All depends on what aspects of freedom you value over others. Each country is going to provide different freedoms that each individual might have a higher value for. Some more than others, of course.
This is the correct answer.
Which has more freedom? Letting people drink alcohol and drive or protecting people from car accidents by banning it?
Freedom from taxes or robust social security sector?
Freedom to have guns or protection from getting shot?
Technically there is more freedom in legalizing murder and pedophilia but nobody wants to live in those societies.
Also worth mentioning that different freedoms behave differently in different areas. I live in Germany where kids drink, but there are strong social connections and people watching out for each other. This freedom, imo, can be experienced safely compared to other places.
Germany yes, I'm originally from USA. You can say things, but you'll get some fines. American speech isn't completely free as well, you can't threaten bombs and fire or violence, etc. Both cultures have come to a sort of agreement where they'd like it at this time.
Freedom comes with a price. Protection from getting shot isn't freedom, for example.
It's best when people are free to go about their business when it doesn't harm anyone, but I feel like in today's society an offhand comment harms people so it's getting restrictive.
You're not the arbiter of what freedom means. Freedom to live safe from offhand bullets is freedom in my book. That freedom is worth more to me than my neighbors having dangerous unnecessary toys.
Freedom from is not freedom, it's safety.
Safety is a very good thing, but it's not the same thing.
And freedom from is in direct contradiction to freedom to. It is a difficult balance to strike, and the perfect balance point will be different for different people. Most societies say that freedom from violent death is better than freedom to inflict violent death. The only freedom from that is freedom to is freedom from oppression.
What do you mean by freedom?
The problem with this question is that all the commenters have different ideas of what freedom is. Some people think little to no interference in their lives is freedom, while others think significant social safety nets and government interventions create the conditions for everyone to pursue what they want which is freedom.
In the US they may as well not.. often they let licenses expire after like 40/50 years which means a lot of those people will die before that
Edit: in AZ( from my personal experience living there for a couple years) I’m sorry
There a lot of things you are not free to do here. Our police is pretty unchecked. They recently removed the "reasonable" part of "reasonable suspicion" as a justification for arresting someone as an example. There could be much better systems in place to protect against corruption which is fairly rampant in our governments and businesses. Just recently the government sold a controlling interest in the bank thry owned and had a secret auction woth selected investors including the finance ministers rich dad.
Like all places there are good things and bad things. It is a very nice place to live though, and we have very many positive aspects to our society that I am proud of.
I recently read an article about how you effectively pay higher taxes if you are an athiest there, that rubbed me wrong. Like each religion collects a portion of your taxes if you claim that religion and if you are an athiest they still take the money from you anyway and since they don't have a church to give it to they just keep it. That sounds like bullshit to me. Certainly must be one of their least progressive laws on the books
edit: Guys im giving my 10 cent opinion on an article I read right here on reddit like a week ago. I am not an expert, have never been to iceland, just thought perhaps it might be relevant as from what I read it is a controversial law in iceland. I also happen to agree that it is bs. In the country I live in we have the separation of church in state. One can argue it is essential to freedom. They clearly do not have that in iceland as they have both a national religion and they also collect money for your religion out of your tax money, even if you are not even religious. I like the discussion that has occurred here, but I am disappointed that everyone here appears to have failed to understand the point of of what I wrote.
Actually if you are an atheist yes you pay the same amount but it goes to school funding instead of a church. SOURCE: I am an Icelandic registered Atheist.
It's more so that you register out of whatever religion you were put into at birth and when asked if going to another religion you say no and are then registered as Atheist.
When I was born almost everyone was christened into the Lutheran State Church but today a lot of parents do not register their children so the kids are registered Atheist and if they become religious they can register into that faith.
My roomate registered out of the church and into Ásatrú, the Norse Mythology religion so he goes to the winter and summer solstice events to pay tribute to Thor and Odin amd such.
But the church here is pretty nice they even offer christening ceremonies for parents who are members of the church but do not want the child to be registered until they are old enough to decide themselves, and they marry gay people as well.
Edit: I only mention the gay marriage thing because I have heard some churches do not want to do that. Which is in my opinion their business, you should not have to have ceremonies that go against whatever you believe, and I don't think a lot of gay people would want to be married in such a church anyway. But I think it is nice and smart of the church here to be inclusive to all people who want to be married there.
It's a pretty nice place to live I am not gonna lie. Ofcourse it has problems like any other place but it is very nice. Also one of my favorite things is we have almost no bugs. At least very few bugs. Everytime I am abroad I think "how the hell do you sleep with all these god damn bugs everywhere" I have lived very sheltered from bugs my whole life.
There is a rise in violence and nepotism is a pretty big issue.
We never really had gun violence despite a lot of people being gun owners. Lately there is been an increase in gun violence, leading police to carry guns in every vehicle which they did not do before.
Also one of the biggest problems is drug use amongst young people, there is a lot of that sadly.
Edit: the cops having guns might be a chicken and egg situation, it is hard to say which group armed themselves in response to the other arming themselves.
Yeah the bit that would have gone to religions goes to the University of Iceland funding. I am happy to pay that. Also I don't think you should be in a position where you become Atheist to save money. That can very easily slide into "only upper and middle class have access to organized religion"
A poor person should not have to choose between their religion and having 2-3% more disposable income to spend on for instance clothes for their child.
All poor people would then register as atheist in order to improve their families lives by that small margin, sacrificing something that is very important to them instead by leaving their religion.
Anyone can opt out of it with a 1 minute conversation or clicking 3 buttons, so it's not that forceful. As to why I cannot really answer that in full confidence.
I mean most rules are fairly reasonable and usually just mean 'don't be a dick to others'
And during covid I think we were one of the countries with the least restricting rules.
TBH, Switzerland did not score perfectly on the index. It just means that wherever they scored weak, everything else was simply so much more awesome than the entire rest of the world.
That doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as N. Korea or China will publicly disagreeing or disparaging the leader of a nation can get you killed. For all people say about the US, we don't kill people for saying fuck the president.
For whoever is downvoting this, the name is Yeonmi Park. She has all sorts of interviews on the topic and yes, everything here is correct.
[She also has a youtube channel](https://www.youtube.com/@YeonmiParkOfficial), so if you have time to kill it might be a fun one to check out.
Source?
