Ok I completely ripped this off of another message board but I still think it's a good topic.
Lately Spain is trying ban the political wing of the
ETA while france is trying to ban some
far-right groups. In the US we are certainly more tolerant of fringe groups politically, I certainly doubt neo-nazis would be allowed to operate in France and Germany. In Spain they are now using an act of brutal violence to quash the Basques. Obviously in the 2nd example I think the us would have acted but they would not have outright banned the group. They would of course create trumped up charges and keep them in prison for an indefinite period of time.
Europeans tend to value personal freedoms more and it's no wonder things such as drug use are legal. In America people tend to value political freedoms more so you see a harder stand on personal freedoms.
I think the European approach and the American approach are both wrong. Look at the European approach. Germany and France are very strong in their anti-nazism policies yet they have rates of fascist tendencies in their population in all of Europe. In America where we have the hardest stance on drugs we obviously have the worst drug problem.
Discuss.
Europe sucks. The women are hairy, the men are smelly, and the dogs shit everywhere.
America has white picket fences.
Enough said.
Arpi, your response sucks.
I do think we could use the swedish women.
America, while it is not perfect, is the best country to live in.
However, I wonder how much political freedom really means to me (a non-voting American). I would much rather have the freedom to not wear a seatbelt in my car, or a helmet on a motorcycle. But again, I could have those things in other countries, yet here I stay.
There is a delicate balance, I suppose. We have come closest to getting it right, IMHO.
I think banning any groups is a bad precedent to start. A democracy works because it allows the will of the people to win over all. Allowing the government to decide who and what agendas are being discussed and promoted is the first step down a slippery slope.
I don't think comparing it to our drug policy is accurate. The approach to the drug problem has nothing to do with fighting a war on drugs and everything to do with controlling the market for them.
I used the war on drugs as an example of America violating personal freedoms. I made the statement that Europeans tend to have more personal freedoms. But in political freedoms American tends to have more.
I don't think either alone is good we need both to have a better society. Though I think America has the better model because with those political freedoms we will eventually be able to change things socially.
Unfortunately, because of lawyers, we have laws that limit personal responsibilty. You should be able to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but if you do, you should not be able to sue for more money because an accident left you as a vegitable and not with just a concussion.
There's a difference between freedom and responsibilty. You have the freedom to drink 30 beers a night. But when you get liver cancer it's your fault that you got cancer and no one else's.
Quote:You have the freedom to drink 30 beers a night. But when you get liver cancer it's your fault that you got cancer and no one else's.
::hangs up phone with lawyer::
he said you shouldn't arpi, not that you couldn't. only in america.
But it's quite alright if you spill coffee on your pants, but because of embarassment, you do not remove the pants and thereby suffer 3rd degree burns.
It's alright for you to eat a bunch of garbage food and get fat and suffer health problems.
My biggest problem with American freedoms come from the conservative right who think they need to dictate what we can and can't do based on their version of morality. They use politics to "save our souls" or "protect the children".
Britain is one of the most conservative countries in Europe, and they're TV policy is to allow full frontal nudity after 9pm, but are not allowed to show "arousal", meaning an erection. The censor for some reason can't recognise "arousal" in a woman.
I believe in if everyone involved is a fully consenting adult, then anything goes.
I think the scary thing about Britain is their political system might end up like ours with two parties that are too busy trying to seem centrist that they don't get anything done.
I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said the two party system was the biggest problem in government, but the cure is worse than the disease.
I think the soviets had it right with the one-party system. Dissent just gets in the way.
Quote:Dissent just gets in the way.
There's gotta be a balance. If there's no opposition party, then you have a dictatorship.
If you have to many parties, than you have Italy where NOTHING ever gets accomplished and unions are constantly going on strike because they're contract aren't renewed in time because noone can agree on the terms of the new one.
I think the best system is Thunderdome.
Two men enter, one man leaves.
I was being sarcastic. Last time I checked one-party systems didn't work out too well.
Hey, it's not quite as free in most of Europe as one might think from this thread. And the "political wing" of ETA? Cmon, AM, don't pretend ETA is anything but a terrorist organization. The only reason we don't see their bombings on TV as much is because the Basque vote is not strong in New York. There are legit seperatist movements, ETA is not the only shop in town.