American idea of freedom vs. German intuition

Most members here are American, and I am German. Our two countries are allies, in organizations such as NATO and sharing the same fondness for the ideas of freedom, constitutional and republican government.

But after several years of discussing politics with Americans, I've realized that certain ideas about concepts like "freedom", "democracy" and "government" that seem to be widespread in America differ from my understanding of these ideas, and I consider many of my ideas more or less mainstream in Germany (although I could be wrong, of course).

I'd like to know your opinion on these differences. I don't want to argue one of these views is right and the other is wrong, because I believe both views have their merits, although I feel more familiar with my ideas, of course.

Which differences do I mean?

When Americans say "freedom", many apparently mean "freedom from the government" with strong emphasis on economic freedom -- the way free markets distribute wealth is not questioned, but even considered an ideal, totally just system, because "everybody enjoys the fruits of his work". There is no such thing as a "common welfare" or "public interests", no such thing as society (as Margaret Thatcher once said), but "only individuals". This goes so far that any government regulation or action is questioned and considered a necessary evil at best. "Democracy" has a bad name among many Americans, because democracy allegedly is "tyranny of the majority". Some don't even make a difference between democratic or autocratic government and consider both equally bad -- only a tiny government is a good government, no matter which character it has. The people, the individuals have the right to defend themselves against government with firearms and topple their government if it gets too big. And many simplify their view: Every advocacy of government intervention is labelled "left wing socialism", while only free market radicalism is "right freedom". Some even call taxes "theft".


Now my experience in Germany is different. For me, and I believe for today's German mainstream, the crucial question is not how big government is, but how democratic and constitutional it is. "Democracy" is a word with an extremely positive connotation in my ear. And I don't believe either that a distribution of wealth created by free markets is fair, but that big business will enslave the people just as much as big government, if it's not checked -- private actors are not better than democratic government, but usually even much, much worse, because they don't enjoy democratic legitimation and are basically "little dictatorships within the democratic state". Actors with much money always have more power than actors with few money, and this is not okay, because humans are all worth the same and accordingly all should have the same voice in all issues that concern them. Only democracy can make sure this is the case. And the idea that there is no "common good/welfare" or "society" sounds totally absurd to me, because we are not individuals living on abandoned isles -- no, we have a responsibility, because our actions will always affect our fellow citizens.

I don't believe in a kind of "leave me the **** alone-freedom" either, but I believe basic constitutional values such as inviolability of the person, the right on free speech and gathering, the right to choose the representatives in free elections, the right on a fair trial and the right on dignity -- those are the true basic values I believe in.

Probably this is due to different historical experiences. Here in Germany today, we are still totally obsessed with the Nazis' rise to power and our intention to learn from it. And the bad thing about the Nazis was not that they created welfare nets, health care or anything of that kind -- no, the problem was that they destroyed the constitution, trampled on its values, abolished democracy and a free legal system and then abused this power to enslave the entire people and murder a significant portion of it. The problem was that inviolability of the person, freedom of speech, democratic elections and fair trials were no longer guaranteed.

The idea that firearms in the population could have prevented Hitler's rise to power sounds totally absurd to me: If more people had had guns in Weimar, they would have used them to even more effectively destroy the democratic-republican government -- the problem was that way too few people believed in constitutional values and democracy. A majority hated the republic, supporting either right-wing monarchist or Nazi ideas, or communist ideas on the left. The German people back then could not be trusted, and the fathers of the 1949 constitution didn't trust their people either -- and I am still not inclined to trust my own people today. Maybe we are freedom-loving democrats as long as the economy is doing well, but if and when there is a crisis, I am not going to bet that we remain this way.

What does that mean? In Germany's history, it was ironically not the people that fought for freedom, but it was government that defended freedom from the authoritarian mob: The 1848 revolution for a republican state failed. 1918 it succeeded, but Weimar soon failed because the constitutional-democratic government was not strong enough to defend itself against the mob that hated it. In West-Germany after 1949, a majority of the people still didn't believe in democratic values and freedom for one or two decades, but would have supported any demagogue -- the new republican government supported by a new constitution defended freedom against the people (with strict anti-Nazi hate speech laws -- 5 years in prison for Holocaust denial, for example -- and the legal option to ban anti-constitutional parties and organizations).

Also, it often were private actors on the market that enslaved and abused the people over here, not government: Think of the situation of 19th century workers to get an idea. They and their children had to work up to 16 hours per day, without days off, without labor safety regulations, without any right on pensions, and -- worst of all -- no prospect of ever climbing the social ladder. That's why we know private actors can be just as tyrannic, if not more so, than government, and private actors often are the much bigger threat for individual freedom.

