Since the topic came up, it's worth noting that the Border Zone Reasonableness Restoration Act of 2019 proposes reducing this distance to 25 miles along with some other changes.
IIRC no. They wanted to but the FBI gang didn't want the CBP gang dealing on its turf so it got nixed. That doesn't mean it didn't fly under the radar later though.
It's still, at least on paper, freer than many/most other Western countries in most ways AFAIK. I agree that this is a very absurd counterexample, however.
That would really depend on how you define freedom, if you look at it theoratically like "free to do whatever you want". Then maybe, if you look at it from the perspective of "an individual can garner freedoms through work" they are far more likely to do that in most other western countries.
You are far more likely to not have to worry about things like healthcare in european countries than you are in the US for example. You are far less likely to have to work multiple jobs to sustain your life. 'Class'mobility is far is better in most other western countries as well.
So if your definition is "free to do whatever", this also means other people and corporations are free to screw you over. And you would be right that in that regard the USA is freer than other western countries, but it infringes upon personal freedom, and in my opinion, that is the kind of freedom the USA gneerally says they're all about.
> That would really depend on how you define freedom, if you look at it theoratically like "free to do whatever you want". Then maybe
That really is all I meant by my comment, and I hoped to make it clear that I don't think this is a worthwhile positive metric. I guess I didn't communicate that well enough because a few other people seemed to follow this line of reasoning as well...
This isn't very surprising. For decades, the strongest predictor for a country having high social mobility is a strong welfare program including child care and health care, financed by progressive taxation of income and wealth.
In the US, the rags to riches story has been a myth for at least 50 years.
> For decades, the strongest predictor for a country having high social mobility is a strong welfare program including child care and health care, financed by progressive taxation of income and wealth.
I guess that does not apply at all to developing countries like China.
EDIT: looking at your link:
> An elasticity of zero would mean there is no relationship, and thus complete intergenerational mobility,
No, an elasticity of zero would rather mean that people are overly taxed and therefore there is no transfer of wealth between generations, which is probably not what you want (what is already taxed belongs to you and whoever you decide to give it to).
Of course, elasticity of zero would mean that there is no whatsoever transfer of skills or intelligence between generations, which is genetically patently false.
> I guess that does not apply at all to developing countries like China.
Have you looked at the second link?
> No, an elasticity of zero would rather mean that people are overly taxed and therefore there is no transfer of wealth between generations, which is probably not what you want (what is already taxed belongs to you and whoever you decide to give it to).
If your design goal is high social mobility (e.g. because you want a meritocratic society or simply argued from an ethical position) and high economic growth, you want to limit inheritance as much as possible. This is pretty much what Piketty et. al. have shown a few years ago.
> Of course, elasticity of zero would mean that there is no whatsoever transfer of skills or intelligence between generations, which is genetically patently false.
And yet elasticity is close to zero (0.15) in Denmark while being over three times higher in the US.
The reason is obvious: Genetics predict potential, societal context predicts outcome.
Scientifically this is pretty much consensus for decades now BTW.
> Only 4 OECD countries still have a wealth tax.
True, but I meant not only the tax literally called wealth tax, but all taxes targeting wealth. Almost all OECD countries have inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, real estate transfer taxes and so on.
It's well established, just google it. For example:
> Compared with many European countries, for example, few Americans end up with an income or educational level that is substantially different than their parents.
> Now, new research suggests that social mobility in America may be even more limited than researchers have realized.
I find that people with lower incomes are free-er in other Western countries. They can go about their lives without worrying about healthcare, parents can bond and breastfeed for a year without stressing about work, families can go on vacations for multiple weeks, people aren’t as afraid of being abused or killed by police, etc.
Why do you call that freedom? You can be in a good prison and live without doing anything, having good healthcare and food. But it's not freedom. Freedom is being able to do whatever you want. Some freedom might not be OK, for example freedom to kick other people or freedom to own slaves. Some freedom is good to have like freedom to shot thieves in your house.
No society is going to be able to offer freedom defined as "being able to do whatever you want".
I call it freedom because I see people exercising it. What is the point of a "freedom" if you can't afford to exercise it?
Are you free to send your children to play in sports if you're afraid that your child getting injured will financially ruin you? Are you free to participate in activities yourself if you're teetering on the edge and one unexpected expense will result in having to move out of a good school district, and result in significantly altering your child's chances of future success?
Are you free to participate in your community after you spend 90 min per day commuting after working an 8 to 10 hour day, resulting in nothing else than eating, saying hello-good night to the family, and going to bed?
Are you free to take care of your loved ones in case something should happen to them if you can't afford to go without a paycheck because there is no safety net?
But yes, I guess it is nice to take advantage of the minuscule chance that I'd be in a situation to have to shoot a thief.
Not the freedom I mean. I would say that people with lower incomes have better lives in other Western countries, but that's not the freedom from the government (at least on paper but probably in practice as well) that I meant.
Please don't be so presumptuous. First of all, I live in Europe. Second, I literally said that I think (at least) people with lower incomes have better lives in other Western countries. I really do mean freedom in the literal legal sense, and I don't think this is an important metric.
In the literal legal sense, the US courts ruled people don’t have rights against illegal search and seizure within 100 miles of a border or international airport.
There’s so many of these exceptions to “freedoms” in the US, namely that if you can’t afford to fight for your freedom, can you really be considered to have it?
I do appreciate for the most part, however, the US’s stance on free speech.
I agree with all of this, and I really don't want to make it seem otherwise. The comment I originally replied to is about the 100 miles ruling, and I stated that it's "absurd."
