What makes a country free?

[General Luigi]

This is a question I'm still pondering, though I think I am on my way to an answer. My home country often calls itself the land of the free, but I often wonder what keeps it from being that only in name. Depending on whom you ask, some might say it's already in that situation, but I am not among them. In the past, I might have said giving the people a voice in government was sufficient, but that is no longer my view. I suppose such things as Proposition 8 and Egypt's political situation have played a role in my disillusionment with the idea that representation is all it takes. After all, is a country free if the majority votes to repress a minority? I do not believe so, but perhaps someone replying to this post disagrees. But then, what constitutes repression? People have diverse views with regards to what is important and what they are willing to fight for. While some might be fine with a certain act being outlawed, others might be willing to fight to the death to keep it legal. A good example would be how some in my country want to increase restrictions on gun ownership while some would sooner overthrow the government than give up their access to guns. Is gun control repression? What about the people who fear these "good guys with guns" aren't as good as they like to say they are? What about the people who feel they have a right to not live in constant fear of some trigger-happy militiaman gunning them down over a misunderstanding? It already happens from time to time with the police, after all, and considering some of the stuff some of the more passionate opponents of gun control talk about, I can understand where gun control proponents are coming from.

Of course, this is about more than mere gun rights. Rather, it is about freedom and the various forms it takes. Yes, I believe freedom comes in many forms and has no absolute form unless taken to its logical extreme. If we were to take freedom, i. e. the lack of restrictions imposed on one's behavior by others, to its logical extreme, we would have anarchy, which I do not believe can ever last in the long term. Inevitably, some people would use the lack of restrictions as an opportunity to hurt others, which in turn would lead to people forming groups for the sake of protection. As the groups grow in size, the need for organization and rules increases. Otherwise, the group risks splintering, which decreases its ability to protect itself from those who would harm its members. Perhaps therein lies the answer, however. Why must we band together to protect ourselves from... ourselves? I often see people misquoting Benjamin Franklin as having said that those who give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and lose both. Is that always the case, though? Given the fact that there are people out there who would deprive us of all our liberty given the means to overpower us, I believe it is not always the case. After all, what use is freedom to the dead? What I'm ultimately driving at here is that some forms of freedom can potentially conflict with others, and in a society such as ours, some freedoms must be limited in order to protect others.

That brings us back to the original question, though: what makes a country free? Some freedoms must be limited, so why do we give some freedoms priority over others? What combination, what balance, is necessary for a country to call itself free, and by what means do we find this balance?

[Nobody]

their citizens being allowed to publicly defend their beliefs as long as those don't hurt other people (i.e. neonazism/ antisemitism / racism / homophoby / etc.)

existence of universal sufrage.

I'd say those 2 are the big ones

[darkkfan]

their citizens being allowed to publicly defend their beliefs as long as those don't hurt other people (i.e. neonazism/ antisemitism / racism / homophoby / etc.)

existence of universal sufrage.

I'd say those 2 are the big ones

^this pretty much

I'd also add that being able to criticize the government without fear of prosecution/death is up there.

[Esau of Isaac]

their citizens being allowed to publicly defend their beliefs as long as those don't hurt other people (i.e. neonazism/ antisemitism / racism / homophoby / etc.)

how does the presence of these listed beliefs necessarily hurt other people?

[Phoenix Wright]

We have had and continue to have questionable practices when it comes to a nation toting freedom, what with espionage acts, forceful occupations of other nations, acting as the world police, but for the most part the average American can say nearly whatever he wants without fear of persecution or death.

I really do love the Franklin quote that's tossed around more than any other, "Those willing to give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither nor safety." Also, some nice Washington, "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

I'm really not a fan of what's going on in the US, foreign and domestic, currently. Our current wars and conflicts, handling of Snowden, et cetera, isn't necessarily what I had in mind for a nation whose proposed philosophy is for all to be free.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Nobody]

how does the presence of these listed beliefs necessarily hurt other people?

It's not necessarily the presence of the beliefs. You can't force someone to stop being racist or homophobic or hating jews. Those people shouldn't be able to make others hate those groups as well, though, because everyone should be equal according to law and in the eyes of the state. If those beliefs are widespread they encourages people to hate on others, sometimes significantly limiting their rights. see nazi-germany or apartheid-south africa.

