I love this Comment of the Day from the blog’s resident Canadian commentator, because it opens a discussion that I believe is essential for an understanding of the peculiar culture here in the United States, raised by someone who, unlike citizens here, has every reason to misunderstand it. I am especially sympathetic because an astounding number of U.S. citizens don’t understand it, in great part because of their failure to absorb the history of their own nation. So, in a slight departure from the usual format for EA Comments of the Day, here is Humble Talent’s COTD on the post asking of the meme above, “…What Is The Ethical Response To An Adult Who Posts This Fatuous Meme…?”, to be followed by my explanation in response to the question he poses.
***
It is a little disheartening that the younger generation interprets “free” in that context to mean “with no immediate financial cost” as opposed to “experiencing freedom”, but it might be because American freedom died at some point.
I’ve never quite been able to square the circle on how you consider yourselves free… Your citizens do not have the same level of freedom that most of the developed world does. You have criminalized more actions, you incarcerate more people, and you put them in for-profit prisons where their labor is exploited. Sure… You can carry different kinds of guns, but what’s the point in having them when you’re so in love with the taste of boot?
_______________________
Aaaand, I’m back... I have to begin by saying that I have no idea what HT is referring to when he says “Your citizens do not have the same level of freedom that most of the developed world does.” I’m tempted to use the clip from “The Princess Bride.” I’ve lived a pretty rich and adventurous life, and I can’t think of single thing that I wanted to do, thought that I should be able to do, and couldn’t do because of a government restriction. Are we talking about buying liquor at 16? Killing an unborn child? Recreational drugs? Having sex with 15-year olds? Driving without a license? What? Meanwhile, we are seeing Great Britain, among other nations, increasingly punishing speech.
Every individual’s greatest strength is also a weakness, and this applies to nations as well. A country settled by ornery, non-conforming, near-suicidal rebels and fanatics escaping other lands where they found authority oppressive naturally evolved into a nation of both laws and a public that resents laws and impositions on their autonomy in general. Jeffersonian-Madisonian philosophy, extreme as it was, reinforces this instinct to this day. The government that governs best governs least. The elements in the culture that embrace the logic of the meme above have fallen prey to the European mindset that the Founders were determined to escape.
In “The Last of the Mohicans,” a British officer asks his ex-fiance, “And who empowered these colonials to pass judgement on England’s policies, and to come and go without so much as a ‘by your leave””? She replies, “They do not live their lives ‘by your leave”! They hack it out of the wilderness with their own two hands, bearing their children along the way!” That was the frontier mentality and what still constitutes the American version of freedom. The Western expansion was the ultimate expression of it. Americans who have missed the memo need to watch more Westerns: I recommend “Shane” and “How the West Was Won.”
Freedom is not having more paid “vacation time.”
The progression is, I should think, obvious: Freedom plus a population that resents authority, embraces risk-taking and believes in self-determination equals more law-breakers and law loop-hole seekers. More law breakers means chaos and anarchy without more stringent laws and vigorous law enforcement. More law-breakers and law enforcement means more prisoners.
“You have criminalized more actions, you incarcerate more people” is a Butterfield Fallacy. Of course more people are incarcerated, because the culture now and always has encouraged defiance of authority. I find it amazing that this is so misunderstood, as by the Democrats who thought prosecuting Trump would destroy his influence when it only increased it. Of course it did: I knew it would. Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger and others became folk heroes because America admires those who challenge authority.
Sure, it’s a problem. It’s why the U.S. is uniquely violent, it’s why we have a love/hate relationship with the police. It’s also why the U.S. crawls with risk-takers. The dilemma this culture faces is the Utilitarian problem: we want freedom, but the freedom to harm another and infringe on his or her right to life and the pursuit of happiness goes too far. Balance is the challenge, and finding it is a perpetual quest.
That meme was posted by the same Facebook Friend who posted the deranged panic attack I commented on here. He’s an actor. Nobody tells him what he can and can’t do except his union, which he tethered himself to voluntarily. The greatest impositions on the freedom of Americans are taxes and regulations, the hallmark of oppressive government, and a problem that the new President has pledged to address with a metaphorical meataxe, aided by the Supreme Court’s elimination of the Chevron Doctrine. The result will almost certainly be more freedom, and thus more freedom to do mischief.
Indeed…it’s a violent country, a mercurial country, a country of eccentrics, libertarians, individualists, narcissists, criminals, rebels and assholes, and it always has been, and I fervently hope, always will be. Clarence Darrow captured the irony when he wrote, “In order to have enough liberty, it is necessary to have too much.” In this culture, freedom is defined by how little one has to depend on the government, not by how much you get from it.
Ethics Alarms 
Taking all you have said into account, you have to ask, “What’s your excuse, Canada?”
-Jut
Freedom seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Are your desires to partake in an activity at odds with society’s desire to prohibit that behavior? If yes, then freedom is less than somewhere else… I am free from government coercion from forcing me to call my children a gender other than their sex that they were born as(https://tnc.news/2023/08/11/bc-father-wins-appeal/)… Freedom from something, Freedom to something. It seems that freedom is only meaningful in the context of our expectations.
Awesome reply Jack!
Why are people willing to let the left make them into sheep?
Being a sheep is easy.
Uh Ditto.
When I read the line “Your citizens do not have the same level of freedom that most of the developed world does.” I had a fit. I even checked and found that the US has a higher economic freedom index score higher than Canada and is only tenths of a percent lower in terms of personal freedom. The countries that exceed the US are homogenous countries in Northern Europe who may be economically developed but they are all culturally identical. Their diets are the same as are their occupations and their people. Sure it is easy to be free from feeling oppressed when you are all alike. Switzerland which has a high score has only 2 million more people in it than my state of Maryland. The Danes and Swedes are no longer the Vikings of yore who took risks and accepted consequences. Today they make knock down look alike furniture or Legos.