That's why a simple anti-government rhetoric is not common in Germany -- most of us don't fear the state. What we do fear, though, is a state that attempts to violation the constitution and its values, one that abandons democracy in favor of autocracy: Whenever the government issues a law that proposes wiretapping, military expenditures, internet censorship or the like -- you can count on many Germans crying bloody murder, much like Americans do when taxes are raised. We're so sensitive on these issues that not few believed the Fourth Reich is about to start, when Bush introduced the Patriot Act in America, his policy of extralegal renditions and anti-terror war -- denying mere suspects the right on fair trials, locking them away for years, although many of them are probably innocent -- WTF?! That's Nazi stuff!!!

On the other side, we don't do much more than grumbling a little when taxes are raised, even when they reach more than 50% of our income. Annoying? Sure ... but hey, it's for a good cause, and the day we are unlucky, we'll profit from that money ourselves, thanks to the social nets. Taxes are stealing? Ah shut the **** up, you egoistic asshole. There is not just you in this country, understood?

Also, I often feel offended when certain Americans are way too quick when labeling certain policies "socialism" or "tyranny": WE know what real socialism is. We had that in East Germany from 1949 to 1990: No right on privacy, no right on democratic participation, no freedom of speech or religion, a police force that was above the law and a legal system in the pockets of big government, ****ty material situation. So don't tell me that a thing that actually helps people to gain more freedom -- a public health care system, i.e. -- anyhow resembles that kind of real socialism! And on the other side, you look away when your government can kidnap suspects from the street and make them disappear, without any court ever being able to rule about them, is "necessary in the war on terror"... now maybe "fascism" is not a appropriate label for such kind of blatantly anti-constitutional policy, just as bad as the label "socialism" for public welfare, but it's the first thing that comes to my mind.

What do you think? Do you understand where I am coming from?

Well what I can gather is unless people are allowed to own any gun they want you are not free. The idea is ludicrous, you do not guns to have a free society especially in a different society.

German guy said:

Most members here are American, and I am German. Our two countries are allies, in organizations such as NATO and sharing the same fondness for the ideas of freedom, constitutional and republican government.

But after several years of discussing politics with Americans, I've realized that certain ideas about concepts like "freedom", "democracy" and "government" that seem to be widespread in America differ from my understanding of these ideas, and I consider many of my ideas more or less mainstream in Germany (although I could be wrong, of course).

I'd like to know your opinion on these differences. I don't want to argue one of these views is right and the other is wrong, because I believe both views have their merits, although I feel more familiar with my ideas, of course.

Which differences do I mean?

When Americans say "freedom", many apparently mean "freedom from the government" with strong emphasis on economic freedom -- the way free markets distribute wealth is not questioned, but even considered an ideal, totally just system, because "everybody enjoys the fruits of his work". There is no such thing as a "common welfare" or "public interests", no such thing as society (as Margaret Thatcher once said), but "only individuals". This goes so far that any government regulation or action is questioned and considered a necessary evil at best. "Democracy" has a bad name among many Americans, because democracy allegedly is "tyranny of the majority". Some don't even make a difference between democratic or autocratic government and consider both equally bad -- only a tiny government is a good government, no matter which character it has. The people, the individuals have the right to defend themselves against government with firearms and topple their government if it gets too big. And many simplify their view: Every advocacy of government intervention is labelled "left wing socialism", while only free market radicalism is "right freedom". Some even call taxes "theft".


Now my experience in Germany is different. For me, and I believe for today's German mainstream, the crucial question is not how big government is, but how democratic and constitutional it is. "Democracy" is a word with an extremely positive connotation in my ear. And I don't believe either that a distribution of wealth created by free markets is fair, but that big business will enslave the people just as much as big government, if it's not checked -- private actors are not better than democratic government, but usually even much, much worse, because they don't enjoy democratic legitimation and are basically "little dictatorships within the democratic state". Actors with much money always have more power than actors with few money, and this is not okay, because humans are all worth the same and accordingly all should have the same voice in all issues that concern them. Only democracy can make sure this is the case. And the idea that there is no "common good/welfare" or "society" sounds totally absurd to me, because we are not individuals living on abandoned isles -- no, we have a responsibility, because our actions will always affect our fellow citizens.

