[MaterDei]

This thread got me to thinking...

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=130308

Is the US still the most free country in the world? How about if a gun ban was enacted, would it still be the most free? If you were offered a plane ticket to any country in the world with all your guns in tow, where would you go?

[PaleRyder]

We need to get this "Texas becomes an independent country" thing going!

[Silver Bullet]

Ameican red counties.

[cls12vg30]

I've often thought (and hoped) that if things got that bad, Texas would be the first to secede. More may or may not follow, but I hope we can at least count on Texas.

[Joejojoba111]

I hear nice things about Finland.

[captain obvious]

The [occupied] CSA.

[homeka45]

Mater Dei, I'll keep tabs on this thread, maybe we'll end up as neighbors, hope I can buy enough land to set up a range for the .50 cal. :)

[garyk/nm]

Dear Texas,
If you do secede, please annex New Mexico. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!

[pax]

MaterDei ~

Food for thought: http://www.cato.org//pubs/efw/index.html

pax

[MaterDei]

That's interesting, pax, but I don't think that economic freedom equates to personal freedom. Hong Kong ranks #1 and Singapore #2. I've been to Hong Kong several times and lived in Singapore for 3 years and can definitely say that they don't hold a candle to the U.S. in terms of personal freedom. Both are duty free ports and that likely boosts their economic freedom stats.

[Alex45ACP]

New Hampshire USA.

"Live Free or Die"
:D

[armoredman]

Hong Kong is part of Communist China again...it slipped bad.
Have heard some former communist countries are actualy very freedom loving, more the small ones, but with the EU moving in, that won't last long. One set of brtal masters for another....

[Boats]

Silver Bullet is on to something. It is difficult in this modern day, to ascribe the characteristic of freedom to an entire country.

Can one think of a larger contrast in freedom between say, living in Washington DC and living outside of Noorvik, Alaska? Moscow and the Taiga east of the Urals? Helsinki and Lapland?

The true freedom split is between urban and rural. The smaller the population per square mile, the thinner spread the more annoying aspects of authority are.

My uncle is the most free man I know. He spends his days cruising his 40 foot sail boat around the world. He only stops in to check on civilization when he requires repair items or some food variety.

[R.H. Lee]

Thanks for the link, pax. From the 'Executive Summary' for those who may have missed it:

The cornerstones of economic freedom are personal choice, voluntary exchange, freedom to compete, and security of privately owned property. Thirty-eight components and sub-components are used to construct a summary index and to measure the degree of economic freedom in five areas: (1) size of government; (2) legal structure and protection of property rights; (3) access to sound money; (4) international exchange; and (5) regulation.

By these measurements, Hong Kong and Singapore come out on top with New Zealand, Switzerland, the UK and the U.S. in third place.

So what does that mean and what is our criteria for measuring "freedom"? I, for one, would not want to live in Hong Kong or Singapore or even the UK. It would seem that 'economic freedom' and 'personal liberty' are, at least subjectively, two different things, although they share some common qualities.

[Barbara]

I agree with whoever said we have to be careful not to equate economic freedom with personal freedom. They don't always (often?) go hand in hand.

[Standing Wolf]

If you were offered a plane ticket to any country in the world with all your guns in tow, where would you go?

I'd stay right where I am, thanks all the same, but if I had to go somewhere else, it might be Switzerland.

[jefnvk]

Antarctica. Not too many people going to tell me what to do there. Or maybe a deserted island in the ocean. Somewhere where there are few people.

[Justin]

Where would I head?

The World (http://www.theworld.ae/)

[Vic303]

Free? Or Freedom Loving? If free, probably the USA. If freedom loving, Poland comes to mind. The Poles know what it was like to live under oppression--recently! Remember the Solidarity Movement, that was the '80's for you young'uns...Remember when Pope John Paul II was named Pope? Poland is still fighting alongside our troops in the Sandbox. They have backed the US remarkably well, considering their freedom is only about 25yrs old.

[sportshooter]

I'd have to say those countries with the least freedom love it the most. They are willing to give their lives for it, or risk their lives to go where? Why the USA of course. We are the most free country of the world. But for how long? The desire of many people wanting to force everyone to live the way they feel, believe the way they believe, is stronger now than ever in the history of our nation it seems.