Canada has about the same land mass as the US but has 1/9th the population so it stands to reason that the US may have more people incarcerated. Admittedly, our rate per 100,000 stands at 5 times Canada’s rate but it has been declining. A significant part of our incarceration rates may stem from drug interdiction efforts. Canada’s rate might skyrocket if we just facilitated the drug operations access to Canada without any interdiction effort on our part. Canada benefits from having the US as a buffer between them and the Cartels of South America. I find it interesting that the permissiveness of a society that embraces a drug culture is castigated as anti-freedom when we try to curtail that behavior through incarceration. I read that addiction is giving up everything for one thing and recovery is giving up one thing to get everything. Another factor that alters our rates of incarceration is advocacy and peer groups that hold no one but government responsible for ensuring well-being. Many in jail today get there because they were never held to account until the behavior became so bad that jail was the last step.
Jack’s take on this subject focuses on the whole of society and I am focusing in on one specific demographic group who never got the right influences and behavioral mods earlier in life. If we were to eliminate that group from our total incarceration rate our numbers would drop by 40%. The approximate rate of incarceration as a % of the white population is .24% and for blacks it is .99% of their respective populations. Freedom is a function of choices and those choices are often skewed by propaganda.
When I read the line “Your citizens do not have the same level of freedom that most of the developed world does.” I had a fit.
Truth hurts sometimes. Americans have this ethos wrapped around them like they’re the cowboys of Earth, but you can’t even drink at 18. You even admit this:
I even checked and found that the US has a higher economic freedom index score higher than Canada and is only tenths of a percent lower in terms of personal freedom. The countries that exceed the US are homogenous countries in Northern Europe who may be economically developed but they are all culturally identical.
I don’t care why it is that we’re more free, only that we’re more free. This is what I meant when I said you like the taste of boot: You’re defending the ways in which you’re less free by explaining why it might be necessary for you to be less free.
Admittedly, our rate per 100,000 stands at 5 times Canada’s rate but it has been declining. A significant part of our incarceration rates may stem from drug interdiction efforts.
This is probably the most damning self-own I have ever read in my life. Maybe more Canadians would be incarcerated if we didn’t have the freedom to smoke pot? I mean, sure. Anything is possible. Excuse me while I go enjoy a saskatoon berry pie, followed by a cuban cigar, a dessert joint, and a kinder surprise.
No HT I had a fit because your self righteous attitude about condemning the US. If Canada had our population along with its bad actors you would have the same problems. None the less you are still less free on the economic index that the US by several points. That suggests fewer choices and choices determine freedom.
I recognize that Canada has a fairly diverse ethnic composition but the majority of those are Asian who value education and work. Unfortunately, we have a sizable percentage of people who want to believe that the world owes them something due to our history and our allowing those who exploit it to profit from it. Those carpetbaggers make a good living selling their propaganda which winds up teaching some to make poor choices.
This is not a matter of wanting to or actually living under the boot; it is a matter of having more people choosing to break the very same laws that you have in Canada. Do you not arrest and jail killers, or thieves? Are you saying there is no jail time for bringing illegal drugs or guns into your country? The idea that people are getting locked up for years for smoking a doobie is BS. The ones in jail are trafficking narcotics. The majority in our jails are members of organizations trafficking in narcotics and about 16% are not our citizens. The point is that claiming we are less free because we have more people in jail is bad reasoning. We have more people in jail because we have more people choosing to break the same laws that you have.
Go have your Cuban cigar and smoke your joint and enjoy yourself. Neither of which are illegal here either. Not sure what the Saskatoon berry pie is.
If Canada had our population along with its bad actors you would have the same problems.
Quite possibly, but Canadians don’t refer to Canada as the land of the free, we don’t wear our freedom like a badge of pride and try to hold it up to the world as a shining example and brag about it. We just experience it.
None the less you are still less free on the economic index that the US by several points. That suggests fewer choices and choices determine freedom.
Right…. On that one specific index. Is that where you want to hang your hat? And remember: I didn’t actually say Canada in my comment, I said “a lot of the developed world”. Is America actually the most free?
This is not a matter of wanting to or actually living under the boot; it is a matter of having more people choosing to break the very same laws that you have in Canada. Do you not arrest and jail killers, or thieves? Are you saying there is no jail time for bringing illegal drugs or guns into your country?
Of course we do. And of course there is. But you’re just plain wrong: Murderers and gun runners are a microscopic minority of Americans in jail. I would have to crunch the numbers, but with American incarceration rates five times the Canadian rate per capita, it would not surprise me that if there were more people, per capita, in American jails for crimes that don’t exist in Canada, than there are Canadian people, per capita, in jail. I mean, something like 20% of people in American jails are in jail for unpaid debt…. which doesn’t exist in Canada, and that almost gets to the Canadian rate before even looking at drug charges.
Nevermind people in jail for smoking drugs (which absolutely happens), America has a system where a person could be ticketed for jaywalking, be unable to pay the fine, be found in contempt for not being able to pay the fine, and then be shipped off to a for-profit prison where their labor will be exploited to the tune of orders of magnitude more than the original fine.
But don’t jaywalk if you can’t pay the fine, right? Mmmm Boot.
Canadians don’t refer to Canada as the land of the free, we don’t wear our freedom like a badge of pride and try to hold it up to the world as a shining example and brag about it. We just experience it.
Tell that to Jordan Peterson who is ordered to get reeducation for his ideas he posts on the Internet, or the those that bucked your regimes Covid demands such as the truckers whose bank accounts were taken by your government because they spoke out
We refer to ourselves as the land of the free because we are. The Progressives who wanted to expand the boot of tolerance got a good swift kick in the butt. That is freedom. You just do not understand that we as a people chose what government is allowed to do whereas in your country the government tells you what you are allowed to do. Whatever they giveth they can taketh away. Not so here.
Economics is about choice. Choices are what determines freedom thus that one index suggests that Americans have more choices with respect to the quality of life they enjoy than virtually every other nation other than Denmark.