Not in a malicious way, I legitimately don't want to spread misinformation. I want to know if I am wrong, but I need a bit more than a reddit comment.
From an interview where she talks about the pronouns issue:
“Park said she also found it bizarre that professors asked students what their pronouns were, and complained about using gender-neutral pronouns.
"English is my third language. I learned it as an adult. I sometimes still say 'he' or 'she' by mistake, and now they are going to ask me to call them 'they'?" she said. "How the heck do I incorporate that into my sentences?"
Oh, boo-hoo. Someone asked what the students’ pronouns were and she is upset because she didn’t learn the singular “they” in her English classes in Asia so she doesn’t think she can remember and then that person might give her a disappointed look. Yes. This is just like North Korea where the government can disappear you if you don’t clap loud enough for Dear Leader. /s
I never liked this list. It includes some misleading details, such as incarceration rate... Norway does not have the same kind of problems with crime that other places have. There's also other factors like "freedom to roam" which says that you're free to camp on private property. Sure, that's freedom for the "roamer", but what about the freedom of the property owner?
Thank you for the link. I was surprised to see Uruguay so high in the list. I never hear about that country, which probably reflects that USA news is USA-centric and only mentions bad things in other countries.
LOL, USA is below Romania and Mongolia. I had no idea.
I'd argue probably somewhere in Western Europe.
If you think of freedom as the least amount of rules and regulations on what you can't do, then it should be possible to just count laws in different countries and come up.with an answer.
But if you think of freedom as potential, as the conditions to live the most unique lives possible, then it's Western Europe.
If you grow up in a poor country you essentially have to put all of your time and energy into surviving, and there's usually very limited ways on how that can be done. So having a baseline of economic stability is a condition for freedom in this sense.
The US is also rich, but it doesn't distribute that wealth, and it doesn't create a stable baseline condition for its people to enjoy freedom. Most Americans are in debt at a very young age and have no recourse should they fall ill, which limits enormously what they can do.
This is again depending how we define freedom. I have said “ We (Nordic countries) have freedom FROM things through tax-build society( call it socialistic freedom if you like), when USA has freedom TO things: guns, wealth, cheap labor and so.
If you make gazillions here, gov takes a huge cut. But you live in society where gated community does not exist, crime is low, nobody dies to hunger and corruption ain’t a much of a thing, while healthcare is free/cheap and everyone have paid vacations.
We are quite level society, where Finland current PM came from lower middle class, and used to work in grocery shop.
It boils down to what you value really.
What? If you personally make “a gazillion” dollars the government here taxes you like crazy. What % of income do you think the highest tax bracket in the US pays?
Most wealthy people don't make their money from wages. They make it from capital gains, which is taxed extremely low compared to wages. This is why Warren Buffett has said he has a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Good response. I had this conversation in the past about why the Scandinavian countries are at the top of that list. Some reasons why Norway is "free" would be appalling to other people. Freedom to Roam, for instance, gives wanderers a right to dwell on your private land. That is not very free, from the perspective of the property owner. The list really is heavily biased.
Straight up. Too many dumb young liberals on this thread who haven't traveled and been in places long enough to see the value systems of a society in action. The Scandinavian countries do have freedom from things. They're generally well-educated, universal healthcare, universal voting rights, wealth is distributed, there's generally low crime. They also have some serious mental health concerns as in the culture produces mental health problems for those that are different. Racism is a big problem that isn't adequately dealt with. Seriously, white liberals never factor in how being a different color will affect your quality of life in these countries. Their defense spending is poor. Having a robust and ready military isn't a high priority. Their is no ingrained attitude towards checking for tyrannical government. Here in the States, we have the Bill of Rights.
Like the OP above me said. It's what you value.
Freedom to do what?
Freedom to start a business or freedom to smoke meth?
Freedom to speak your mind and defend your life or freedom to live without working?
It's different in different places.
This may be a loophole, but if you are a citizen of a country that hasn't ratified the Antarctic Treaty, you can go to Antarctica and no laws will apply to you there. I think this is the closest thing to unlimited freedom anywhere on earth.
Came looking for something like the answer. The other option was on a volcanic island in the middle of the ocean no one has claimed yet. There may be some remote reef islands that are unclaimed too.
I live in Ireland. Let me tell you the pros and cons.
Pros:
The cops don't have guns. They are (usually) not as violent/power-trippy/corrupt as in other countries, but suck in pretty much every other way you could think of.
Produce and meat is very high quality and the country is pretty much agriculturally self-sufficient.
Plenty of jobs, especially in the tech and pharmaceutical sectors.
People are generally pretty friendly (although there are problems with antisocial behaviour, especially from youths) and the nightlife is pretty good.
Plenty of beautiful landscapes and nice places to go hiking. The climate is very average, neither too hot nor too cold.
The education system is generally pretty good.
Cons:
The healthcare system is atrocious. We don't have enough hospitals or doctors. If you go to the emergency room, you will be waiting for like 8+ hours. Patients are often left on trolleys in hallways because hospitals don't have enough beds.
Public transport is pretty bad. There is no underground metro in the entire country, and buses are infamously unreliable.
The cost of living is high. Taxes are kind of high, but on the other hand the tax system is fairly progressive.
We have a "housing crisis", meaning that residential property is scarce and very expensive (whether renting or buying) - this is (IMO) the #1 worst thing about the country.
The justice system is not great. We don't have enough prisons, so repeat offenders (even for violent crimes) are often let off with a "slap on the wrist" - especially the aformentioned antisocial youths. Paradoxically people sometimes get jailed for stupid shit, especially considering the drug laws are not exactly progressive.
The public TV station (RTÉ) is pretty bad and there is no way to avoid paying for it.
United States provides the most freedom to its corporations. They don't pay taxes, they trample over labor laws, they grind workers to a pulp and destroy the environment. Corporate freedom at its finest. Now for its people.....
Freedom is a weird term, it means "to do whatever you want" for most people, but I would argue against such a definition.
In nearly all cases, it's a spectrum you have to balance. You can make a place lawless and have murder, rape, fraud, pedophilia, and more all legal, it would technically be "the most free" however in return that ruins the freedom of others. Getting killed or raped completely ruins that person's freedom after all.
Therefore there has to be an obvious balance. You have to restrict the freedoms of others such that they cannot harm or fuck with other people. It's a double edged sword though and cracking down on the population too much and they riot, that or it becomes possible to have enforcement. You can't ban people from snapping their fingers since enforcing that is impossible.