Too many take freedom for granted in the USA. Many people in powerfull positions are trying to tighten the noose around our necks "for the good of society" of course. Every right taken away fuels the fire of the destruction of freedom. The cry of the dictator is always the same: "Give up your rights for the good of society"

[Smoke]

Eastern Russia is today, what the American West was 100 years ago.

Smoke

[Malone LaVeigh]

Economic freedom would have to include freedom to steal, I suppose. As far as personal freedom it also depends on what kind you are interested in. Amsterdam comes to mind...

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

The most free country is Brazil. It has a weak central government and vast remote areas which have little or any governmental control.

[Fred Fuller]

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/wolfe93.html
Finding your own freedom
By Claire Wolfe
==============
Give this article a read- might help you define some things...

lpl/nc (gulching even as we speak, in the US of A)

[sportshooter]

It has a weak central government and vast remote areas which have little or any governmental control.

Anarchy: A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority (Merriam Websters)

Because of the destructive nature of man, no government at all is not a good thing. In like fashion, because of the destructive nature of man, too much government is not a good thing either.

The problem is, maintaining a balance between the two is practically impossible in a government that allows lobbying by special interest groups for passage of laws for their own special purposes and beliefs. The constitution was and is close to perfect as originally written. It's all the crap that's been added under pressure from lobbying where the problems stem.

Another problem IMO is the belief that the Constitution is a document only the Supreme Court is qualified to interpret as to what the purposes and intent of those that penned the Constitution was.

[Dead]

Doesnt Sudan lack a government entirely?? If that is the case, it is certainly the "Free", though near the extereme bottom of places I would want to go visit.

[Chris Rhines]

You might be thinking of Somalia/Erteria (sp?) Thy don't really have any central government - just a loose confederation of tribal leaders and business heads.

Despite this, or perhaps because of it, Somalia in particular is one of the most dynamic and sucessful countries in Africa.

- Chris

[Dead]

Thanks that is it! I saw a show on this country centered around the milita's that fight each other over food, etc.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

It has a weak central government and vast remote areas which have little or any governmental control.


Anarchy: A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority (Merriam Websters)

Because of the destructive nature of man, no government at all is not a good thing. In like fashion, because of the destructive nature of man, too much government is not a good thing either.

The situation in Brazil isn't one of anarchy. There is local government at the village or town level, but a lack of central government authority.

[sportshooter]

I've never been to Brazil, but I have been to Venesuela which borders Brazil. From what I've read Brazil is South America's leading economic power and a regional leader. I do know they have some outstanding scuba diving on it's coasts!!

It seems to me that the village and town levels, or even state levels for that matter, are more restrictive in the rights of citizens in the USA, especially in relation to the 2nd Amendment and the right to self defense, than the Federal level. Well, at least while the republiicans are in office. That might change after the next elections.

[cropcirclewalker]

Anarchy: A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority (Merriam Websters)
Definitions are good. It would be best though if the definition defined the word. I may be misinformed, but I always thought that when you put an "A" in front of a word, it meant "a lack of, or none"

I don't speak Latin or Greek but from the context of the words I understand; Monarchy, Oligarchy, Plutocracy, Democracy, Theocracy and like that I am led to believe that the words, "archy" means like government, control, law, rule or like that.

Thus, I have to conclude that the term Anarchy means...A lack of government, control, law, rule or like that.

Now, Amoral means a lack of morals. Apolitical means a lack of politics. Anonimous means a lack of a name. None of these things (by their definitions) are bad.

"None" does not mean "bad".

Maybe youse guys are mixing up Anarchy with Imarchy, sort of like many people mix up Amoral with Immoral.

Please stop referring to us anarchists as a people that are evil.

Arepublican (a non republican) is not necessarily evil.
A non Coke is not a Pepsi. It could be a Dr. Pepper.

There, I feel better now.

[cropcirclewalker]

Anarchy: A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority (Merriam Websters)
I forgot to mention......Lawlessness by its definition means a lack of law. That is not bad. None does not mean bad. It means none.

Political disorder........That, my friends, is what the founders intended. Get it?, Checks and Balances. That's disorder.

Let's try to imagine what would be a good description of "Political Order".