Speech is criminalized in the UK, political parties are banned in Germany, France and the Netherlands now have nogo zones so unless you live in Scandanavia, Belgium, or Switzerland your choices are severely limited. I have been to the Baltics (Estonia) twice and Bosnia/Herzegovina and know first hand that these nations are extremely protective of their culture to the point that they openly discriminate against those not of pure lineage. So what part of the developed world are we speaking?
Given that I spent five years working in a state penal institution working to educate inmates I know what most are in for. Extremely violent repeat offenders rarely made it into our programs because it was designed to help transition inmates into society with an AA degree. Most of ours were in for possession with intent to distribute, assault, robbery, and less than 1st degree murder (involuntary and 2nd degree).
I mean, something like 20% of people in American jails are in jail for unpaid debt…. which doesn’t exist in Canada, and that almost gets to the Canadian rate before even looking at drug charges.
Never mind people in jail for smoking drugs (which absolutely happens), America has a system where a person could be ticketed for jaywalking, be unable to pay the fine, be found in contempt for not being able to pay the fine, and then be shipped off to a for-profit prison where their labor will be exploited to the tune of orders of magnitude more than the original fine.
I have know idea where you get this statistic. We have no debtors prisons in the US.
“The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear: Judges cannot send people to jail just because they are too poor to pay their court fines.
That decision came in a 1983 case called Bearden v. Georgia, which held that a judge must first consider whether the defendant has the ability to pay but “willfully” refuses.” (NPR)
Supreme Court Ruling Not Enough To Prevent Debtors Prisons : NPR I will add that this is a slanted report designed to relieve the offender of any responsibility. I still use it to demonstrate the degree to which our criminal justice system tries to offer alternatives to incarceration but get stymied but people who just give a damn.
No one was in jail for a debt crime. There are cases where some are incarcerated for their inability to pay court imposed fines but you will not find them in either sate or federal prisons. Anyone jailed for failure to pay a court imposed fine will be in a county jail and not a prison. There may be some in prisons who received a jail sentence and a fine but to say that 20% of our inmates are in prison do to owing a financial debt is pure fiction.
You have been watching too many YouTube videos created by NGO’s who profit from creating a sense of victimization.
I never ran across a single inmate incarcerated only for possession. Most were for narcotics such as crack and heroin distribution.
How does the Canadian system effectuate justice if those convicted basically say up yours to the judge (with respect to fines or alternatives to incarceration) and are then backed up social grievance groups?
Tell that to Jordan Peterson who is ordered to get reeducation for his ideas he posts on the Internet, or the those that bucked your regimes Covid demands such as the truckers whose bank accounts were taken by your government because they spoke out
I mean, like I said to the other guy, Jordan Peterson was a professionally designated psychologist, and professional organizations have the ability to maintain standards in their profession. While he had his license, Peterson would commonly appeal to the authority of it, and that rubbed people on the licensing board of the organization to require training. The government upheld their right to do so.
This is identical to the American process, with American professional organizations requiring someone to go to some kind of training damn near every business hour, every business day, somewhere in America. And that you didn’t know that is such a self report it isn’t even funny.
As for the Emergency Act invocation with the Truckers, yeah… That was bad. But that act was so unpopular and the backlash so universal that Trudeau suspended it two weeks before he was supposed to, and his government is currently running to take either third or fourth place with 18% of the vote after the next election.
These stories always have more to them… It’s like you get your news out of headlines.
I have know idea where you get this statistic. We have no debtors prisons in the US.
I mean…. Except for the ones operating illegally, like the facility in Ferguson that just settled a lawsuit for 4.5 million dollars for holding 15,000 people.
No one was in jail for a debt crime. There are cases where some are incarcerated for their inability to pay court imposed fines but you will not find them in either sate or federal prisons. Anyone jailed for failure to pay a court imposed fine will be in a county jail and not a prison. There may be some in prisons who received a jail sentence and a fine but to say that 20% of our inmates are in prison do to owing a financial debt is pure fiction.
I was imprecise. You’re correct: Prison, not Jail. The difference is often lost on me because in Canada, the only real difference between the two are length of sentence.
Of the 2.2 million people incarcerated in America, about a million are people for nonviolent drug crimes, and half a million are people held for not paying fines.
How does the Canadian system effectuate justice if those convicted basically say up yours to the judge (with respect to fines or alternatives to incarceration) and are then backed up social grievance groups?
Depends. Often the fallout from fines ramps up to something that’s incarcerable. In the case of, as an example, speeding… If you don’t pay your fine, your license is suspended. And then if you’re caught driving without a license, it’s more serious. Zero people are incarcerated in Canada for charges stemming from a failure to pay a fine.
I forgot the two-link rule. Reply incoming.
I’m going to start my response to your response by pointing out that this is at least honest:
The progression is, I should think, obvious: Freedom plus a population that resents authority, embraces risk-taking and believes in self-determination equals more law-breakers and law loop-hole seekers. More law breakers means chaos and anarchy without more stringent laws and vigorous law enforcement. More law-breakers and law enforcement means more prisoners.
“You have criminalized more actions, you incarcerate more people” is a Butterfield Fallacy. Of course more people are incarcerated, because the culture now and always has encouraged defiance of authority. I find it amazing the this is so misunderstood, as by the Democrats who thought prosecuting Trump would destroy his influence when it only increased it. Of course it did: I knew it would. Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger and others became folk heroes because America admires those who challenge authority.
It explains a lot, I used to say something similar in the context of American incarceration rates and the seemingly inexplicable rates of American criminality compared to almost anywhere else, but I don’t think anyone on here ever really owned it quite like this.
But it kind of gives away the game, doesn’t it? You’re admitting my point out loud: Americans are so unruly that you need more stringently laws so you can keep your own people in check. I’m not commenting on whether or not it’s good policy at this point (although I’m absolutely going to disagree on that too, in just a moment), I’m just pointing out that your justice system is particularly well forested with laws designed to be able to curb the freedom your people seem keen to have.
Are we talking about buying liquor at 16? Killing an unborn child? Recreational drugs? Having sex with 15 years olds? Driving without a license? What? Meanwhile, we are seeing Great Britain, among other nations, increasingly punishing speech.