I don't believe in a kind of "leave me the **** alone-freedom" either, but I believe basic constitutional values such as inviolability of the person, the right on free speech and gathering, the right to choose the representatives in free elections, the right on a fair trial and the right on dignity -- those are the true basic values I believe in.

Probably this is due to different historical experiences. Here in Germany today, we are still totally obsessed with the Nazis' rise to power and our intention to learn from it. And the bad thing about the Nazis was not that they created welfare nets, health care or anything of that kind -- no, the problem was that they destroyed the constitution, trampled on its values, abolished democracy and a free legal system and then abused this power to enslave the entire people and murder a significant portion of it. The problem was that inviolability of the person, freedom of speech, democratic elections and fair trials were no longer guaranteed.

The idea that firearms in the population could have prevented Hitler's rise to power sounds totally absurd to me: If more people had had guns in Weimar, they would have used them to even more effectively destroy the democratic-republican government -- the problem was that way too few people believed in constitutional values and democracy. A majority hated the republic, supporting either right-wing monarchist or Nazi ideas, or communist ideas on the left. The German people back then could not be trusted, and the fathers of the 1949 constitution didn't trust their people either -- and I am still not inclined to trust my own people today. Maybe we are freedom-loving democrats as long as the economy is doing well, but if and when there is a crisis, I am not going to bet that we remain this way.

What does that mean? In Germany's history, it was ironically not the people that fought for freedom, but it was government that defended freedom from the authoritarian mob: The 1848 revolution for a republican state failed. 1918 it succeeded, but Weimar soon failed because the constitutional-democratic government was not strong enough to defend itself against the mob that hated it. In West-Germany after 1949, a majority of the people still didn't believe in democratic values and freedom, but would have supported any demagogue -- but the new government supported by a new constitution defended freedom against the people (with strict anti-Nazi hate speech laws -- 5 years in prison for Holocaust denial, for example -- and the legal option to ban anti-constitutional parties and organizations).

Also, it often were private actors on the market that enslaved and abused the people over here, not government: Think of the situation of 19th century workers to get an idea. They and their children had to work up to 16 hours per day, without days off, without labor safety regulations, without any right on pensions, and -- worst of all -- no prospect of ever climbing the social ladder. That's why we know private actors can be just as tyrannic, if not more so, than government, and private actors often are the much bigger threat for individual freedom.

That's why a simple anti-government rhetoric is not common in Germany -- most of us don't fear the state. What we do fear, though, is a state that attempts to violation the constitution and its values, one that abandons democracy in favor of autocracy: Whenever the government issues a law that proposes wiretapping, military expenditures, internet censorship or the like -- you can count on many Germans crying bloody murder, much like Americans do when taxes are raised. We're so sensitive on these issues that not few believed the Fourth Reich is about to start, when Bush introduced the Patriot Act in America, his policy of extralegal renditions and anti-terror war -- denying mere suspects the right on fair trials, locking them away for years, although many of them are probably innocent -- WTF?! That's Nazi stuff!!!

On the other side, we don't do much more than grumbling a little when taxes are raised, even when they reach more than 50% of our income. Annoying? Sure ... but hey, it's for a good cause, and the day we are unlucky, we'll profit from that money ourselves, thanks to the social nets. Taxes are stealing? Ah shut the **** up, you egoistic asshole. There is not just you in this country, understood?

Also, I often feel offended when certain Americans are way too quick when labeling certain policies "socialism" or "tyranny": WE know what real socialism is. We had that in East Germany from 1949 to 1990: No right on privacy, no right on democratic participation, no freedom of speech or religion, a police force that was above the law and a legal system in the pockets of big government, ****ty material situation. So don't tell me that a thing that actually helps people to gain more freedom -- a public health care system, i.e. -- anyhow resembles that kind of real socialism! And on the other side, you look away when your government can kidnap suspects from the street and make them disappear, without any court ever being able to rule about them, is "necessary in the war on terror"... now maybe "fascism" is not a appropriate label for such kind of blatantly anti-constitutional policy, just as bad as the label "socialism" for public welfare, but it's the first thing that comes to my mind.

What do you think? Do you understand where I am coming from?

Click to expand...

I perused your post pretty quickly, but I think you have it absolutely right.

The major differences is that Americans believe in freedom from government, while, as you say, Germany believes that government can protect freedom.

This is an inherent part of the American psyche bred into us and cultivated by the national history of our revolution against the British monarchy.