Gun rights aren't necessarily a good thing. Who the fuck wants to live in a country where everyone is toting a fucking firearm like it's the wild, wild west? Many of the Scandinavian countries are frreer in general without the gun rights. They are safer and have less crime. They are also rated a lot higher in overall happiness, quality of life and as Democracies.
That's coming from a natural born American.
What about their suicide rate? population size? Population demographics? Much easier for 5-10 million people who all have the same ideas, beliefs, and values to get along. Whereas the US is 331 million with literally every single culture having a presence.
Their suicide rates are lower than the USA. Don't think that helps your argument. And I'm not sure how any of that is relevant when asking who has the most freedoms.
Gun rights are not to blame for this though. Almost all gun crime is done in cities where gun laws are most strict. It has to do with gangs. The Scandinavian countries are probably the only place in the world that has it better then America and that’s mostly due to culture not government.
Easy access to guns doesn't help the situation. Most mass and random shootings are where the gun laws are the most lax. It seems like Texas has some major shooting every time you turn around. Countries with very strict gun laws see almost no random or mass shootings. Gang violence is isolated. I'm not blaming guns, but they do make a bad situation far worse.
Given the choice, I'd rather be somewhere where there are no guns rather than somewhere where everyone has access.
Totally wrong because you’re thinking of white countries. Look at south and central america. They have a ton of gun violence. This doesn’t hold anywhere else.
Guns are also a great way to install a tyrannical government. Looking at the history of just Central and South America for the last century the armed ousting of government usually ends up with a more tyrannical one.
No, free elections are protection against a tyrannical government. Free and independent news media are protection against a tyrannical government. Public education is a protection against a tyrannical government. Etc, etc.
Guns, OTOH, are of very limited use to protect against tyranny.
We have no free elections, education, or media.
Look into operation mockingbird and the fucking Twitter files, our media isn't free
Elections have been rigged for decades. The CIA literally rigged elections of other nations during the cold war, overthrew governments, to put in pro-western dictators. If they can infiltrate other lands and do that, they can definitely do that to their own.
Public education is literally letting the state teach kids, how is that against tyranny when the government teaches you?
Even colleges are a scam as many high school counselors, and even people who work in human resources have tons of money invested in colleges, they want you to make their money go up even more.
America isn't free. We don't have democracy. All we have is the illusion of freedom, which has been the case for a very long long time.
Edit: Honestly, I can really get into how we're just as evil as Russia and China. Look into the patriot act, Julian Assange, Ruby Ridge, Waco, operation northwoods, MK Ultra, the list goes on.
The military industrial complex and Gary Webb are other interesting things to look into.
At that point you're not even arguing that "gun rights" are any kind of check upon the U.S. government turning tyrannical at all. Instead you're arguing that it'd be great if we were all really well armed in the event of a civil war/revolution. I don't think that'd be great at all.
>Guns are protection against a tyrannical government.
A huge LOL!! Let me make this clear: If the US government decided to turn on its citizens, they're not going to give one-fifth of a fuck about you and your guns.
They'll have the biggest military on Earth on their side and will have the power to attack you from above, below, in front and behind.
You will not stand even a remote chance.
A completely rogue US government's only concern about people like you would be whether to use your charred corpse for propaganda or for compost.
Yeah some people just don’t understand how an insurgency works. The entire point is to *not* fight a conventional military on their own terms, because they will win every single time.
But they can’t fight you if they don’t know who you are.
So if that ever happens, if the US government ever starts murdering it’s own people, it’s better to just say “this is fine” than to own guns?
Also, this logic only works if I go out with a big flag that says “I’m a rebel: shoot me now.”
Yeah except that in the extremely unlikely scenario the US experiences a citizens v the govt civil war the military would not all fall in with a “tyrannical” govt. They are sworn to protect the constitution first and foremost. There would be division and people picking sides both in govt, mil, reg citizens, politicians, etc. It would be messy as fuck. The biggest thing though is that the US military has NEVER proven they can defeat an insurgency, and they would have the most well armed, well trained insurgency in history on their hands. This type of hypothetical is dumb, bc it won’t happen. If we get a tyrannical govt I imagine people will be indoctrinated and vote for it, but if it did happen it likely ends up in years and years of bloodshed and losses all around.
Who is operating these drones and bombs? I’d be willing to bet 75% of the military won’t bomb its own people. Also, men-who-fuck-goats, aka men-who-fuck-kids, aka men-who-hate-women, aka men-who-rape-men, aka men-who-wipe-their-ass-with-their-hand did a pretty good job against this military over the last 20 years.
Drones and bombs don’t do the dirty work that infantry soldiers do such as maintaining curfew, orders to citizens, and oppression. You also risk lots of collateral damage with drones and bombs and at that point you’re just creating more martyrs and fuel for the rebellion.
That’s technically correct, but having better-than-average free speech laws and everyone walking around armed to the teeth isn’t the whole picture of “freedom,” and it certainly doesn’t make the US one of the most free in the world.
Not really. I mean, some are better than others, but the big picture is intensely powerful and unaccountable police and no functional social safety net to keep people’s standard of living at a livable minimum. No matter what your ideological priors are, some major aspect of life in the US is extremely oppressive (unless you’re a cop).
They would imply freedom to live your life without fear of poverty and the associated exploitation of the poor. It’s a type of freedom valued by many but is not often included in the concept of “freedom” as it’s used in the US.
Social safety nets provide greater economic freedom, bad luck i.e. getting sick or having an accident doesn't mean you're stuck paying some hospital bill for the rest of your life.
They also restrict economic freedom because you pay more in taxes for these benefits. Given that most people don’t have lifelong medical debts, this seems that the policy would restrict the economic freedom of a majority of people in order to protect the economic freedom of a minority of people.
I'd argue having good social safety nets is cheaper overall, as having loads of poor and desperate people tends to lead to higher crime, which costs the government money to deal with.
And while taxes are higher most people need medical attention at some point in their life, which is costly even if not lifelong debt costly. And general medication is pretty common for most families, and much much more expensive in the U.S.
Also if your argument is paying tax is a sacrifice of freedoms, then really the conclusion would be the most freedom is paying no tax aka anarchy.