In order:
Yes, No, Yes, No, and Yes.
The first question is particularly galling in it’s stupidity: The federal minimum drinking age was established in 1984, for Christ’s sake, let’s not pretend that the founding fathers wouldn’t be rolling in their graves at the thought that adults cannot legally drink liquor in 2024 America until they reach the age of 21. And let’s not pretend that adults the world over cannot legally drink liquor, do so, and don’t have results objectively better than America does when it comes to things like drunk driving accidents.
Again, we’re not making the argument on whether the law is good, we’re asking who is more free. Recreational Drugs? Sure! Who is more free? Abortion laws? Sure! Who is more free?
I want to go back to what I said:
I’ve never quite been able to square the circle on how you consider yourselves free… Your citizens do not have the same level of freedom that most of the developed world does. You have criminalized more actions, you incarcerate more people, and you put them in for-profit prisons where their labor is exploited. Sure… You can carry different kinds of guns, but what’s the point in having them when you’re so in love with the taste of boot?
This isn’t a Butterfield Fallacy… Butterfield was always confused at why prison populations were rising while crime stats were falling, and your link gives a good explanation on why that happened. I’m just stating facts, facts you apparently agree to:
You don’t have the same levels of Freedom that the rest of the developed world does. It doesn’t take much imagination to think of ways in which I am more free. You can grate at that all you want, you can explain why you think Americans ought not be able to drink until they’re 21, smoke pot, travel to Cuba, or eat a Kinder Surprise egg. but the fact of the matter is that you can’t.
You have criminalized more actions.
Your prison sentences are longer.
You do have for-profit prisons.
And those prisons are exploiting the labor of their inmates.
The land of the free is full of people who are not free.
And let’s not pretend that adults the world over cannot legally drink liquor, do so, and don’t have results objectively better than America does when it comes to things like drunk driving accidents.
In what way do they have better results?
But it kind of gives away the game, doesn’t it? You’re admitting my point out loud: Americans are so unruly that you need more stringently laws so you can keep your own people in check.
Does it matter if the boot is democratically determined and legislated so that it applies to all or some unseen social force that keeps people in check except for those special people. Unruliness is a hallmark of freedom. The oppressive boot is often self-inflicted on those who fear upsetting the norm.
We don’t have as many drunk driving collisions, by like… several orders of magnitude, even population adjusted.
How did you accomplish that?
An argument oddly devoid of a rebuttal. You still haven’t specified any substantive “freedoms” that Americans are barred from enjoying that are either objectively necessary or even desirable.Because of the factors I cited; for example, American have never handled liquor very well or responsibly, and underage drinking deaths in the nation are far too many with the restrictions, in part because we virtually never throw anyone in prison for violating them.Recreational drugs? Absolutely a scourge and a cultural curse, and who needs them? When do they do any good whatsoever to society? How could they do any good to society? 15-year-old are free to have sex with 15-year-olds, which should be freedom a plenty restricting the freedom of sexual predators is a problem for you. Strange. But stranger still is your obsession with prisons. Our sentences are longer: Good. They are not long enough, and the “freedom” of citizens who have broken the social compact and not only harm they fellow citizens and society but cost them resources that should be applied more constructively meets the George S. Kaufmann standard for “I could not care less.” What does for profit prisons have to do with freedom? Prisoners have drastically reduced freedom: until the Supreme Court rules that making prisoners work to help pay for a small portion of what hey cost taxpayers, their labor in for-profit prisons or government run prisons isn’t a freedom question but a “don’t do the crimes if you can’t do the time issue.”
So your final argument is just to repeat your original, unproven assertion.
You have criminalized more actions: I still haven’t seen an example of anything criminalized that shouldn’t be, and that society wouldn’t be significantly harmed if it were not.
Your prison sentences are longer: Not long enough, and prisoners’ freedoms are irrelevant..
You do have for-profit prisons.: Irrelevant.
And those prisons are exploiting the labor of their inmates. Also irrelevant. My heart bleeds for them. Solution: stay out of prison. What a concept.
The land of the free is full of people who are not free. That’s different from your original assertion.
And, I forgot to add, that it’s telling that you think my description of the national culture here is in any way damning. That admanat resistance to authority that causes persistent problems is also why I am confident that”it can’t happen here.” The core culture of individuality, defiance and suspicion of authority sis till hardy and indomitable, if a bit frayed around the edges.
And that’s why “the flag is still there.”
I’m not damning your description of your culture, Jack.
I’m not even damning your judicial system’s response to your culture.
I’m describing it, and it’s bothering you.
You still haven’t specified any substantive “freedoms” that Americans are barred from enjoying that are either objectively necessary or even desirable.
Objectively necessary? Holy shit… This topic is breaking you. Since when is THAT the standard, or even *a* standard for whether a people are free? The bare minimum of objective allowance?
America is riddled with laws that don’t exist elsewhere. States have laws on the books limiting the numbers of marital aids it’s legal to own. States have laws on the books limiting what clothes can be worn while driving, that have nothing to do with the safe operation of the vehicle. It is a federal crime not to pick up your dog’s shit in national parks. Thick tomes are devoted to the thousands of bits of freedom you don’t have.
Recreational drugs? Absolutely a scourge and a cultural curse, and who needs them? When do they do any good whatsoever to society? How could they do any good to society?
Again…. Do you even actually believe that that’s the standard?
Up until 2015, gay marriage wasn’t legal in all 50 states, and without a SCOTUS intervention, still wouldn’t be. But that pales in comparison to Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 ruling that invalidated the sodomy laws that were on the books in twelves states, criminalizing consenting sexual relations between adult men.
I am sure, positive even, that people, some of them who comment here, might consider Lawrence, or at least that Obergefell v. Hodges an incorrect decision. They might even say that gay relations are a scourge, and a cultural curse, unnecessary, because what good are they?
But is the freedom to have sexual relations with another consenting adult a freedom, or not? If it is, was America not free until 2003? If not, should America criminalize pre-marital sex? I mean…. It’s a scourge, a cultural curse, unnecessary, and single motherhood is a blight. Hell! Maybe we should criminalize single motherhood!