Just as much it was the inherent part of the Roman psyche bred into them to be ruled by a king even 500 years after the founding of their republic. They could be ruled by a dictator, by a princips, or even by an emperor but woe to anyone who proclaimed himself a king. Which Julius Caesar found out the hard way when he only joked about doing so.

German guy said:

.... said a lot of stuff, lol.... ?

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand.

I figured out some while back that not everyone means the same thing when they say the words "freedom", "liberty", or "democracy". In fact, the definitions of those words vary a lot from person to person.

It is no shock that America and Germany are different; after all we have very different histories and culture, even though America has quite a lot of German-decended citizens.

One thing you need to understand is that America is extremely vast (it covers most of a continent) and highly diverse.

To illustrate that diversity let me tell a brief story: there was a car accident on my road near my home. I heard it, and grabbed my light and medkit and ran to see if I could help, as I usually do when such a thing happens. I and several other neighbors responded, giving aid and directing traffic until the police and ambulance arrived. Nothing unusual for this area.

Now, note that I live in the rural South, which is often stereotyped as a bastion of racist white rednecks.... one vehicle involved was a family of hispanics, the other was an Indian (as in from India) by himself. Half the hispanics didn't speak English. All the neighbors were rural white folks... "rednecks"... and yes, we gave first aid as feasible and loaned Papa hispanic-guy a cell phone to call someone, and so on.

We have Slavic communities where many speak little English just a few miles from where I live; they have a couple of churches of their own with Cryllic writing on the church sign. We have lots of Hispanic communities, and Vietnamese communities. We have Sikhs, Bah'ai, Arabs, Russians, you name it... in a county that is nearly half rural.

We have vast regional differences... the New England region is almost a different nation, in culture, laws and whatnot, as compared to the South or the Midwest. Texas and California are almost nations/cultures in their own right.

All of this affects how we view things. We were born in conflict and rebellion, expanded across the continent warring with the native tribes, fought a civil war that decimated the South and whose economic and cultural effects are still felt... fought a long Cold War against communism, ending our long isolationism to view ourselves as the defenders of the Western free world after WW2.

Yes, we're different. We're not much like Europeans. We have very different values and norms.

Where I'm going with this is that the US is very heterogenous in its political and economic views, or whatever term is the opposite of "monolithic". However yes there are some common themes... distrust of government and politicians is built into our founding and our Constitution, as is the value of individual rights and individual efforts within a free market system. Many people view anything that involves government expansion as a precursor and slippery slope towards socialism, yes.

However we don't all view things the same even within this context. I have, over the past decade, come to understand that the worst excesses of a free market need to be curbed, and that employers (esp large corps) can be as oppressive as any tyrannical government if not curbed.

We do tend to be more individualistic and less group-oriented than probably any other people on Earth... it is, as I said, built into the bones of our nation.

Kudos for broaching the topic... it is important to understand that different peoples define these things very differently.

0bserver92 said:

Well what I can gather is unless people are allowed to own any gun they want you are not free. The idea is ludicrous, you do not guns to have a free society especially in a different society.

Click to expand...

Yes, we know you don't understand us. An armed citizenry is one foundational pillar in maintaining individual liberty, along with free speech and so on.

Goshin said:

Yes, we know you don't understand us. An armed citizenry is one foundational pillar in maintaining individual liberty, along with free speech and so on.

Click to expand...

You do not need guns to have have your freedom. There are many societies that are free, I'm pretty sure the U.S. is the only one that has a right to guns.

0bserver92 said:

You do not need guns to have have your freedom. There are many societies that are free, I'm pretty sure the U.S. is the only one that has a right to guns.

Click to expand...

Highly debateable and has been debated with you already... but let's not derail German Guy's thread into yet another "love fest" between pro- and anti- gun factions.

It has become rather tedious.

I am not familiar with the social safety nets in Germany, yet in the US they are growing, in expense, at an alarming pace. I can find no such data on the internet about German social safety net systems. Can you help explain them to we Americans?

Government assistance expands - Feb. 7, 2012

0bserver92 said:

You do not need guns to have have your freedom. There are many societies that are free, I'm pretty sure the U.S. is the only one that has a right to guns.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what the Brits thought, back in the revolutionary days.

A German bringing this up reminds me of a story I heard in regards to the American Revolution.

Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben was a Prussian military officer who was given a commission in the Continental Army as a Major General by George Washington. During the winter of 1777-78, Baron von Steuben was tasked with training the soldiers of the Continental Army at Valley Forge.

He said that he would always get quite exasperated at American soldiers. With Prussians soldiers, he would tell one what to do and he would do it.