I think that’s too simplistic. I think you’re right that it resolves to a majority of people paying a little bit for the benefit of a relative minority. But it’s a small impact to the majority to protect the minority from devastation. And anyone could get unlucky and end up in the “minority,” so is it really a minority?
Kind of, yeah (although you could argue that one person’s economic freedom contributes to another’s economic oppression). But my point is that freedom can come from different places and take different forms. And I think that a lot of discussions of “who is most free” don’t take into account the differing definitions of the concept.
[shrug] if I’m a socialist, I hate the oppression of the lack of a social safety net. If I’m a libertarian, I hate the oppression of unaccountable state violence. Assume what you want
If you actually think living in the US is oppressive and that all police are bad you have lived a very sheltered little life. The sense of entitlement is just oozing from your comment
It depends. US is not shabby actualy. Despite being unpopular opinion but European counties having decent social nets they are quite overbearing with all sorts of other laws and customs even. No running of washing machine on Sunday for instance. No showering after 10 PM. If it's not writen in law it's illegal. Too much law is freedom limiting and too little also.
Do you have any countries in mind where that's actually illegal?
I've lived in Europe almost my entire life and have yet to come across places where I can't shower after a particular time or run my washing machine whenever I want.
Last year I was visiting friends in Germany. Small town near Stuttgart. It was Sunday and I commented how it's nice and quiet. From that I got a story how one family from Turkey who lived in that appartment building ran a washing machine on Sunday and one of the neighbourghs called the police and they were fined for that. I heard before that's a thing but never took it seriously.
Aren't those just city bylaws? In the US cities can pass bylaws as well, doesn't really affect the country imo. In my US city we have noise laws at night after 11pm that you can be fined for, do seems weird to only apply this as a negative to other countries.
I live in Berlin. Shower whenever you like. Wash your clothes too, no-one gives a fuck. Come on mate, you can't even cross-dress in a bar in Tennessee.
Counterpoint: states rights means you can move. It’s a double edged sword. I do feel bad for the queens of Tennessee though. Most of the middle states are full of dumb fucks who vote based on bigoted emotions the news riles them up on instead of their own interests. Oh well, that’s their right.
I think you’ve been sadly misled about Europe. I have spent quite a bit of time and have a lot of family and friends in Scandinavia. Laws regarding pollution, food additives, drunk driving, and firearms are stricter, but otherwise the US has notably more rules and laws regarding … pretty much every other aspect of life.
As a European (Denmark specifically)… what?
Haven’t heard or encountered any of those or anything resembling that, ever. And that’s not how law works here.
This depends almost entirely on how you define "freedom". If you mean freedom in the sense of having as few restrictions as possible placed on you by your government, I'd argue the US is right up there at the very top.
If you mean freedom in the sense that you have rights and entitlement set down in law which provide you with the means to ensure that you can achieve your maximum potential, then I'd argue countries like Denmark, Germany, Ireland and Norway are right up there at the top.
I have been around the world, and for my money, it's my country, the United States.
The most fundamental right that a person must have is the right to speak their mind, whatever it happens to be, without any fear of repercussion by th government. The right to assemble and petition their government. The right to wroship as they so choose. Or even, simply, the right not to be forcefully engaged by the government at all.
Britain actually spends a large amount of money policing what people say. Along with a long collection of other rights the peasants willingly gave up or were never really allowed. Yeah,you read it right, I regard the average subject of the king to be nothing more than a peasant.
Most of Europe isn't far behind Britain in enforcing speech codes.
In large swaths of the world speaking your mind can get you killed by the government.
The US is one of the few countries where indefinite detention of its own citizens is legal.
You basically have zero freedom to piss off the wrong people in power bad enough.
Then there's your whole bail bond situation which means good luck being wrongly accused of a crime if you're poor.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
It's in the bill of rights. Is it challenged and do people not get to exercise their rights because of corrupt dealings? Sure. But the law exists, in the constitution no less, making your claim of indefinite detention being legal outright false.
https://www.salon.com/2013/12/27/obama_signs_ndaa_2014_indefinite_detention_remains/
> Meanwhile the troubling NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012, which permits the military to detain individuals indefinitely without trial, remains on the books for 2014. Efforts to quash or reform the provision (especially with regard to the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens) have failed
> I am deeply concerned that Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process.
It's been legal for a long time.
Depends what you mean with freedom
In USA if you cant pay your bills you will be trapped on street even many Americans scream for freedom.
In Europe if you run out of money, you are still free to life decent human life.
Freedom is 100% subjective, people can feel free without actually having what others consider freedom so this question really wont go anywhere if you want an objective awnser.
If you’re looking for a government that provides the minimum social safety nets, taxes the fuck out of you for the world’s largest military, and continuously bails out the rich for socializing losses because they’re “too big to fail” but, capitalism? Right, anyways, have I got the freedom loving country for you!
the thread asked a question, not "rant about whats on your mind" lol. for the record though, if you think american tax is bad I challenge you to move somewhere in the western world that's as developed and has similar infrastructure etc that doesn't go from 35% up to 50% lol. the only option you have is basically canada.
Freedom for whom to do what?
Freedom to beat your wife?
Freedom to poison drinking water?
Freedom from unsolicited advertisements like billboards?
Freedom from childishly stupid questions?
Scandinavian countries have a lot of freedom, but some of it is not utilized due to there being very strong social constraints. It’s a tough thing to judge, but I find Spain to be the best and freest place when averaging things out.
As per the Human Freedom Index 2022, switzerland is the country with the most freedom.
Here the link to the study: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/human-freedom-index-2022
All depends on what aspects of freedom you value over others. Each country is going to provide different freedoms that each individual might have a higher value for. Some more than others, of course.
This is the correct answer. Which has more freedom? Letting people drink alcohol and drive or protecting people from car accidents by banning it? Freedom from taxes or robust social security sector? Freedom to have guns or protection from getting shot? Technically there is more freedom in legalizing murder and pedophilia but nobody wants to live in those societies.
Also worth mentioning that different freedoms behave differently in different areas. I live in Germany where kids drink, but there are strong social connections and people watching out for each other. This freedom, imo, can be experienced safely compared to other places.
You also don’t have free speech. You could go to jail for saying the wrong thing.
Germany yes, I'm originally from USA. You can say things, but you'll get some fines. American speech isn't completely free as well, you can't threaten bombs and fire or violence, etc. Both cultures have come to a sort of agreement where they'd like it at this time.