Obviously, I don’t believe that. These are the low hanging, obvious, examples of why your stated standard is awful. But I wonder what you would have said if we’d had this conversation in 2000.
Honestly…. This is the stupid version of this conversation. Instead of trying to defend your lack of personal freedoms as necessary, if I were in your shoes, I’d have tried to argue that our portfolios of freedom are different, and while America restricts a whole lot of personal freedoms that the rest of the world doesn’t, your first and second amendment rights are so unique and important that they outshine it.
I would have respected that argument, even if I disagreed, because the sheer amount of small illegal infractions, coupled with debtors in prison and the conditions around prisons, I think, offset it and then some.
15-year-old are free to have sex with 15-year-olds, which should be freedom a plenty restricting the freedom of sexual predators is a problem for you. Strange.
Not at all, you’re just being purposefully obtuse. I’m not saying we should be lawless, I’m saying that when you compare the laws between America and other nations, American activity is more restricted. You’re talking about child rapists, I’m talking about underage drinkers, pot smokers, people with 7 dildos in Texas, and people too poor to pay fines.
Of course there should be laws against adults having sex with teenagers. Of course there should be laws against murder. Of course there should be speed limits. Of course there should be regulations.
We can have discussions on the margins on how those laws should be penned, but we have to accept that those laws that we pen exist, and the laws between two jurisdictions can be compared.
This isn’t strange, or inexplicable, it’s just really uncomfortable for a people who value freedom but don’t actually stack up well.
But stranger still is your obsession with prisons. Our sentences are longer: Good. They are not long enough, and the “freedom” of citizens who have broken the social compact and not only harm they fellow citizens and society but cost them resources that should be applied more constructively meets the George S. Kaufmann standard for “I could not care less.” What does for profit prisons have to do with freedom? Prisoners have drastically reduced freedom: until the Supreme Court rules that making prisoners work to help pay for a small portion of what hey cost taxpayers, their labor in for-profit prisons or government run prisons isn’t a freedom question but a “don’t do the crimes if you can’t do the time issue.”
I’m just marveling at how the exact argument I outlined and addressed in the other thread is being regurgitated back to me as if it’s substantive. You’ve said it yourself: Prisoners have reduced freedoms. So perhaps if you’re going to curtail the freedoms of your fellow citizens, you ought to go through the exercise, often and vigorously, particularly if you actually value freedom as opposed to performatively value freedom, of making sure that their freedoms are respected, lest you lose your own.
The disdain for “lawbreakers”, particularly in “Our sentences are longer: Good. They are not long enough” is disgusting. You have no idea what a person did. No idea how long their sentence is. But fuck them: 10,000 years dungeon.
Honestly…. How do you get like this?
I’m curious how exactly one quantifies with any exactitude the number of actions that are criminalized. Some laws are specific, concrete, and narrowly written concerning the conduct they prohibit. Others are vague, or broadly written, or left to the discretion of authorities, or any combination of the three. Lawyers, police, courts, and bureaucrats can all disagree over whether specific conduct falls under a specific law.
I suppose that with enough time and effort, you could completely catalogue and categorize the laws of two countries and compare them, but this is the kind of thing where you don’t really need exactitude… With the exceptions of Speech, Arms, and Abortion, I’m having a hard time thinking of personal freedoms that Americans have access to that outstrips Canada. You could argue that Speech and Arms are important, and I’d agree, but the amount of petty tyrancy that Americans put up with is strange to me, and always has been.
Canadians consider themselves to be our moral superiors. Tell me something I don’t know, HT.
This isn’t a morality opinion. I’ve specifically made no judgement on whether our specific levels of freedom are morally better, although I have opinions, which might surprise you.
It’s a is-the-sky-blue kind of statement: Objectively, American behavior is more restricted than it is in Canada, with some obvious exceptions. You ban more things. You control more things. You legislate more things. And for every example I’ve given, the answer so far has been a variation of: Yeah! We do! And we’re proud of it!
Which was exactly my point.
Black percentage of American population: 13 percent. Black percentage of American prison population: 38%. Black percentage of Canadian population: 3 percent. Black percentage of Canadian prison population: 9%
How does the number of people in prisons have anything to do with the concept of citizens’ personal freedom. People in prisons tend of have forfeited their freedom as a result of committing crimes. Do you know how hard it is to get convicted of a crime and then get sentenced to prison in the American judicial system? How hard is it not to commit a felony?
Statistically speaking, the Black population as a percent of total population in Canadian prisons is essentially the same as the U.S -3x the percentage of the total population of that demographic. Thus, Canada incarcerates the same percentage of Blacks as the US when adjusted for population differences. Why is that HT? And I am told that our criminal justice system disproportionately and therefore unjustly targets Blacks.
What are you responding to, that I said, specifically?
Because I’ll own it: I’ve said before that I believe that black citizens are more likely to be stopped, more likely to be charged, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to be incarcerated, than white citizens, regardless of whether they’re in Canada or the US. I also believe that there are probably going to be reasons for that that aren’t tied to racism so much as they’re tied to poverty, which happens to correlate to race.
But I have no idea why you think that’s on topic.
When did I mention black people?
Here’s the question I ask myself. Do I want the state to give me stuff and call it freedom or do I want to have the opportunity to earn enough income to get my own stuff and call it freedom? Getting Canadian health care may be “free” but if you can’t afford treatments for other modalities such as acupuncture, you’re limited. If your doctor doesn’t fully understand your condition but recommends assisted suicide, you’re really limited. There is a cost to this “free” program including longer wait times for treatment, leading again, to being presented with the option to just kill yourself.