Would you call that a dictatorship? Monarchy? How about Fascism? Totalinarianism? (I wish I could speel)

[sportshooter]

Sure lawlessness is bad. With no laws, the strong prey upon the weak. Explain what you mean about the founders desiring a condition of political disorder. I'd think a perfect example of lawlessness and political disorder is Iraq. I don't think I'd want to raise my kids under those conditions

If you are refering to the divided political responsibilities of the states vs. the federal goverment as being political disorder, then I feel you are wrong. I think the founding fathers intened the two orders of governement to work together, each being jealous of it's powers, but performing in harmony.

[cropcirclewalker]

You see, here we do it again. Sure lawlessness is bad. With no laws, the strong prey upon the weak.That is like saying deep water is bad because the weak drown in it.

A condition of lawlessness is not the governing condition. It is the character of the strong and the potential consequences to him of attempting to prey on the weak. Laws or no laws.

We have now what, I assume, you would consider to be a state of "Lawfulness". Does that mean that the strong do not prey on the weak?

I am of the opinion that many of the safest places in the good ol' USofA are places like where I live, remote, far away from a controlling legal authority and where people tend to depend on themselves and their dogs for their security.

I thought I was pretty clear in describing what I meant my Political Disorder. To reiterate, I mean an adversarial condition wherin law does not get rubberstamped, but debated and deliberated.

Nobody mentioned state vs central. The founders thought that Federalism meant something much different that what is being done to us today.

[Randall53]

That is like saying deep water is bad because the weak drown in it.

Acutally, it's nothing like that at all. The water does not hunt down nor stalk with the intent of drowning the weak

A condition of lawlessness is not the governing condition. It is the character of the strong and the potential consequences to him of attempting to prey on the weak. Laws or no laws.

If there were no laws to punish a strong evil character that chooses to prey on the weak, then where are the potential consequences going to come from? If you say the strong good character, then you have law, though it may be unorgaized law.

[Control Group]

cropcirclewalker: the state of anarchy is bad principally because it is untenable in a world of scarce resources and proximate neighbors. As long as it's possible for one person to have something that someone else wants, there will be conflict. Absent a governing authority the more capable/ruthless/violent/strong individual will win. Knowing he will win, the weaker individual will attempt to negotiate some kind of trade rather than risk life and limb, or will attempt to curry favor by serving. Ultimately, the most capable person ends up on top, gathering tribute from those who are less capable. This, of course, is rudimentary government.*

Alternately, I will concede that it might, theoretically, be possible for two people to peacefully negotiate the allocation of resources out of a sense of "rightness" or "fairness." I will even go so far as to concede that it might, theoretically, be possible for larger groups to do this. However, as long as everyone is following the rules, then you've got government (by consensus), albeit one with no enforcement ability. As soon as one person realizes that there's no enforcing authority, we're back to the previous scenario.

That this will happen every time is evidenced by the fact that it has happened every time, and what we call government in our modern day is the evolution thereof.

Anarchy is only possible if there is no dependence on scarce resources, or if people live too far from each other to interact. In a world of finite size inhabited by six billion people, neither of these conditions exist.

Now, it's possible that by "anarchy" you simply mean reduced government, or government solely within small groups of people (family - tribe sizes). But in that case, you're no more talking about a strict linguistic intepretation of the word than anyone else in this thread is. Or, as a character in one of my more often-read books opines, "at least pick legitimate nits." ;)

*This may sound advantageous, insofar as you want capable people leading. In this case, though, "capable" is simply capable of cowing other people.

[1911JMB]

Norway would be my choice.

[CaesarI]

As much as I enjoy a good minarchist/anarchist debate... the topic of this thread is: "What is the most freedom loving country?"

This being the case... I shall submit my views on that matter, as I consider it an interesting topic, and one that I think about at least somewhat frequently.

First it is necessary to define whether we mean: "What is the freest country?" or "Which country loves freedom the most?" or alternately "Where would you run to in the event that the United States fell?" (this question seems to be the one that the Texans are answering)

The first question is much easier to quantify than is the second, which would require we assess the average love for freedom amongst everyone in that particular country. The third question is a variation on the first, but includes the possibility (however remote) that some state is going to secede from the Union. Texas didn't secede when FDR ascended to the throne, so I think it's a moot point. Further, while there are some seccessionists in Texas they are a distinct minority, and in no way, shape, or form reflect the views of the rest of the state.