With American soldiers, though, he would tell a soldier what to do, that soldier would demand to know why it needed to be done, von Steuben would have to explain it, and only then the soldier would do it.

He found that quite irritating, and, for some reason, this thread reminded me of that story.

German guy said:

...but that big business will enslave the people just as much as big government, if it's not checked...

Click to expand...

I got about this far in your screed when I realized my time would be wasted in reading any further.

It is impossible for anyone...in the US, at least...to "enslave" another person. If a person, working for a big business, decides he doesn't want to work there any longer...he leaves. There is nothing the business can do about it except attempt to hire someone else.

lizzie said:

Yeah, that's what the Brits thought, back in the revolutionary days.

Click to expand...

We had guns, we just decided to use them against you.

German guy said:

That's why a simple anti-government rhetoric is not common in Germany -- most of us don't fear the state. What we do fear, though, is a state that attempts to violation the constitution and its values, one that abandons democracy in favor of autocracy: Whenever the government issues a law that proposes wiretapping, military expenditures, internet censorship or the like -- you can count on many Germans crying bloody murder, much like Americans do when taxes are raised. On the other side, we don't do much more than grumbling a little when taxes are raised, even when they reach more than 50% of our income. Annoying? Sure ... but hey, it's for a good cause, and the day we are unlucky, we'll profit from that money ourselves, thanks to the social nets. Taxes are stealing? Ah shut the **** up, you egoistic asshole. There is not just you in this country, understood?

And on the other side, you look away when your government can kidnap suspects from the street and make them disappear, without any court ever being able to rule about them, is "necessary in the war on terror"... now maybe "fascism" is not a appropriate label for such kind of blatantly anti-constitutional policy, just as bad as the label "socialism" for public welfare, but it's the first thing that comes to my mind.

What do you think? Do you understand where I am coming from?

Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from, but many of the citizens in Germany (and Europe in general) don't come from the same type of "stock" that many Americans do. I know it sounds a little petty, but we generally come from revolutionary-types in this country. Many of our ancestors were not happy with the status quo of European life, and gave up everything they had to come here for a new opportunity and a new life. We come from the type of people who pride themselves on self-sufficiency and daring-ness. Even one of my German ancestors was a stow-away on a ship from Germany. She hid out on the ship, to get away from her life. This is the type we come from, and although environment plays a part in a person's personna and personality, those genetic tendencies are also passed on. I know it's difficult to understand the American mindset, but we're cut from different cloth, as a general rule. That is the very reason for our successes and our historical willingness to go fight in wars, when we have nothing to gain. We've done it time and again. Good, bad, or indifferent. It's what we are. We are, for the most part, fighters and dare-takers.

samsmart said:

A German bringing this up reminds me of a story I heard in regards to the American Revolution.

Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben was a Prussian military officer who was given a commission in the Continental Army as a Major General by George Washington. During the winter of 1777-78, Baron von Steuben was tasked with training the soldiers of the Continental Army at Valley Forge.

He said that he would always get quite exasperated at American soldiers. With Prussians soldiers, he would tell one what to do and he would do it.

With American soldiers, though, he would tell a soldier what to do, that soldier would demand to know why it needed to be done, von Steuben would have to explain it, and only then the soldier would do it.

He found that quite irritating, and, for some reason, this thread reminded me of that story.

Click to expand...

Good story, and it illustrates some of the differences between Europeans and Americans.

We're stubborn and willful and disinclined to accept authority just because it is authority... but if you can give us a good reason why that's a different matter.

Mycroft said:

I got about this far in your screed when I realized my time would be wasted in reading any further.

It is impossible for anyone...in the US, at least...to "enslave" another person. If a person, working for a big business, decides he doesn't want to work there any longer...he leaves. There is nothing the business can do about it except attempt to hire someone else.

Click to expand...

When the economy is booming and businesses are desperate for workers, as in the 90s, you are largely correct.

When the economy is bad and hundreds of people are applying for every crappy job that comes open, and when so many large corporate employers are working from the same playbook, walking away from a job to seek better treatment elsewhere is far more problematic.

Enslave may be too strong a word... but "oppress" isn't. I've discovered that the hard way.

samsmart said:

He said that he would always get quite exasperated at American soldiers. With Prussians soldiers, he would tell one what to do and he would do it.

With American soldiers, though, he would tell a soldier what to do, that soldier would demand to know why it needed to be done, von Steuben would have to explain it, and only then the soldier would do it.