Instead of paying 40-60% of my income in taxes for this “freedom” I’d rather have the government leave my money alone so I can choose who I go to and what modality I want to use. This way I can choose to wait a long time for a particular practitioner or speed things up with someone else. And I don’t have to wait for months or years in pain and stress to eventually be told, “go die already. ” RCMP called to investigate multiple cases of veterans being offered medically assisted death | CBC News
It’s quite obvious from this last election that over half the country has no taste for boots. I suspect many a Trump voter cast a ballot for him to keep that taste out of their mouths. The Biden administration only wants more of our money for their pet projects and personalities. Let’s not forget that for some in this country, the point of having those guns is to keep those boots away from their lips. So-called developed nations have very strict gun laws. If we’ve learned anything from fascism, when guns are taken or severely restricted, the people can’t fight back. If Democrats want guns out of citizen hands but want throngs of people to burn down buildings and neighborhoods, how can citizens protect themselves? If you’re not even free to protect your family from such madness, you’re not free at all.
Freedom is not for criminals. When you take away the freedom of another through rape, robbery, murder, you deserve your freedom to be taken because you don’t respect the concept of freedom. You’re not free to take freedom away from others. Imprisoning freedom takers is how we keep everyone else free. It’s not perfect but there is nothing free about being so afraid of the criminals around you that you’re afraid to leave your home. Just tonight my wife, fellow staff, and kids had to be on lock down at a children’s program, complete with having to lock everyone in while keeping the parents from being able to pick up their kids. No one could leave because one man decided to try to come in with a baseball bat while high. This meant no one was free to come and go because of one man. Should he be “free” to keep impeding the freedom of the children, parents, and staff? Hell no! He should be in jail and anyone who says differently is a freedom hater and not a freedom lover.
Freedom may be just another word for nothing left to lose but if I’m going to lose my freedom, it will be where I know others will stand with me and try to fight for it. Not with people who acquiesce their freedom to a blackface Prime Minister who is oddly loved by the DEI set.
Freedom is not for criminals. When you take away the freedom of another through rape, robbery, murder, you deserve your freedom to be taken because you don’t respect the concept of freedom.
Right…. But you realize that rapists, robbers, and murderers only make up about 20% of the prison population, right? No one is going to argue that those people shouldn’t be in prison.
But there are almost as many people in prison for not being able to pay court debt. People who didn’t, or couldn’t, pay fines and were given contempt charges.
And then, once you look at those two extremes as the ends of the spectrum, there’s the other 60% of people in jail.
How many of those people are in jail for actions or behaviors that aren’t even crimes in other countries?
“An Ontario court ruled against psychologist and media personality Jordan Peterson Wednesday, and upheld a regulatory body’s order that he take social media training in the wake of complaints about his controversial online posts and statements…”
Reeducation camp? Really?
Or how about the Canadian government freezing the back accounts of the protesting truckers? Don’t disagree with us, we’ll destroy you! Um, how about just tow the vehicles away under existing traffic laws?
From a Canadian publication regarding a Canadian father referenced in the documentary “What is a woman”: “However, the judges still said he must acknowledge and refer to his child as a boy and by the name the teen has chosen.”
Wow, isn’t that compelled speech?
I think freedom begins with speech, and if that’s infringed, it’s not long before we’re sent to reeducation camp, while the government takes our money, and then tells us what to say about it.
HT, generally appreciate your commentary, but in the immortal words of My Cousin Vinny, “everything (HT) just said is bullshit”
An Ontario court ruled against psychologist and media personality Jordan Peterson Wednesday, and upheld a regulatory body’s order that he take social media training in the wake of complaints about his controversial online posts and statements…
Yeah, and American professional organizations can require the same for their members. Ask Jack how he feels about the ABA.
Or how about the Canadian government freezing the back accounts of the protesting truckers? Don’t disagree with us, we’ll destroy you! Um, how about just tow the vehicles away under existing traffic laws?
I mean, sure…. But have you seen what happened to the J6 protestors? I’m sure that some of them would gladly give up a couple day’s access to their accounts instead of the decades of jail time they were given.
From a Canadian publication regarding a Canadian father referenced in the documentary “What is a woman”: “However, the judges still said he must acknowledge and refer to his child as a boy and by the name the teen has chosen.”
Wow, isn’t that compelled speech?
There’s more to that story…. But, Sure. Not great. I’ve said several times that American Speech and Arms protections are better than Canada’s. But let’s not pretend that Democrats aren’t trying to weaponize abuse and harassment claims to curb exactly the same kind of speech with some success in America. This isn’t nearly as black and white as you make it.
CBC article mentioned a court, a court won’t enforce an action from an association. A court can’t tell a doctor he can’t operate because the doctor tweeted out “you’re fat and ugly”.
J6 argument isn’t relevant to the point – your government decided to take action without any charging or conviction. They just froze the accounts. How many months were their accounts frozen?
For every stupid thing you point out about US law we can find equivalents in Canada.
We’re not less free than Canadians at all, so just stop with that nonsense.
“American Speech and Arms protections are better than Canada’s.
Maybe some Pun intended, but that statement trumps all other arguments about who’s “freer”.
CBC article mentioned a court, a court won’t enforce an action from an association. A court can’t tell a doctor he can’t operate because the doctor tweeted out “you’re fat and ugly”.
A court will absolutely uphold the right of a profession to self-regulate. You’re… embarrassingly wrong on this. What happened was Peterson sued the College of Psychologists to try to get their ruling overturned, and the court told him to pound sand.
J6 argument isn’t relevant to the point – your government decided to take action without any charging or conviction. They just froze the accounts. How many months were their accounts frozen?
Between February 15th and 22nd, 10 days, at most, maybe with some processing lag. The Emergencies Act was good for about a month, but the blowback from Canadians was so strong the Liberals almost immediately buckled.
We’re not less free than Canadians at all, so just stop with that nonsense.
Except for all the ways you are. You have 1 million people in prison (prison, not jail… I’m learning) for non violent drug crimes and another half million people in prison for being unable to pay a debt. These things do not carry jail time in Canada.
I want to repeat that: about 70% of your prison population is made up of people who would not be in prison if they had lived in Canada.
Perhaps a distinction between a single vague law vs. many narrowly tailored laws is your objection?
Vague laws do not imply more freedom, yet narrowly tailored laws allow for behavior in a regulated way.