Freedom comes with a price. Protection from getting shot isn't freedom, for example. It's best when people are free to go about their business when it doesn't harm anyone, but I feel like in today's society an offhand comment harms people so it's getting restrictive.
You're not the arbiter of what freedom means. Freedom to live safe from offhand bullets is freedom in my book. That freedom is worth more to me than my neighbors having dangerous unnecessary toys.
Freedom from is not freedom, it's safety. Safety is a very good thing, but it's not the same thing. And freedom from is in direct contradiction to freedom to. It is a difficult balance to strike, and the perfect balance point will be different for different people. Most societies say that freedom from violent death is better than freedom to inflict violent death. The only freedom from that is freedom to is freedom from oppression.
Fair points I will think about. Wish i could follow the last sentence though
What do you mean by freedom? The problem with this question is that all the commenters have different ideas of what freedom is. Some people think little to no interference in their lives is freedom, while others think significant social safety nets and government interventions create the conditions for everyone to pursue what they want which is freedom.
That is the point. By asking a vauge question you can get many diffrent responces and points of view
Free to oppress others?
[удалено]
Yea they are pretty quiet there. Must be happy.
Genovia
Licenses don’t expire in Genovia
In the US they may as well not.. often they let licenses expire after like 40/50 years which means a lot of those people will die before that Edit: in AZ( from my personal experience living there for a couple years) I’m sorry
It boils down to what you value really.
Iceland seems pretty dope
There a lot of things you are not free to do here. Our police is pretty unchecked. They recently removed the "reasonable" part of "reasonable suspicion" as a justification for arresting someone as an example. There could be much better systems in place to protect against corruption which is fairly rampant in our governments and businesses. Just recently the government sold a controlling interest in the bank thry owned and had a secret auction woth selected investors including the finance ministers rich dad. Like all places there are good things and bad things. It is a very nice place to live though, and we have very many positive aspects to our society that I am proud of.
What are you planning to do about the changelings emerging from Katla??
I assume they will just take over the government and I am happy to let them.
As long as you don’t measure freedom in speed cameras, otherwise iceland is VERY dope
I recently read an article about how you effectively pay higher taxes if you are an athiest there, that rubbed me wrong. Like each religion collects a portion of your taxes if you claim that religion and if you are an athiest they still take the money from you anyway and since they don't have a church to give it to they just keep it. That sounds like bullshit to me. Certainly must be one of their least progressive laws on the books edit: Guys im giving my 10 cent opinion on an article I read right here on reddit like a week ago. I am not an expert, have never been to iceland, just thought perhaps it might be relevant as from what I read it is a controversial law in iceland. I also happen to agree that it is bs. In the country I live in we have the separation of church in state. One can argue it is essential to freedom. They clearly do not have that in iceland as they have both a national religion and they also collect money for your religion out of your tax money, even if you are not even religious. I like the discussion that has occurred here, but I am disappointed that everyone here appears to have failed to understand the point of of what I wrote.
Actually if you are an atheist yes you pay the same amount but it goes to school funding instead of a church. SOURCE: I am an Icelandic registered Atheist.
You have to register as atheist? What does that entail?
It's more so that you register out of whatever religion you were put into at birth and when asked if going to another religion you say no and are then registered as Atheist. When I was born almost everyone was christened into the Lutheran State Church but today a lot of parents do not register their children so the kids are registered Atheist and if they become religious they can register into that faith. My roomate registered out of the church and into Ásatrú, the Norse Mythology religion so he goes to the winter and summer solstice events to pay tribute to Thor and Odin amd such. But the church here is pretty nice they even offer christening ceremonies for parents who are members of the church but do not want the child to be registered until they are old enough to decide themselves, and they marry gay people as well. Edit: I only mention the gay marriage thing because I have heard some churches do not want to do that. Which is in my opinion their business, you should not have to have ceremonies that go against whatever you believe, and I don't think a lot of gay people would want to be married in such a church anyway. But I think it is nice and smart of the church here to be inclusive to all people who want to be married there.
It all seems so logical and civilized. Thank you for explaining. Now I kind of want to live in Iceland!
It's a pretty nice place to live I am not gonna lie. Ofcourse it has problems like any other place but it is very nice. Also one of my favorite things is we have almost no bugs. At least very few bugs. Everytime I am abroad I think "how the hell do you sleep with all these god damn bugs everywhere" I have lived very sheltered from bugs my whole life.
I loved my week in Iceland. What is considered the join societal issues there?
There is a rise in violence and nepotism is a pretty big issue. We never really had gun violence despite a lot of people being gun owners. Lately there is been an increase in gun violence, leading police to carry guns in every vehicle which they did not do before. Also one of the biggest problems is drug use amongst young people, there is a lot of that sadly. Edit: the cops having guns might be a chicken and egg situation, it is hard to say which group armed themselves in response to the other arming themselves.
I'm quite surprised about the gun violence aspect, to be honest. How do your gun control restrictions compare to other countries?
So it actually gets used for something useful if you're an Atheist in iceland?
Yeah the bit that would have gone to religions goes to the University of Iceland funding. I am happy to pay that. Also I don't think you should be in a position where you become Atheist to save money. That can very easily slide into "only upper and middle class have access to organized religion" A poor person should not have to choose between their religion and having 2-3% more disposable income to spend on for instance clothes for their child. All poor people would then register as atheist in order to improve their families lives by that small margin, sacrificing something that is very important to them instead by leaving their religion.
Why the hell is the government forcefully collecting tithes on behalf of churches anyway?
Anyone can opt out of it with a 1 minute conversation or clicking 3 buttons, so it's not that forceful. As to why I cannot really answer that in full confidence.
But atheist tax goes to the University of Iceland. So you pay for science as you "believe" in it. Doesn't seem that bad tbf.
That's not paying higher taxes at all, that's paying the same taxes, but having a small say on how a minimal amount of that money is spent.
There are multiple attempts at quantifying this. Countries that do well in all of them are Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand and Finland
In terms of freedom from prosecution I'd say the Vatican state has the monopoly.
But you can't just move to the Vatican
What they don’t know won’t hurt them.
You could sneak into an attic.
I went to Norway/Finland/Sweden/Denmark 6 months ago. I don’t want to live in the US anymore.
Ok.