He found that quite irritating, and, for some reason, this thread reminded me of that story.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I was referring to in my post. Americans are different from Europeans, in a subtle but significant manner. We like a good fight, and we will fight because it's what we are made of. We are generally hard-headed and stubborn. That's what it took for our ancestors to survive in their migration across the pond.

lizzie said:

That's pretty much what I was referring to in my post. Americans are different from Europeans, in a subtle but significant manner. We like a good fight, and we will fight because it's what we are made of. We are generally hard-headed and stubborn. That's what it took for our ancestors to survive in their migration across the pond.

Click to expand...

Independent self-willed risk-takers, who are not so inclined to follow along with the crowd and may decide to be contrary just because we like to be contrary. Being contrary sometimes reminds us we are free.

By way of illustrating American stubborn self-willed cuss-headedness, I will resort to personal example.

A few years ago at work someone called the ambulance, thinking I was having a heart attack. I was carried off to the hospital. They examined me and found that my blood pressure was far too high but that I was not actually having a heart attack. It was friday... the earliest they could schedule a stress-test with 3D xray scans was Monday. They wanted to admit me and keep me for observation over the weekend.

I hate hospitals. I asked them if I was in danger of imminent death before Monday. "We don't think so..." was the reply. "Fine," says I, "I'm going home. If I'm gonna die I can die there just as easily and a lot more comfortably." They tried to tell me I couldn't go.... that just clinched it for sure. I said "Watch me" and left.

That's a very American sort of thing to do.

Goshin said:

When the economy is booming and businesses are desperate for workers, as in the 90s, you are largely correct.

When the economy is bad and hundreds of people are applying for every crappy job that comes open, and when so many large corporate employers are working from the same playbook, walking away from a job to seek better treatment elsewhere is far more problematic.

Enslave may be too strong a word... but "oppress" isn't. I've discovered that the hard way.

Click to expand...

Anyone who is experiencing an oppressive situation...and stays...is, in my opinion, contributing to that situation.

Would you expect a woman who is being oppressed by her husband to stay and endure that...because of economic hardship if she leaves? The workplace is no different.

0bserver92 said:

You do not need guns to have have your freedom. There are many societies that are free, I'm pretty sure the U.S. is the only one that has a right to guns.

Click to expand...

What an incredibly naive statement, almost childlike.

What would be the attitude of the Germans toward their government if one of their parties toxified their culture to the extent that they blindly elected a Barack Obama, who immediately set about destroying the German culture and people, destroying the German way of life in favor of a worship of third world rage, envy and hatred with the eventual dictatorship and subservience to follow?

A Barack Obama who would travel to the Southern Border and around the world, ridiculing his own country and countrymen to foreigners.

Think that just might turn a German into an American?

lizzie said:

That's pretty much what I was referring to in my post. Americans are different from Europeans, in a subtle but significant manner. We like a good fight, and we will fight because it's what we are made of. We are generally hard-headed and stubborn. That's what it took for our ancestors to survive in their migration across the pond.

Click to expand...

More than a few of you had no choice in the matter, but were sentenced to "migration" for the attributes of fighting, hard headed stubborness and the odd theft, too! Australia wasn't Britain's first open prison.

Manc Skipper said:

More than a few of you had no choice in the matter, but were sentenced to "migration" for the attributes of fighting, hard headed stubborness and the odd theft, too! Australia wasn't Britain's first open prison.

Click to expand...

I thank my lucky stars everyday, that I had radical ancestors.

My grandparents bounced between the Black Forest region of Germany and the Odessa region of Russia a couple of times before they bounced to North Dakota.

Best thing that ever happened to me.

Not all Americans are like that. A whole lot, in fact, aren't like that. To us, community is not limited to the people who live within twenty miles of us. Government's mission is to work for the people, not against it, and it would if it hadn't been hijacked and sold to the highest bidder. Wealth should not entitle a person to more power, and no one's contribution is important enough to warrant unbridled wealth and no one's is insignificant enough that they should be hungry or homeless. No one's money should determine whether they live or die, which expensive private healthcare does. Comprehensive education for every single citizen is necessary for a free society, and full participation in the political process protects personal freedom, not violence.

Freedom is the ability (which naturally includes the right) to determine one's own destiny. This can't be done if one doesn't have the same legal rights as everyone else, and those rights aren't needlessly curtailed, nor if one is denied access to society. Freedom has nothing to do with taxes or regulations about pollution or endangered animals and plants.