/townhall/ - Townhall

>>12226
America's not great, but I do think the consitution ensures a significant degree of independence.
I would consider that aspect, the ability to live by one's own hand without the interference of the state, a pretty important one.
Whether it makes us the "freeest", I can't say. Depends on the definition of our terms here.

>>12229
>America's not great, but I do think the consitution ensures a significant degree of independence.

That sounds good.  Why do you say "not great"?  Do you prefer countries that are less free?

>I would consider that aspect, the ability to live by one's own hand without the interference of the state, a pretty important one.

We can say states don't interfere, they merely enforce order, therefore there is no state interference in one's life in the USA.

>Whether it makes us the "freeest", I can't say. Depends on the definition of our terms here.

Oh, of course.  OP is created to explore the notion of American exceptionalism, which involves the assertion that Americans were uniquely freer than other countries at the time of the USA's founding, and still America should represent a maximum of possible freedom (as a perfect mimic of America values might be equally free, but not more free.)

As a non-American, I still think I have all the freedom I'll ever need.

>>12230
> Do you prefer countries that are less free?
No, but I think we could be more free.
Certainly there are countries with aspects where their citizens are more free, just as we are more or less in other aspects.

>We can say states don't interfere, they merely enforce order, therefore there is no state interference in one's life in the USA.
We could say that, but I wouldn't regard it as true.

> OP is created to explore the notion of American exceptionalism, which involves the assertion that Americans were uniquely freer than other countries at the time of the USA's founding,
Well this, I would say then, is true. Unless one counts wholely lawless lands, but in such places you could have a government's eye on you at any point anyway, whether or not they have laws.

It is my belief that American Exceptionalism appeared later on, after the U.S. was founded...

Most people founded the U.S. in order to have religious freedom - they wanted to be free to worship God in whatever manner they chose. Therefore, they had a pretty solid basis for founding the U.S. But I don't think religious people today have as much understanding...

I think that the creation of the U.S. was a moment in time, and all these ideas people have about freedom and the U.S. are just ideas. Freedom isn't so easy to grasp.

So, the U.S. is special and such, but it's not too super-special.

>>12231
Excellent.  I hope you use your freedom to do good things.

>>12232
This organization seems to hold the contrarian view that America ranks less than #1 in freedom.  Not even in the top ten, if I read the article correctly.

>>12233
>but I think we could be more free.
How so?

>but I wouldn't regard it as true.
Where do states interfere, which I presume has a bad connotation?

>wholely lawless lands
Yes, lawless does not mean without state force.  Not all states prefer to govern using laws, especially not laws that apply to the governing class.  Law and order are associated, but perhaps there should be a word that simply means social configurations that result from state force, whether it is lawful or not.  As that can be what states enforce, by definition.

>>12235
>It is my belief that American Exceptionalism appeared later on, after the U.S. was founded...

I think it probably depends on who you ask, both during the founding and now.  Some saw the revolution as a principled movement -- the first modern attempt to apply democratic and enlightenment ideas to a state.

>Most people founded the U.S. in order to have religious freedom - they wanted to be free to worship God in whatever manner they chose. Therefore, they had a pretty solid basis for founding the U.S. But I don't think religious people today have as much understanding...

The puritans wanted a community where they could live their values.  That may not have been religious freedom in the modern sense, but it was why they came to the new world.

>all these ideas people have about freedom and the U.S. are just ideas...the U.S. is special and such, but it's not too super-special.

Ideas matter, but so do how they function in practice.  So the US, in your view, is not *the* shining city on a hill for all to follow.  But may shine a bit, perhaps.

>>12236

Interesting points. I think that maybe that is one historical interpretation from a, perhaps, mostly political perspective...

It is always interesting to look at all of the different versions of Christianity that were here around when the U.S. was founded... same as today, some ultra-liberal - "God is Love," and others ultra-conservative.

But today, a classical problem that liberals face is being accused of lacking any moral authority because of a lack of faith. And instead of countering with liberal, faith-based arguments, liberals use secular ones which fall on deaf ears. I don't believe this was always the case. To wage a war because you thought God wanted everyone to worship him how they liked would require a lot of faith... So, I think many of the founders were religious liberals, but somewhere along the way, the left stopped making religious arguments for their ideas. This caused a split between those who made faith-based arguments (saying that's what the country was based on so must continue), and those who didn't. But it wasn't always like this, and there are still politically and religiously liberal evangelical Christians around, but their numbers are few.

I think that in the last 200+ years since the U.S. was founded, other countries have learned from the U.S. and adopted many of its practices into their culture. Therefore, while the U.S. is still a good example of a country with a lot of freedom, there are now other countries that have made their way towards freedom in other ways, as well.

>>12237
>founders were religious liberals, but somewhere along the way, the left stopped making religious arguments for their ideas

Most of the founders were Christians.  Jefferson is the noted exception, but even he kept his Deism mostly private.

It's hard to explain your observation without forwarding the idea that the right is less prepared to value non-Christian faiths, so is more willing to make global political arguments based on the Christian God.  Of course, liberal Christians might look to discuss politics within their churches, but that may be possible or considered appropriate.  So in effect, the left is more secular.

I think it relates to mental frameworks.

If you have the expectation that roads should exist and should be reasonably maintained, then every pothole that you see and such will feel like an affront.

However, if you expect nothing, then you will be pleasantly surprised by there being any roads at all.

In a great many nations, including most countries of the world, it's naturally expected that you don't have the freedom to criticize the government. Lying, cheating, stealing, and worse is expected. If you, on the other hand, have the expectation that as a citizen you can condemn the state however you see fit, this makes you angry, feeling oppressed even.

>>12271
It's certainly true that how well a person's expectations are met will determine how satisfied they are, and this applies to one's sense of freedom as everything else, especially where there is no objective comparison.

If you're saying the American experience of freedom forms in American citizens an expectation of freedom that most other nations can not meet, you might be commenting on more than feelings or expectations of individuals.

>>12273
Yes, in many matters of international life, comparisons are objective. What nations are the top ten in terms of military spending. What are the highest average lifespans. What are the highest population totals.

However, some things, while important, just are subjective. And hence it is as we've agreed.