I believe that if people are allowed to defend whatever they want with the exception of those things, it's still a "free state".

Edited August 12, 2013 by Nobody

[Phoenix Wright]

if widespread they encourages people to hate on others, sometimes significantly limiting their rights. see nazi-germany or apartheid-south africa.

But would you not agree that those people have the right to speak what they feel, ignorant as we feel they may be? When it comes to Neo-nazism, homophobia, and other bigoted philosophies, I feel it is our job to let them speak, but not be heard.

[Nobody]

But would you not agree that those people have the right to speak what they feel, ignorant as we feel they may be? When it comes to Neo-nazism, homophobia, and other bigoted philosophies, I feel it is our job to let them speak, but not be heard.

Yes, you have a point. When I said defend, I wasn't exactly thinking of only saying then, but defending then in a position that might influence others. A politician or someone with an important and influential job wouldn't be allowed to publicly say those things, putting their jobs at risks, but you obviously can't arrest a stupid teenager/ uneducated adult for saying those things.

[Esau of Isaac]

Yes, you have a point. When I said defend, I wasn't exactly thinking of only saying then, but defending then in a position that might influence others. A politician or someone with an important and influential job wouldn't be allowed to publicly say those things, putting their jobs at risks, but you obviously can't arrest a stupid teenager/ uneducated adult for saying those things.

I don't understand what you're saying. A politician shouldn't be able to express that he dislikes a specific group of people because others might agree with him?

[Nobody]

Yes, imagine a politician or someone with power saying he hates blacks. It makes the society think its ok to hate blacks just because of their race. Someone that is willing to publicly defend those beliefs shouldnt be in a position of power because this means that this belief is something ok, which it isnt.

Imo nazi paties or an organisation like kkk would not be allowed on a true free society, because they affect other people freedom and rights.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Nobody

[Esau of Isaac]

Yes, imagine a politician or someone with power saying he hates blacks. It makes the society think its ok to hate blacks just because of their race. Someone that is willing to publicly defend those beliefs shouldnt be in a position of power because this means that this belief is something ok, which it isnt.

Any number of us here deal with politicians being allowed to push for positions they personally feel are abhorrent, why is this any different? A politician should be able to say whatever the hell he pleases, just like everyone else.

Would you shed any tears if politicians were to disenfranchise a group of people society deems outrageous? Somehow I doubt I'd see you standing as strongly for pedophiles, for example.

Imo nazi paties or an organisation like kkk would not be allowed on a true free society, because they affect other people freedom and rights.

They speak their mind and effect the rights of others as much as anyone else. The American President's too often referenced, but I thought the line halfway through said it pretty well.

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest."

[General Luigi]

One thing I remember learning about in my linguistics class back in college is the concept of "speech acts." In the United States, some speech acts are already illegal; freedom of speech doesn't extend to them. One example would be the classic yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Likewise, trying to incite people to commit violent acts is a crime since it plays a direct role in any violence that results. What I'm seeing in the discussion so far is that freedom of expression, like many forms of freedom, is something that society might have a vested interest in not making absolute. I'm inclined to agree with that idea, considering how much damage a few words can lead to in the right (or arguably, wrong) situation.

This matter appears to raise another question, though: dissent. One of the key purposes of freedom of speech, in my opinion, is ensuring that people can tell the government they disagree with some of its actions. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is that some will disagree with the course of action the group is taking. We see this in politics all the time. It strikes me as a double-edged sword, though. Unity of opinion is good for efficiency, but is risky in that without dissenting opinions, the possibility of being wrong is never considered. At the same time, dissenters can potentially seek other means to be heard if they feel they are being ignored by the existing system. We've seen this in all manner of civil wars and rebellions throughout history. I would argue that how a country deals with dissent plays a key role in its freedom or lack thereof; misguided rebels are just as dangerous as a tyrannical government, so dissenters need to be kept in a position in which they are willing to support the existing system even if they don't always get their way.

[Phoenix Wright]

Yes, imagine a politician or someone with power saying he hates blacks. It makes the society think its ok to hate blacks just because of their race. Someone that is willing to publicly defend those beliefs shouldnt be in a position of power because this means that this belief is something ok, which it isnt.

Imo nazi paties or an organisation like kkk would not be allowed on a true free society, because they affect other people freedom and rights.