However, before we skip over the question regarding our actions in the event that the US falls, let us examine why that question is important. Essentially all of us are expressing fear about the United States ceasing to be free. While the United States may not be the freest country on earth, it is the most powerful country on earth, and more free than most other powerful countries. The United States is very important to lovers of freedom everywhere in the world, make no mistake about it. We may not be as free as we once were, but the idea that the United States was founded upon is still alive (if not well) all across the world. So let's not kid ourselves, if the United States become the great Socialist Utopia that some envision no country on earth is safe, no matter how freedom loving, or free it may be.

Getting back to the main question at hand, there are generally two, or three types of freedom: Economic, Personal, and possibly Political. Economic freedom has been well quantified by Cato, and others, and Hong Kong still takes the cake, as it has for a very long time. Personal freedom is a bit fuzzier, but top rankers would probably include The Netherlands, and The United States, with Netherlands leading in sexual freedom as well as chemical freedom, and the United States leading in other categories. Political freedom is considered the third, but personally I find it to be irrelevent at best, and deleterious at worst, and so do not delve very much into the topic. Which country combines the best of these... my bet is with Switzerland.

As for the former Soviet Republics, the Czech Republic has the most promise from what I've seeen and read, although the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia all of which resisted the USSR right along with Poland), are others worth looking at for progress. Poland has a proud history, but it's modern progress in the way of advancing freedom within their own borders has not been as strong as that of the Czechs. And Belarus is totally out of the picture, having mostly reverted to a state controlled command economy. At present, however, none of them are doing as well as the Swiss, and they certainly don't have the track record of freedom that the Swiss do.

All this being said, I would submit that a more important question is: "How can we save the United States from the slow march toward serfdom?"

-Morgan

[cropcirclewalker]

Acutally, it's nothing like that at all. The water does not hunt down nor stalk with the intent of drowning the weak I yam sorry. It's exactly like that. It's the strong that prey on the weak, Not the lawless. If you can't see that there could be such a thing as a Lawful Strong person or a Lawless weak person, then I can help you no further.

Like I said, I don't speak Greek. but I googled anarchy;

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/anarchy

an·ar·chy

NOUN:
pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

ETYMOLOGY:
New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without ; see a- 1 + arkhos, ruler ; see -arch That definition more closely aligns itself with my understanding.

Now if one believes that one MUST have a ruler, then maybe one should move to the UK. I think it was in 1 Samuel, the people just HAD to have a king. They already had laws, just no king.

Most people are afraid of freedom. I define freedom as not having a ruler.

(edited to add)
Thus, even though some of us cannot understand that this is on topic. By my definition, the country with the most freedom is the one without the ruler.

Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.

Freedom = No ruler
Anarchy = No ruler
Freedom = Anarchy.

Feel free to miscontextualize all you want.

[lysander]

+1 for the Swiss.

- Direct decentralized democracy.
- Well armed citizen militia.
- Long historical record resisting tyranny and invasion.
- Neutral in world affairs.

etc, etc, etc.....

[Nehemiah Scudder]

Acutally, it's nothing like that at all. The water does not hunt down nor stalk with the intent of drowning the weak
I yam sorry. It's exactly like that. It's the strong that prey on the weak, Not the lawless. If you can't see that there could be such a thing as a Lawful Strong person or a Lawless weak person, then I can help you no further.

Like I said, I don't speak Greek. but I googled anarchy;

http://education.yahoo.com/referenc...y/entry/anarchy

an·ar·chy

NOUN:
pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

ETYMOLOGY:
New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without ; see a- 1 + arkhos, ruler ; see -arch
That definition more closely aligns itself with my understanding.



Now if one believes that one MUST have a ruler, then maybe one should move to the UK. I think it was in 1 Samuel, the people just HAD to have a king. They already had laws, just no king.

Most people are afraid of freedom. I define freedom as not having a ruler.

(edited to add)
Thus, even though some of us cannot understand that this is on topic. By my definition, the country with the most freedom is the one without the ruler.

Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.

Freedom = No ruler
Anarchy = No ruler
Freedom = Anarchy.

Feel free to miscontextualize all you want.

It's hard for me to reconcile definitions #1 and #2 with #3. How would social "values" be passed along without a strong cohesive social network?

Laws are more than just things you're not supposed to do, they're a reflection of the desired social order as well.

To boil it down... Howya going to keep people on the same page and in line? Too much of that is bad, but too little of it is just as bad.

