traced in any way, then why would criminals sometimes try to burn away or destroy the serial numbers on guns? Or sometimes they also try to alter guns' bullet tunnels...

Occasionally a serial number becomes useful in solving a crime, but only when the criminal is stupid. But all the serial number can do is tell where the gun was originally sold, and that's not often useful.

Matching bullets to bores is more useful, because if the gun can be located, it can be linked to or positively excluded as being the crime gun.

But guns without serial numbers aren't illegal; the only illegal thing is removing a serial number from a gun that had one.

I've also heard about the crime scene incidents, but that cannot be improved by letting innocent owning guns, right?

Well, "letting the innocent own guns" contains a false concept in the first place, namely that there is no right to self-defense, which means that human life is worthless.

But innocents having guns does reduce shooting of innocent bystanders, if for no other reason than that murders are regularly stopped by innocent people who are armed. Every situation stopped by an armed citizen is a situation where a cop isn't going to shoot the wrong person.

Guns are not bullet-proof vests, having a gun make you able to shoot, but it doesn't guarantee that you won't get shot... Even you are stuck in a situation where the police is shooting at a crime scene, and you happened to have a gun, what do you do? Shoot the police to protect yourself?

Nine times out of ten, a criminal faced with an armed citizen will run. Far over half the time when he does not, he is captured by the citizen.

Having a gun doesn't guarantee you won't get shot, but neither does anything else. Not having a gun guarantees there's no way to keep from getting shot; having a gun gives you a better chance.

And if a cop starts to shoot me and I'm innocent, and I'm armed, yes, I would shoot him, and it would not be murder, no matter what the corrupt system might say.

Anyway, the whole gun crime thing is just my example to show that not every right the people of a country they think they should have is really as important as they think it is. Over the years, I haven't heard a single American say: "OMG, my country is so cool, we can own guns!" Nevertheless somehow, guns are still there legally...

Guns are here legally because so far the United States continues to recognize human dignity instead of declaring everyone fair game for the criminals. Guns are here legally because enough people understand that the right to keep and bear arms is inherent in being human.

What people think about rights is irrelevant; they have them nevertheless. Every man and woman has the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the country. But a free country will not only recognize but tenaciously defend it.

 

[Lostlover]

Your theory of political revolution sounds good, but not practical, how can Communist Party just give up their regime overnight? Therefore, people need to fight for it, and when they started to protest, who are going to work at the banks, the factories, the train stations, etc? How can that not affect the economy?

It's funny that you are extremely pessimist about the police in the U.S., but extremely optimistic about a political revolution in China... I believe things need to be considered on many aspects.



I agree.

P.S. I wasn't arguing about anything, I just expressed what I think of the topic.

During my 5 month break on here, I was in China (Shanghai) and Vietnam ([STRIKE]Ho Chi Minh[/STRIKE] Saigon -- btw the Aussie tourists in Vietnam were soooo hot). And the Chinese I talked to LOVE their country. It wasn't this "I want democracy" kind of feeling that we hear about in the media. Now in Vietnam, it was totally different. The regime in Hanoi is openly hated. They seemed oppressed, not the Chinese.

One Western educated (Oxford and Harvard) Chinese man I spoke to was openly critical of the current government. But everyone else watched their words. They, like you, were eager to point out past faults of the Chinese government but danced around problems in China today.

I asked my Chinese tour guide if he knew that President Hu did not save the climate talks in Copenhagen as the Chinese media lied about that. He KNEW! And he just laughed putting his finger to his lips indicating to me that he didn't want to talk.

And by the way, why weren't there any Chinese flags? I saw one my whole time there right next the TV Towers near where they British took over the city. I was so expecting Chinese flags everywhere and statues of Mao.

 

[Kulindahr]

I can't agree. Often a bureaucrat (who may well be a competent, caring parent in his or her own right) is better qualified than some knuckle-dragging moron who just happened to be fertile at the right moment. Often the relatives are no better, though sometimes they are - a situation I have seen firsthand in another branch of my family.

I've seen kids taken away from college-educated upper middle class folks for mere accidents, or just because some social worker got pissed. The system is utterly abused and abusive. I have a buddy who was taken from one home and thrown into a foster home that was far worse (racist KKK neoNazis).

The problem is that the system leaves everything up to the whim of the social worker. That much arbitrary power is dangerous.

I would endorse a proposal to bring these cases before a "jury" - say, 12 parents of children who are all healthy and doing well in school, and have the "jury" decide whether a social worker has grounds for removal. The criteria would not be "Is this ideal" or even "Is this in the child's best interests" but "Is this at least adequate?" and "Does this child at least have a shot in this family?"

I like that. It would be far better than sending a kid off to "reform school" where he learns all about how to commit crimes just because he knocked a rock loose and it bounced down the cliff to hit a baby, or locking a guy in jail for six months and taking his kids away because there was dirt on the bottom of his toilet seat (both actual situations).

 

[bankside]

I like that. It would be far better than sending a kid off to "reform school" where he learns all about how to commit crimes just because he knocked a rock loose and it bounced down the cliff to hit a baby, or locking a guy in jail for six months and taking his kids away because there was dirt on the bottom of his toilet seat (both actual situations).

Good - looks like we have a deal.. What I am trying to avoid is a situation I know of where a baby was born drunk and stoned, and two years later, with the kid still suffering from an inability to eat food other than from a tube through her nose to her stomach, and an inability to regulate her own body temperature because of alcohol-related developmental defects, the government is still preventing an adoption by the foster parents because the mother could still dry out and start showing an interest in caring for her special needs, high-maintenance child. (incidentally, she refuses visitation without the social worker because "It's just too hard...")