Ever heard of Newt Gingrich? Great politician--great man--talks about speaking the language of prosperity, implied by him to be English, and gradually killing the language of the ghetto, implied to be Spanish. Kidding about the great man part (though given his success I suppose even though I cannot stand the man, he is a fantastic politician).

This man was elected for Congress in the past. This is what I mean by allowing people the bigoted to speak just as freely as anyone else, but not be heard. If we were actually an enlightened people, this man should be unknown, and I shouldn't be able to bring him up as an example, because he'd be off the radar. But people actually agree with him.

So what then? What if an unacceptable (rd: majority or sizable minority) enough amount of people actually agree with the insane? It is the job of the less narrow-minded, then, to show those people the dangerousness of their thinking, then. It's a chaotic system, but in a free land, chaos is most likely to happen.

This matter appears to raise another question, though: dissent. One of the key purposes of freedom of speech, in my opinion, is ensuring that people can tell the government they disagree with some of its actions. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is that some will disagree with the course of action the group is taking. We see this in politics all the time. It strikes me as a double-edged sword, though. Unity of opinion is good for efficiency, but is risky in that without dissenting opinions, the possibility of being wrong is never considered. At the same time, dissenters can potentially seek other means to be heard if they feel they are being ignored by the existing system. We've seen this in all manner of civil wars and rebellions throughout history. I would argue that how a country deals with dissent plays a key role in its freedom or lack thereof; misguided rebels are just as dangerous as a tyrannical government, so dissenters need to be kept in a position in which they are willing to support the existing system even if they don't always get their way.

I'd agree that it depends on how a nation chooses to deal with dissent. Look at how the US is treating current whistleblowers. Threats of life imprisonments, canceling meetings between nations over one man, calling them traitors of the state. Do we not want a nation that exposes government secrecy and corruption?

Edited August 12, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Rehab]

The Frasier Institute, apparently

[Blademaster!]

The best way to establish freedom is to try and do it in a way that allows people to do as they please as long as they don't cause physical harm to others or threaten to cause physical harm. Psychological harm is a bit too broad to really make a set in stone limitation.

[peener weener]

how does the presence of these listed beliefs necessarily hurt other people?

the presence of prejudice itself does not hurt anyone (well, really, it does, speaking from experience, feels hurt and all) but the fact that people can and will act on this prejudice is what "seals the deal"

a person in a position of power who holds hate against a certain group of people is dangerous, because as history has shown time and time again, they will target them and their rights specifically. and it goes further than simply the state. lgbt people in extremely homophobic countries such as russia are assaulted and killed every day specifically for being gay. i don't understand how this can be discussed much further than this, im talking very literal harm here

if you try to be too edgy you'll cut yourself, bro

tl;dr for douchebags: being able to express your HOT OPINIOENS is ok and all, but don't try to fuck with people

Edited August 12, 2013 by Stahlypin

[Anouleth]

the presence of prejudice itself does not hurt anyone (well, really, it does, speaking from experience, feels hurt and all) but the fact that people can and will act on this prejudice is what "seals the deal"

The presence of prejudice doesn't even hurt people's feelings. It's only when prejudice is expressed that it's hurtful.

a person in a position of power who holds hate against a certain group of people is dangerous, because as history has shown time and time again, they will target them and their rights specifically. and it goes further than simply the state. lgbt people in extremely homophobic countries such as russia are assaulted and killed every day specifically for being gay. i don't understand how this can be discussed much further than this, im talking very literal harm here

So, are you saying that we should forbid certain political parties, or people who hold certain political beliefs and ideologies should be forbidden from holding public office? How would you decide which political beliefs are acceptable and which ones are "dangerous"? Who would decide?

[Rehab]

the presence of prejudice itself does not hurt anyone (well, really, it does, speaking from experience, feels hurt and all) but the fact that people can and will act on this prejudice is what "seals the deal"

a person in a position of power who holds hate against a certain group of people is dangerous, because as history has shown time and time again, they will target them and their rights specifically. and it goes further than simply the state. lgbt people in extremely homophobic countries such as russia are assaulted and killed every day specifically for being gay. i don't understand how this can be discussed much further than this, im talking very literal harm here

if you try to be too edgy you'll cut yourself, bro

tl;dr for douchebags: being able to express your HOT OPINIOENS is ok and all, but don't try to fuck with people

Specifically, Russia's modern view of homosexuality evolved in a totally different direction from that of modern Western Europe and North America, possibly because of the academic isolation experienced from Stalin-on: Being homosexual itself has no longer been decriminalized or represented as a mental illness only since 1993. Before then, getting caught being gay could land a man in a gulag for his "crime," and could land a woman in a psychiatric hospital to be "reeducated." It's still very much seen as a choice by the establishment, and an immoral one.