The thing that's really great about the U.S. system is that it recognizes the eventuality of dissent, and gives it an outlet.

[dolanp]

I think that if I were going to go to another country it would probably be Switzerland. I have been reading up on the place and most things seem pretty nice, even gun laws. They are slightly stricter in the sense that they do have licensing and registration, but at least there the government acknowledges that the citizens are the militia. Plus it is beautiful and the Swiss value privacy very much.

[cropcirclewalker]

I will say it again......None does not mean bad.
It's hard for me to reconcile definitions #1 and #2 with #3. How would social "values" be passed along without a strong cohesive social network? Social values has no good/evil vector until one qualifies it. Back when I lived in Rhode Island it was THE social value to cheat on one's taxes.

"Strong cohesive social network" is not just being a Baptist. Slavery and the KKK comes to mind. You gotta tag these words with the good/evil connotation.

Laws are more than just things you're not supposed to do, they're a reflection of the desired social order as well. Social order laws mostly come from religion, not .gov. An example which I like to use of social order free of .gov is the Amish. They got out of paying Socialist Security. They have eschewed .gov and yet maintain a social order which, in my opinion, is to be envied

To boil it down... Howya going to keep people on the same page and in line? Too much of that is bad, but too little of it is just as bad. Anarchy has been given a bad name. I think mostly by lazy wordsmiths and .gov minions.

"As with Dodge City, the excitement in the Old West in general has been much overstated. All the big cattle towns of Kansas combined saw a total of 45 murders during the period of 1870-1885. Dodge City alone saw 15 people die violently from 1876–1885—an average of 1.5 per year. Deadwood, South Dakota and Tombstone, Arizona (home of the O.K. Corral), during their worst years of violence saw four and five murders respectively. Vigilante violence appears to not have been much worse."
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1449

I bet now that Kansas has been "Civilized" there are lots more murders. Is that the definition of "Lawfullness"?

Do we need more .gov control or less?

[Nehemiah Scudder]

I will say it again......None does not mean bad.

I'm not exactly passing judgement, here. :) Ever since I've ran across the political concept of anarchism in Ursula LeGuin's "The Dispossessed", I've found it a neat concept. Ultimately, I find it hard to implement. (And, I know we're probably not on the same page with the term anarchy, but it's close)

Social values has no good/evil vector until one qualifies it. Back when I lived in Rhode Island it was THE social value to cheat on one's taxes.

"Strong cohesive social network" is not just being a Baptist. Slavery and the KKK comes to mind. You gotta tag these words with the good/evil connotation.

Whether the values come from the network, or the network comes from the values is a good discussion, because there's examples of both throughout history. But, I'm more interested in how they would be applied, than their source.

Social order laws mostly come from religion, not .gov. An example which I like to use of social order free of .gov is the Amish. They got out of paying Socialist Security. They have eschewed .gov and yet maintain a social order which, in my opinion, is to be envied

I always felt sorry for the Amish when I saw them, and I'm pretty sure they felt sorry for me, as well. :) But, putting that aside. I'd agree that that is a good example of a strong social network. I'm not so sure that they could be the dominant society though. There's as much importance in being different from the mainstream, as in being the same. And their solution to dissent is expulsion from thier society into the mainstream.


Anarchy has been given a bad name. I think mostly by lazy wordsmiths and .gov minions.

"As with Dodge City, the excitement in the Old West in general has been much overstated. All the big cattle towns of Kansas combined saw a total of 45 murders during the period of 1870-1885. Dodge City alone saw 15 people die violently from 1876–1885—an average of 1.5 per year. Deadwood, South Dakota and Tombstone, Arizona (home of the O.K. Corral), during their worst years of violence saw four and five murders respectively. Vigilante violence appears to not have been much worse."

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1449


I bet now that Kansas has been "Civilized" there are lots more murders. Is that the definition of "Lawfullness"?

Do we need more .gov control or less?

I would dispute those numbers instinctively, because of the lack of reporting of everyday life. Were there few murders, or were there just a few murders of people that would be missed? Seems to me, that there were a lot more opportunities to get killed by someone back then. Remember too, there are way more people around in Kansas today than there were back then, as well.

Ultimately, I'm pretty happy with the state of things today. It could be much, much worse. And the opportunity to change things for the better is present.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

.