Maintaining the "natural family" should hardly even be a consideration in this case, let alone a priority. Oh! The father could also be paroled, and then maybe decide to assert his parental rights, so there's another reason to refuse the adoption!

Anyway, I'm pretty sure our jury would agree on both your cases, and mine, and kids would live richer lives for it.

 

[VanHiscers]

During my 5 month break on here, I was in China (Shanghai) and Vietnam ([STRIKE]Ho Chi Minh[/STRIKE] Saigon -- btw the Aussie tourists in Vietnam were soooo hot). And the Chinese I talked to LOVE their country. It wasn't this "I want democracy" kind of feeling that we hear about in the media. Now in Vietnam, it was totally different. The regime in Hanoi is openly hated. They seemed oppressed, not the Chinese.

One Western educated (Oxford and Harvard) Chinese man I spoke to was openly critical of the current government. But everyone else watched their words. They, like you, were eager to point out past faults of the Chinese government but danced around problems in China today.

I asked my Chinese tour guide if he knew that President Hu did not save the climate talks in Copenhagen as the Chinese media lied about that. He KNEW! And he just laughed putting his finger to his lips indicating to me that he didn't want to talk.

And by the way, why weren't there any Chinese flags? I saw one my whole time there right next the TV Towers near where they British took over the city. I was so expecting Chinese flags everywhere and statues of Mao.

I think most of the people know what problems we have now, but it's just that almost no one cares to do anything about it, or i should say dare to do anything about it, including me? Now, I'm studying in the U.S., living out my dream, why I would risk my future on this, and I believe most of the Chinese people think so.

I think the tour guide would tell you more in private, but if you were already in private, maybe because he didn't know who you really are--you could be a undercover journalist of something and it would be bad for him if you report what he said... That's what I guess.

We don't really have a tradition of hanging flags everywhere, only at school, government buildings... There maybe more statues of Mao in Beijing, but his statues would be too out of date for Shanghai--I went there earlier in March with my American boyfriend, loved the gay bars there...

 

[bankside]

China is an interesting case. It has done so much with the free market in economics, but so little with the free market of ideas. If it can withstand the marketplace, it can withstand competing ideas as well.

I do understand the (patience? tolerance?) of the Chinese people toward their government however; it has delivered improvements in prosperity and there are important Chinese accomplishments that anyone can point to over the last 30 years. However I still fail to see how the government cannot appreciate that the liberalisation that was good for the economy will bring just as much to political decision-making without introducing the risk of destabliisation.

 

[VanHiscers]

China is an interesting case. It has done so much with the free market in economics, but so little with the free market of ideas. If it can withstand the marketplace, it can withstand competing ideas as well.

I do understand the (patience? tolerance?) of the Chinese people toward their government however; it has delivered improvements in prosperity and there are important Chinese accomplishments that anyone can point to over the last 30 years. However I still fail to see how the government cannot appreciate that the liberalisation that was good for the economy will bring just as much to political decision-making without introducing the risk of destabliisation.

Of course, they know, they just don't wanna lose their regime to another political party, and it's almost impossible to have democracy when there's only one party holding the power all the time in a country.

And if even they allow to have another political party to compete with them, then what's the point to call themselves Communist?

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course, they know, they just don't wanna lose their regime to another political party, and it's almost impossible to have democracy when there's only one party holding the power all the time in a country.

And if even they allow to have another political party to compete with them, then what's the point to call themselves Communist?

There's a good reason for starting as I suggested: allow free elections for local offices. That would be no threat to stability, nor to their power. It might even be the chance to try something new in politics, say, after a while letting the local officials vote for those above them, and see how that works.

 

[bankside]

Of course, they know, they just don't wanna lose their regime to another political party, and it's almost impossible to have democracy when there's only one party holding the power all the time in a country.

And if even they allow to have another political party to compete with them, then what's the point to call themselves Communist?

Yes; it is petty, but they are worried about job security. So have the elites in any newly-forming democracy over the last few hundred years. Currently, being in "the party" gives the leaders the security they want. In the future, they will realise being in "the political class" will give them the same security.

And of course the communist party is not one party. It is at least a handful - and probably dozens - of factions fighting it out behind closed doors..All of them are already sensitive to public perception. Democratisation would just move the fight into the open.

 

[Lostlover]

I think most of the people know what problems we have now, but it's just that almost no one cares to do anything about it, or i should say dare to do anything about it, including me? Now, I'm studying in the U.S., living out my dream, why I would risk my future on this, and I believe most of the Chinese people think so.

I think the tour guide would tell you more in private, but if you were already in private, maybe because he didn't know who you really are--you could be a undercover journalist of something and it would be bad for him if you report what he said... That's what I guess.

We don't really have a tradition of hanging flags everywhere, only at school, government buildings... There maybe more statues of Mao in Beijing, but his statues would be too out of date for Shanghai--I went there earlier in March with my American boyfriend, loved the gay bars there...

It was sort of private when the tour guide stopped short of really telling me how he felt. He is really "westernized" according to him that means eating toast for breakfast and watching the NBA.

China did not feel like a free country. Vietnam gave the illusion of one as they had unrestricted internet only in areas where tourists go.

America, I believe is free in comparison with China and Vietnam. But both places are nice.

Where were the gay bars? I stayed at a hotel near the Shanghai Financial Center.

 

[Kulindahr]

From a situation in Oregon, here's an example of being NOT a free country:

It isn't a free country when in response to a worker's formal complaint to a union representative plus the statement of a supervisor at work that the worker was "disgruntled", along with the allegation that someone at work was "worried", multiple SWAT teams show up in the middle of the night to harass a man out of his home and take him in handcuffs for a mental examination.