Great response, Jack! A Canadian saying that Americans as a nation “like the taste of boot” is really rich, although there are obviously some few who do. As was ably stated by others in the comments, there are certainly some who expect government to meet their every need, but completely dismiss the costs of government dependency.There is a certain type of person who really doesn’t want freedom, they want to have their needs met. Our culture seems to have been actively manufacturing such people as of late, but this is still, I believe, a reversible condition. It has been odd, in my lifetime, to see the Democrats flip from being the alleged “freedom loving“ party to the party of undeniable authoritarianism and creeping tyranny. Trump’s election not withstanding, the Dems will soon be back at work undermining our republic and whittling away at our God-given rights. Those of us who love liberty must keep our noses to the grindstone as well. The mid-terms loom ahead and there are patriots to elect and nascent communists to defeat. There are many local elections to which attention must be paid. Liberty is never permanently established; it has to be constantly nurtured by its adherents and protected from its enemies. Those enemies, both “foreign and domestic,” have gained some ground, but it is ground that can be retaken if we have the will. I hope and pray that we do, and, moving forward, I will be directing whatever feeble efforts I can contribute to that end. I had better close before I break out into the Saint Crispin’s Day Speech.
Mrs. Q wrote:
I was having this discussion with my 16 yr old son last night. He was dumbfounded at a gaggle of girls at his school who proudly claimed that they didn’t need any rights because the just wanted to get married. This discussion resulted in the analogy of the goldfish that thinks that it is free but is only in a small container of water. The conclusion was context. They are rich private school girls who don’t know oppression.
On the topic of rights, Canadia is different than the U.S.
In Canadia, the government gives you allowance to do things and they can take it away from you at any time easily.
In the U.S., our rights prohibit the government’s encroach rather than permit us on a leash. This does change where the regulatory power of governance is express through lawful prohibition. But foundationally, the government is barred from encroaching apon our rights, though changing the Bill of Rights is possible and legal but extremely difficult.
Whether it be resources or liberty, it should not be the government the provides.
Humble Talant seems to me to be missing the point that we do have many more laws simply because we must regulate so much more liberty which results in us bumping into eachother more often resulting in recourse for restitution. Though we would have a much lower encarceration rate without the war on drugs, I fail to see how so much unregulated liberty
If I don’t have the “right” to do something and learn to live in a desk(public school) or a cage(an office) and I live on a government sugar drip, I am not likely to be interested in doing anything that needs to be regulated.
HT misses the point of the liberty of reckless creative ambition and its common but acknowledged cost. And the drinking age in N.S. Canadia is 19 – apparently the age of majority there. But 18 elsewhere. Criminalizing drinking at 19, 18 or 21? WTF does it matter. HT’s argument seems to think that a year or two make a legal prohibition not a legal prohibition(I do think that drinking ages are stupid all around).
I think of Nova Scotia which only ended its mask mandate a full year after we had stopped wearing masks where I live.
I think of the moron police in Georgia who arrested a mother because her 11 year old son walked to the Dollar General alone half a mile away.
Stupid is everywhere! I don’t think we like the taste of the boot here. But we do have the freedom, and power and constitutional enshrined opportunity for recourse when government encroaches.
I propose a simple test. HT can come visit the U.S. for some lengthy period of time. And, Jack can provide him essay space here at EA. Everyday HT can chronicle how he has less freedom than in Canadia – so far he has listed alcohol, pot and Kinder eggs.
What’s up with Kinder Eggs?
A big “Hooray!” for Mrs. Q’s long-awaited reemergence. And frankly, “Hooray!” for HT’s reemergence as well.
The FDA thinks that American kids are too stupid not to choke on the toy that comes inside them, so they are the only country on Earth to ban them.
I’m sure it’s because even the kids have that rebel spirit, and when you tell them not to put something in their mouth, they’re disproportionately predisposed to do it anyway out of spite.
What country are you talking about again?
We have kinder eggs in our home on a regular basis and they have TOYS in them. Shocker!
Funny story, but you’re either confused, lying, or a criminal!
To be fair, you probably have Kinder Joys.
Source:
Not only are Kinder Surprise eggs prohibited from being sold in America, but they’re also prohibited from being brought across the border as well. It’s a fact that’s caused grief for some travelers unaware of the ban. In an interview with FEE Stories, one startled traveler thought border control were joking when they said they were confiscating their Kinder Surprise eggs, but this wasn’t a joking matter. A fine for a single Kinder Surprise egg can be as much as $2,500, making it a costly mistake for those unaware of the law.
“Kinder eggs are prohibited just like narcotics are prohibited,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesperson Mike Milne told FEE Stories. “Our officers, if they encounter prohibited stuff, they’re subject to seizure.”
The amount of Kinder Surprise eggs confiscated varies year to year but ranges in the several thousand. For instance, in 2011, border control seized 60,000 Kinder Surprise Eggs. Meanwhile, that number was slightly less at 30,000 in 2015. While people do make mistakes when it comes to accidentally bringing Kinder Surprise eggs into the U.S., there’s also a black market for the candy as well. Holidays like Easter raise the desire for the banned candy.
As mentioned above, the risk of choking seems to be the main reason for the ban in the United States. However, how many people have actually died from choking on the toys? Although the number is low, a few children have died from choking on the toy. In 2016, a three-year-old girl in France died after a choking incident caused brain damage. Critics have pointed out that on average 140 children die choking on other foods like grapes every year, but the ban remains.
However, that hasn’t stopped other companies from attempting to challenge the 1938 Act. In 1997, Nestle introduced a similar product to Kinder Surprise called the Nestle Magic. It featured a toy inside the candy. Despite the candy company going to bat in a lengthy legal process, Nestle was forced to pull Nestle Magic from the stores, making it banned like Kinder Surprise before it.
That being said, there are Kinder products available in the United States. The company introduced Kinder Joy, which is egg-shaped but not actually an egg. It features a toy in a separate pouch making it legal. As far as the candy portion, it’s a white chocolate mixture with wafers.