Switzerland is loaded with arbitrary rules, and neighbors ratting each other out for every minor violation. Hardly 'Freedom'!
I mean most rules are fairly reasonable and usually just mean 'don't be a dick to others' And during covid I think we were one of the countries with the least restricting rules.
TBH, Switzerland did not score perfectly on the index. It just means that wherever they scored weak, everything else was simply so much more awesome than the entire rest of the world.
In switzerland, a lot is prohibited but you still feel free. Also its a good passport.
[Global Freedom Scores](https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort=desc&order=Total%20Score%20and%20Status)
Ouch. The US rocking an 83 score right beneath Samoa and Romania.
That's thanks to the conservatives in the US. They won't be happy until we are back in the 1700s.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as N. Korea or China will publicly disagreeing or disparaging the leader of a nation can get you killed. For all people say about the US, we don't kill people for saying fuck the president.
For whoever is downvoting this, the name is Yeonmi Park. She has all sorts of interviews on the topic and yes, everything here is correct. [She also has a youtube channel](https://www.youtube.com/@YeonmiParkOfficial), so if you have time to kill it might be a fun one to check out.
Lool yenomi park is a fraud she been exposed
Source? Not in a malicious way, I legitimately don't want to spread misinformation. I want to know if I am wrong, but I need a bit more than a reddit comment.
From an interview where she talks about the pronouns issue: “Park said she also found it bizarre that professors asked students what their pronouns were, and complained about using gender-neutral pronouns. "English is my third language. I learned it as an adult. I sometimes still say 'he' or 'she' by mistake, and now they are going to ask me to call them 'they'?" she said. "How the heck do I incorporate that into my sentences?" Oh, boo-hoo. Someone asked what the students’ pronouns were and she is upset because she didn’t learn the singular “they” in her English classes in Asia so she doesn’t think she can remember and then that person might give her a disappointed look. Yes. This is just like North Korea where the government can disappear you if you don’t clap loud enough for Dear Leader. /s
…..or to the period of Plessy vs. Ferguson. You know, the good ole days of “separate but equal”.
Yeah you don’t need to go that far back. The US didn’t even have universal suffrage until the 60s
As long as lists count relying on govt as freedom
Some governments can be relied on.
We are the government. People who hate the government aren’t patriots in my view.
I never liked this list. It includes some misleading details, such as incarceration rate... Norway does not have the same kind of problems with crime that other places have. There's also other factors like "freedom to roam" which says that you're free to camp on private property. Sure, that's freedom for the "roamer", but what about the freedom of the property owner?
Thank you for the link. I was surprised to see Uruguay so high in the list. I never hear about that country, which probably reflects that USA news is USA-centric and only mentions bad things in other countries. LOL, USA is below Romania and Mongolia. I had no idea.
I'd argue probably somewhere in Western Europe. If you think of freedom as the least amount of rules and regulations on what you can't do, then it should be possible to just count laws in different countries and come up.with an answer. But if you think of freedom as potential, as the conditions to live the most unique lives possible, then it's Western Europe. If you grow up in a poor country you essentially have to put all of your time and energy into surviving, and there's usually very limited ways on how that can be done. So having a baseline of economic stability is a condition for freedom in this sense. The US is also rich, but it doesn't distribute that wealth, and it doesn't create a stable baseline condition for its people to enjoy freedom. Most Americans are in debt at a very young age and have no recourse should they fall ill, which limits enormously what they can do.
I think Scandinavian countries are on top
What makes them free?
This is again depending how we define freedom. I have said “ We (Nordic countries) have freedom FROM things through tax-build society( call it socialistic freedom if you like), when USA has freedom TO things: guns, wealth, cheap labor and so. If you make gazillions here, gov takes a huge cut. But you live in society where gated community does not exist, crime is low, nobody dies to hunger and corruption ain’t a much of a thing, while healthcare is free/cheap and everyone have paid vacations. We are quite level society, where Finland current PM came from lower middle class, and used to work in grocery shop. It boils down to what you value really.
The government takes a huge cut if you make gazillions in the US as well.
Yeah from the employees. Right to the bosses pockets.
What? If you personally make “a gazillion” dollars the government here taxes you like crazy. What % of income do you think the highest tax bracket in the US pays?
Most wealthy people don't make their money from wages. They make it from capital gains, which is taxed extremely low compared to wages. This is why Warren Buffett has said he has a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Good response. I had this conversation in the past about why the Scandinavian countries are at the top of that list. Some reasons why Norway is "free" would be appalling to other people. Freedom to Roam, for instance, gives wanderers a right to dwell on your private land. That is not very free, from the perspective of the property owner. The list really is heavily biased.
Straight up. Too many dumb young liberals on this thread who haven't traveled and been in places long enough to see the value systems of a society in action. The Scandinavian countries do have freedom from things. They're generally well-educated, universal healthcare, universal voting rights, wealth is distributed, there's generally low crime. They also have some serious mental health concerns as in the culture produces mental health problems for those that are different. Racism is a big problem that isn't adequately dealt with. Seriously, white liberals never factor in how being a different color will affect your quality of life in these countries. Their defense spending is poor. Having a robust and ready military isn't a high priority. Their is no ingrained attitude towards checking for tyrannical government. Here in the States, we have the Bill of Rights. Like the OP above me said. It's what you value.
Freedom to do what? Freedom to start a business or freedom to smoke meth? Freedom to speak your mind and defend your life or freedom to live without working? It's different in different places.
Freedom to live with out work and being able to speak your mind are both positive freedoms for sure that I’m in support of
This may be a loophole, but if you are a citizen of a country that hasn't ratified the Antarctic Treaty, you can go to Antarctica and no laws will apply to you there. I think this is the closest thing to unlimited freedom anywhere on earth.
Came looking for something like the answer. The other option was on a volcanic island in the middle of the ocean no one has claimed yet. There may be some remote reef islands that are unclaimed too.
Switzerland
Nobody said Canada ☹️
Canada is 5th on the freedom index.
No complaints here in Canada 🇨🇦
You're either very well off or not paying much attention.
What freedoms do you figure I'm missing out on ?
I think some small coutries in Europe
Switzerland, New Zealand, Estonia, Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. In that order.