A law has recently been passed there against "propagandizing" or "glorifying" homosexuality to children, which is amounts to saying anything positive about it in a child's presence. Threatening to reveal to somebody's employer that they're gay to attempt to blackmail them is a thing.

(This is, of course, a relatively secular/atheist state we're talking about, which I find interesting)

Read an article recently, wanted to share

Edited August 12, 2013 by Rehab

[Nobody]

The presence of prejudice doesn't even hurt people's feelings. It's only when prejudice is expressed that it's hurtful.

So, are you saying that we should forbid certain political parties, or people who hold certain political beliefs and ideologies should be forbidden from holding public office? How would you decide which political beliefs are acceptable and which ones are "dangerous"? Who would decide?

So you think a country that forbids nazi parties is not free? Then I don't live in a free country and couldn't care less.

IMO if a party targets a group of people for something that this group can't choose being (jewish/black/gay/from other country/...) it shouldn't be allowed. I mean, those people being different isn't hurting anyone nor is changing anyone else's life, why does it matter for the society whatever they are?

Edited August 12, 2013 by Nobody

[peener weener]

So, are you saying that we should forbid certain political parties, or people who hold certain political beliefs and ideologies should be forbidden from holding public office? How would you decide which political beliefs are acceptable and which ones are "dangerous"? Who would decide?

not necessarily, but action should be taken in case human rights are infringed upon

why of course, reason and a healthy dose of constitution would

Edited August 12, 2013 by Stahlypin

[Rehab]

It could be argued that a country that doesn't allow discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality is actually more free than a country that does, in that historically oppressed groups could feel more free to be who they are in knowing that the government supports their right to go without being harassed.

[Constable Reggie]

So you think a country that forbids nazi parties is not free? Then I don't live in a free country and couldn't care less.

IMO if a party targets a group of people for something that this group can't choose being (jewish/black/gay/from other country/...) it shouldn't be allowed. I mean, those people being different isn't hurting anyone nor is changing anyone else's life, why does it matter for the society whatever they are?

Obligatory godwin's law reference

Depends on what your definition of target is. For example, do you think the Westboro baptist church shouldn't be allowed to protest (and only protest) funerals/gay marriages/whatever the hell they protest?

Edited August 12, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Anouleth]

So you think a country that forbids nazi parties is not free?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm asking important, relevant questions. If we accept that we can forbid certain political parties in the name of Freedom, it begs the question: which political parties? Maybe we ban the Nazi Party. Do we ban the far-right nationalist party? Or the slightly less far right nationalist party? Do we ban the Communist Party? Where do you draw the line? Do we need to go further?

IMO if a party targets a group of people for something that this group can't choose being (jewish/black/gay/from other country/...) it shouldn't be allowed. I mean, those people being different isn't hurting anyone nor is changing anyone else's life, why does it matter for the society whatever they are?

Except, that these people believe that people being different does hurt people. That's kind of the whole point. They don't hate gay people just for shits and giggles, they think that gay people are actually contributing to the collapse of society.

[Kitsuneko]

If that country only exists in our idealistic dreams.

Order always counterbalances freedom, and for a nation to truly be "free," it wouldn't even be a nation in the first place. We would need to revert to barbarism to truly be "free."

Society will always give constraints to its citizens. The citizens have to follow up in order to receive the society's protection. Honestly though, it's really not a bad trade.

[General Luigi]

I agree wholeheartedly, Kitsuneko. Any "freedom" a country has is limited by nature of it having laws and leaders. As such, a "free" country is only free to the extent that the state considers acceptable. Order without freedom is tyranny, but freedom without order is chaos. A country needs a means of protecting its own citizens from one another, and that's where government and rule of law come in. It's essentially a balancing act; too little control makes it easy for citizens to harm each other, but too much control invites rebellion. Finding that balance, I think, is central to what makes a country "free."