In Canadia, the government gives you allowance to do things and they can take it away from you at any time easily.
This is…. Not true to the point of absurdity. Canada has a constitution, and constitutional protections, we’re just more clear on the limits of them.
Humble Talant seems to me to be missing the point that we do have many more laws simply because we must regulate so much more liberty which results in us bumping into eachother more often resulting in recourse for restitution.
Of course you don’t. This is the American ethos, the aspiration, it is what you’re told from a very young age, and you believe, but never really have to think about or defend. Nevermind the absurdity of the idea that your system is designed to deal with the problem of your libertious citizens bumping into eachother – Your system incentivizes it: This isn’t a question of rights, but in America, it’s much more common for the plaintiff in a civil suit to be awarded costs, which has over time build a culture of petty lawfare that again… Doesn’t really exist anywhere else.
HT misses the point of the liberty of reckless creative ambition and its common but acknowledged cost. And the drinking age in N.S. Canadia is 19 – apparently the age of majority there. But 18 elsewhere. Criminalizing drinking at 19, 18 or 21? WTF does it matter. HT’s argument seems to think that a year or two make a legal prohibition not a legal prohibition(I do think that drinking ages are stupid all around).
I also mentioned Saskatoon berry pies, which the FDA still doesn’t recognize as food, but I assure you are delicious. My point is that you have less personal freedom. This isn’t a toggleswitch where you either have freedom or don’t, freedom is a spectrum, and Americans tend to have less. Two or three years less, on the topic of drinking. It’s hard to give specific example, because a lot of your laws vary wildly by state… Someone from California would have a very different experience from someone in Texas. But books, think ones, have been written about the stupid laws on the book in America; from Texas limiting the number of dildos it’s legal for you to own (six), to California making it illegal for women to drive cars while wearing housecoats. American is absolutely bursting at the seams with petty tyancy, and that most of these laws are sporadically enforced is bitter consolation to the people charged with them.
I don’t know how long you have lived in the states or where, but I have never looked up in a law book what I can and can’t do.
Don’t drink. Don’t speed. Don’t do drugs. But I do whatever else I can imagine so long as it does not harm someone elses property or person. Where I live(don’t move to Georgia), as long as police don’t get called, there is ZERO involvement and ZERO concern thanks to St. Floyd.
To your cherry picked specifics… Like i said…. stupid is everywhere – laws are easy to pass, hard to enforce and often found unconstitutional.
vary wildly by state… Someone from California… Texas……… Yep! It’s called freedom get involved and make your state great again. Lot’s of space. Lot’s of variation.
We have an adversarial system. To be generous, Canada has a cooperative system or less polarized. The U.S. is like an octagon. Get ready to spar when you want to test boundaries.
Canada is like a big kumbyah hug of affirmation, eh?
I look forward to the day that Canada has as many people and a big enough economy to show the world that they as a people are so good at being people that they don’t need laws to regulate themseves.
This is…. Not true to the point of absurdity.
The American system is premised on the citizens telling what the government that it is not allowed to regulate and is constructed in a way to be nearly impossible to change. Please correct me, someone.
The Candian system is the other direction. As you have also mentioned elsewhere, Canada somewhat weak on “free speach”. But, that is the point. You don’t need lots of laws to regulate a minutae of behavior if the law you have is vague and relative engough to nip behaviors in the bud – freedom never emerges.
The American system is premised on the citizens telling what the government that it is not allowed to regulate and is constructed in a way to be nearly impossible to change. Please correct me, someone.
The Candian system is the other direction. As you have also mentioned elsewhere, Canada somewhat weak on “free speach”. But, that is the point. You don’t need lots of laws to regulate a minutae of behavior if the law you have is vague and relative engough to nip behaviors in the bud – freedom never emerges.
No…. You have no idea what you’re talking about. The Canadian system is exactly the same. I didn’t say Canada was weak on free speech, I said the first Amendment was better. Canada has Section 2, which basically enshrines the same kind of rights as the first Amendment, the difference is that there is a more codified process for the government to infringe and find exceptions to our expression rights. But even in America, the first Amendment isn’t absolute. You can’t utter threats, You can’t defraud, You can’t defame… And if you do, there are legal consequences.
You absolutely have a valid point. It’s a bit like telling a fish it’s wet as well to say we don’t have freedom. My husband has been watching YouTube videos of shops in… actually idk where they are located. India perhaps? Philippines? Mideast? They wear robes and sandals or loose tunics and loose pants in a shop. With welding, torches, lathes, and melted metal. Without safety gear, no gloves, shields of any sort and sandals… there is no shop in the US where you’d be allowed to work with that gear. Not even a small mom and pop shop. The fumes….. I’m not even sure we’re allowed to melt lead batteries. I certainly know we wouldn’t be allowed to operate equipment with their “tire patch” that used melted lead batteries and cable. Even better, no one would.
Decades ago, I had thought that if I was an American I would vote Democrat as the Republicans were too much under the control of conservative groups who liked to make laws about things which should be of no concern of the law such as people’s private sex lives. More recently, there is no way would I vote Democrat as they are too much under the control of the DEI (Discrimination, Exclusion, Indoctrination} crowd.
It is true that America has the First and Second Amendments which we do not have here in New Zealand but in most other laws I get the impression that New Zealand is freer the US. For example, why does Florida require anyone wanting to be an interior designer to need a two year associate degree in interion design in order to work in that field. And why does anyone wanting to do hair braiding need a cosmetology license when cosmetology courses don’t teach hair braiding? These ridiculous requirements only make it harder for people to choose a career that they may be good at.
“These ridiculous requirements only make it harder for people to choose a career that they may be good at.“
But look at all the obsequiously talentless toadies for whom it supplies do-nothing bureaucratic regulatory/administrative/oversight seat-stuffer jobs.
PWS
They should send them out on the roads filling potholes.
Yes, the credentialing and licensing of many professions and occupations is wildly out of control here, the result of union and other interest group lobbying. But there is recognition of this problem, and I see it being dismantled in the near future.