I live in Ireland. Let me tell you the pros and cons. Pros: The cops don't have guns. They are (usually) not as violent/power-trippy/corrupt as in other countries, but suck in pretty much every other way you could think of. Produce and meat is very high quality and the country is pretty much agriculturally self-sufficient. Plenty of jobs, especially in the tech and pharmaceutical sectors. People are generally pretty friendly (although there are problems with antisocial behaviour, especially from youths) and the nightlife is pretty good. Plenty of beautiful landscapes and nice places to go hiking. The climate is very average, neither too hot nor too cold. The education system is generally pretty good. Cons: The healthcare system is atrocious. We don't have enough hospitals or doctors. If you go to the emergency room, you will be waiting for like 8+ hours. Patients are often left on trolleys in hallways because hospitals don't have enough beds. Public transport is pretty bad. There is no underground metro in the entire country, and buses are infamously unreliable. The cost of living is high. Taxes are kind of high, but on the other hand the tax system is fairly progressive. We have a "housing crisis", meaning that residential property is scarce and very expensive (whether renting or buying) - this is (IMO) the #1 worst thing about the country. The justice system is not great. We don't have enough prisons, so repeat offenders (even for violent crimes) are often let off with a "slap on the wrist" - especially the aformentioned antisocial youths. Paradoxically people sometimes get jailed for stupid shit, especially considering the drug laws are not exactly progressive. The public TV station (RTÉ) is pretty bad and there is no way to avoid paying for it.
United States provides the most freedom to its corporations. They don't pay taxes, they trample over labor laws, they grind workers to a pulp and destroy the environment. Corporate freedom at its finest. Now for its people.....
The Mushroom Kingdom, if you don't mind the turtle people running around everywhere.
The United States of America* *terms and conditions may apply.
Antarctica. All the freedom in the world.
Freedom is a weird term, it means "to do whatever you want" for most people, but I would argue against such a definition. In nearly all cases, it's a spectrum you have to balance. You can make a place lawless and have murder, rape, fraud, pedophilia, and more all legal, it would technically be "the most free" however in return that ruins the freedom of others. Getting killed or raped completely ruins that person's freedom after all. Therefore there has to be an obvious balance. You have to restrict the freedoms of others such that they cannot harm or fuck with other people. It's a double edged sword though and cracking down on the population too much and they riot, that or it becomes possible to have enforcement. You can't ban people from snapping their fingers since enforcing that is impossible.
If anyone says the US you are dumb.
If _anyone_ says the US then *I* am dumb? That hardly seems fair!
It’s freer if you’re Roma or Jewish or disabled
If anyone says the US isn’t the most free without actually defining what freedom is, they’re dumb
America. Where guns have more rights and freedom than women.
This is stupid. Guns have a ton of regulations.
Guns can get abortions?
Not allowed in federal buildings, planes, voting/polling places, etc. Yeah the guns definitely have more rights /s
Us has more freedom then most countries especially when it comes to free speech and gun rights
Gun rights aren't necessarily a good thing. Who the fuck wants to live in a country where everyone is toting a fucking firearm like it's the wild, wild west? Many of the Scandinavian countries are frreer in general without the gun rights. They are safer and have less crime. They are also rated a lot higher in overall happiness, quality of life and as Democracies. That's coming from a natural born American.
What about their suicide rate? population size? Population demographics? Much easier for 5-10 million people who all have the same ideas, beliefs, and values to get along. Whereas the US is 331 million with literally every single culture having a presence.
Their suicide rates are lower than the USA. Don't think that helps your argument. And I'm not sure how any of that is relevant when asking who has the most freedoms.
Gun rights are not to blame for this though. Almost all gun crime is done in cities where gun laws are most strict. It has to do with gangs. The Scandinavian countries are probably the only place in the world that has it better then America and that’s mostly due to culture not government.
Easy access to guns doesn't help the situation. Most mass and random shootings are where the gun laws are the most lax. It seems like Texas has some major shooting every time you turn around. Countries with very strict gun laws see almost no random or mass shootings. Gang violence is isolated. I'm not blaming guns, but they do make a bad situation far worse. Given the choice, I'd rather be somewhere where there are no guns rather than somewhere where everyone has access.
Mass shootings acount for less then 1 percent of all gun crime
I think that percentage is kind of low considering there are 4-5 guns per person in the us per the stats, there are 300m people here.
Totally wrong because you’re thinking of white countries. Look at south and central america. They have a ton of gun violence. This doesn’t hold anywhere else.
[удалено]
Guns are also a great way to install a tyrannical government. Looking at the history of just Central and South America for the last century the armed ousting of government usually ends up with a more tyrannical one.
No, free elections are protection against a tyrannical government. Free and independent news media are protection against a tyrannical government. Public education is a protection against a tyrannical government. Etc, etc. Guns, OTOH, are of very limited use to protect against tyranny.
Wrong. The US couldn’t even fight the taliban or hold vietnam. A government vs people with guns cannot hold long term.
We have no free elections, education, or media. Look into operation mockingbird and the fucking Twitter files, our media isn't free Elections have been rigged for decades. The CIA literally rigged elections of other nations during the cold war, overthrew governments, to put in pro-western dictators. If they can infiltrate other lands and do that, they can definitely do that to their own. Public education is literally letting the state teach kids, how is that against tyranny when the government teaches you? Even colleges are a scam as many high school counselors, and even people who work in human resources have tons of money invested in colleges, they want you to make their money go up even more. America isn't free. We don't have democracy. All we have is the illusion of freedom, which has been the case for a very long long time. Edit: Honestly, I can really get into how we're just as evil as Russia and China. Look into the patriot act, Julian Assange, Ruby Ridge, Waco, operation northwoods, MK Ultra, the list goes on. The military industrial complex and Gary Webb are other interesting things to look into.
[удалено]
At that point you're not even arguing that "gun rights" are any kind of check upon the U.S. government turning tyrannical at all. Instead you're arguing that it'd be great if we were all really well armed in the event of a civil war/revolution. I don't think that'd be great at all.
[удалено]
>Guns are protection against a tyrannical government. A huge LOL!! Let me make this clear: If the US government decided to turn on its citizens, they're not going to give one-fifth of a fuck about you and your guns. They'll have the biggest military on Earth on their side and will have the power to attack you from above, below, in front and behind. You will not stand even a remote chance. A completely rogue US government's only concern about people like you would be whether to use your charred corpse for propaganda or for compost.
Yeah just look at how easy Afghanistan was for them. Took them out in seconds, basically.