That is not 100 miles from an airport, but 100 miles from the actual land border. Review the relevant law and court decisions. An airport isn’t a “land border.” It’s a border, but not a “land border.”
No law or case has successfully argued 100 miles from an international airport. That is just false information.
In that case take a look into Switzerland - most probably the most free country in the world (most direct participation in government by regular citizens by frequent polls, tons of true personal freedom, huge gun ownership yet little criminality etc.).
I get where americans come from, and its still great place for many reasons, but for any western-european these statements are pretty weird. I guess if you are told since childhood you live in greatest country in the world, hollywood and politicians keeps playing the same tune over and over, it might feel like its true.
What we see is repressive police state outside anybody's control, sometimes properly evil government which is openly xenophobic (if you are not US citizen you mean nothing), being one serious illness away from utter bankrupcy, huge class divides that are getting bigger, biggest (private) prison state in the world, being caught with some weed in many places can still effectively ruin your professional life forever etc.
I can understand how you'd see that: let's go point by point.
> repressive police state outside anybody's control
Nah, mostly individual cops
> properly evil government which is openly xenophobic
No, we expect people to immigrate legally, and have less obligation to non-citizens. However, this can be countermanded with the sheer amount of military aid we provide for everyone.
>one serious illness away from utter bankrupcy
Yeah, that's the story, but it never seems to work out that way. In reality, people have safety nets, considerate bosses, savings, families, or any combination.
> huge class divides that are getting bigger
I guess? Nobody really pays attention to what the 1% are doing. Many of us are just enjoying the good job market and low taxes right now.
> biggest (private) prison state in the world
This is a serious problem, I agree
> being caught with some weed in many places can still effectively ruin your professional life forever etc
Yes, and? Being caught with a gun in Europe could also give you a criminal record. This is why we have different states. Someone wants to smoke before everyone makes it legal? Move!
> In reality, people have safety nets, considerate bosses, savings, families, or any combination.
Yeah its great have one's saving wiped out by something that we in Europe just have our shared pool of resources covers for. So you only have to deal with (sometimes lifelong) consequences of some hard illness / accident, and you can continue your life unaffected financially and not compound misery and life getting significantly tougher.
THAT, my friend, is also freedom. We can call it freedom to be ill/have an accident. But don't expect any US politician / hollywood star to ever frame it that way.
Plenty of politicians talk about it here. Currently, we have some of the best quality healthcare in the world, and it's also the most expensive. Trying to make it all single-payer would be...interesting, to say the least. It's a complex issue
It's funny how when discussing freedom with a non-American they'll always insist the only measure that's really important is the one America does not excel in.
See how much nothing this adds to the discussion? You may as well say "your definition of freedom is wrong and mine is right".
The police does not kill you in most western countries because they are so useless at doing anything and don't even do their job of protecting people or going after criminals. the only metric they care about is fining people as much as possible for minor offenses.
Protections for freedom of expression as an employee are much higher in the UK. Freedom only applies in the USA if you can afford to exercise it and not get let go via at will employment
* In the USA, you are free to deny the holocaust. In Germany and the UK, you are not.
* In the USA, if you're a health insurer, you are free to reject customers you don't like. In Europe, you're not. (Those rejected customers, in turn, are free to cover their own health expenses or die - their free choice).
* In the USA, you're free to buy guns. In Europe, you're not.
I don’t think they said “more free than UK citizens”. Although, to be fair, US doesn’t have quite as intrusive CCTV. And I thought gun laws were pretty restrictive in UK? But “most ways” is probably a reach, and there are certainly things UK does do much better.
Edit: would appreciate feedback if my comment is not constructive or could be improved in some way.
For me as a European "gun laws were pretty restrictive in UK" for me means freedom more than access to guns does. I quite value the freedom of not having to worry about guns.
That's a very convoluted definition of freedom. I think there are many other things to call that ("sensible" or "sane" come to mind...) but it's objectively less free, legally/on paper as I stated.
By that definition any law stands in the way of freedom. You're not allowed to kill people in the US, so would it be a more free country if that law was not in place?
From my cultural upbringing having regulation in place to steer society does not stand at odds with freedom. And that's also by my cultural background not "convoluted".
when the fear of guns stifles your movement, then yes, a lack of guns means more freedom.
i'm writing this after having lived in the murder capital of the US and now moved to the UK. personal safety (and thus freedom) in Europe is at another level compared to the US. which makes sense. the US is at Zambia and Sudan levels of murders per capita. truly shameful.
This is where it gets a little “grey area.” If my freedom to have a gun impacts many, many other freedoms of the people around me, is society more free or less?
If my freedom to text and drive impacts the right to life and freedom of those around me, it’s imperative to restrict that one freedom so the freedom of the society remains.
You can’t leave Europe, despite your voters voting twice for it, making the Brexit party the #1, and yet your establishment understood “Leave” as “Stay” and refuses to hold a general election because they know they are illegitimate and hold on to their power?
First of all is the EU not Europe, secondly the UK can leave it. They just are not capable of politically surviving the consequences of leaving it. Countries in the EU can leave the EU a right that states in the US currently do not have about leaving the USA if they so desired.
To make that comparison, you first have to define "freedom" in concrete terms.
I've long had the impression that people tend to define it in a way that values things they get in their home country, and devalues the things they don't. For example, an American is going to define "freedom of speech" in a way that ensures the government itself has almost no ability to limit things like political lobbying, because political lobbying, being a way to advance an opinion, is sacrosanct. A Canadian is more likely to want to define it in a way that allows for limiting the ability of people with lots and lots of money to drown out the voices of people of more modest financial means.
Incidentally, the "border" for legal purposes extends 100 miles into the interior.