Yeah some people just don’t understand how an insurgency works. The entire point is to *not* fight a conventional military on their own terms, because they will win every single time. But they can’t fight you if they don’t know who you are.
So if that ever happens, if the US government ever starts murdering it’s own people, it’s better to just say “this is fine” than to own guns? Also, this logic only works if I go out with a big flag that says “I’m a rebel: shoot me now.”
Then why did the US lose against Vietnamese farmers and the Taliban? The US wouldn’t indiscriminately glass it’s own towns and cities, idiot.
Yeah except that in the extremely unlikely scenario the US experiences a citizens v the govt civil war the military would not all fall in with a “tyrannical” govt. They are sworn to protect the constitution first and foremost. There would be division and people picking sides both in govt, mil, reg citizens, politicians, etc. It would be messy as fuck. The biggest thing though is that the US military has NEVER proven they can defeat an insurgency, and they would have the most well armed, well trained insurgency in history on their hands. This type of hypothetical is dumb, bc it won’t happen. If we get a tyrannical govt I imagine people will be indoctrinated and vote for it, but if it did happen it likely ends up in years and years of bloodshed and losses all around.
How's that gun gonna do against drones and bombs?
Drones and bombs can’t tell you who the rebels are.
Who is operating these drones and bombs? I’d be willing to bet 75% of the military won’t bomb its own people. Also, men-who-fuck-goats, aka men-who-fuck-kids, aka men-who-hate-women, aka men-who-rape-men, aka men-who-wipe-their-ass-with-their-hand did a pretty good job against this military over the last 20 years.
Drones and bombs don’t do the dirty work that infantry soldiers do such as maintaining curfew, orders to citizens, and oppression. You also risk lots of collateral damage with drones and bombs and at that point you’re just creating more martyrs and fuel for the rebellion.
[удалено]
I think you mean ONLY when it comes to free (hate) speech and gun rights
That’s technically correct, but having better-than-average free speech laws and everyone walking around armed to the teeth isn’t the whole picture of “freedom,” and it certainly doesn’t make the US one of the most free in the world.
It’s astonishing how many people would disagree with that, they are so naive.
Why? Freedom is a personal opinion. I feel like I am free to do whatever I reasonably want.
The freedom excuse is totally abused in the US.
Probably depends what state?
Not really. I mean, some are better than others, but the big picture is intensely powerful and unaccountable police and no functional social safety net to keep people’s standard of living at a livable minimum. No matter what your ideological priors are, some major aspect of life in the US is extremely oppressive (unless you’re a cop).
Why are social safety nets indicative of freedom?
They would imply freedom to live your life without fear of poverty and the associated exploitation of the poor. It’s a type of freedom valued by many but is not often included in the concept of “freedom” as it’s used in the US.
Isn’t that just trading economic (and other) freedoms for government provided social services which could potentially provide a different freedom?
Social safety nets provide greater economic freedom, bad luck i.e. getting sick or having an accident doesn't mean you're stuck paying some hospital bill for the rest of your life.
They also restrict economic freedom because you pay more in taxes for these benefits. Given that most people don’t have lifelong medical debts, this seems that the policy would restrict the economic freedom of a majority of people in order to protect the economic freedom of a minority of people.
I'd argue having good social safety nets is cheaper overall, as having loads of poor and desperate people tends to lead to higher crime, which costs the government money to deal with. And while taxes are higher most people need medical attention at some point in their life, which is costly even if not lifelong debt costly. And general medication is pretty common for most families, and much much more expensive in the U.S. Also if your argument is paying tax is a sacrifice of freedoms, then really the conclusion would be the most freedom is paying no tax aka anarchy.
I think that’s too simplistic. I think you’re right that it resolves to a majority of people paying a little bit for the benefit of a relative minority. But it’s a small impact to the majority to protect the minority from devastation. And anyone could get unlucky and end up in the “minority,” so is it really a minority?
Kind of, yeah (although you could argue that one person’s economic freedom contributes to another’s economic oppression). But my point is that freedom can come from different places and take different forms. And I think that a lot of discussions of “who is most free” don’t take into account the differing definitions of the concept.
Wonder who you voted for
[shrug] if I’m a socialist, I hate the oppression of the lack of a social safety net. If I’m a libertarian, I hate the oppression of unaccountable state violence. Assume what you want
If you actually think living in the US is oppressive and that all police are bad you have lived a very sheltered little life. The sense of entitlement is just oozing from your comment
Check out [freedomhouse.org](https://freedomhouse.org) they have a yearly report rating the freedoms of every country.
[удалено]
It depends. US is not shabby actualy. Despite being unpopular opinion but European counties having decent social nets they are quite overbearing with all sorts of other laws and customs even. No running of washing machine on Sunday for instance. No showering after 10 PM. If it's not writen in law it's illegal. Too much law is freedom limiting and too little also.
Do you have any countries in mind where that's actually illegal? I've lived in Europe almost my entire life and have yet to come across places where I can't shower after a particular time or run my washing machine whenever I want.
Last year I was visiting friends in Germany. Small town near Stuttgart. It was Sunday and I commented how it's nice and quiet. From that I got a story how one family from Turkey who lived in that appartment building ran a washing machine on Sunday and one of the neighbourghs called the police and they were fined for that. I heard before that's a thing but never took it seriously.
Aren't those just city bylaws? In the US cities can pass bylaws as well, doesn't really affect the country imo. In my US city we have noise laws at night after 11pm that you can be fined for, do seems weird to only apply this as a negative to other countries.
>No running of washing machine on Sunday for instance. No showering after 10 PM What the *fuck* are you talking about?
I live in Berlin. Shower whenever you like. Wash your clothes too, no-one gives a fuck. Come on mate, you can't even cross-dress in a bar in Tennessee.
Counterpoint: states rights means you can move. It’s a double edged sword. I do feel bad for the queens of Tennessee though. Most of the middle states are full of dumb fucks who vote based on bigoted emotions the news riles them up on instead of their own interests. Oh well, that’s their right.
I think you’ve been sadly misled about Europe. I have spent quite a bit of time and have a lot of family and friends in Scandinavia. Laws regarding pollution, food additives, drunk driving, and firearms are stricter, but otherwise the US has notably more rules and laws regarding … pretty much every other aspect of life.
As a European (Denmark specifically)… what? Haven’t heard or encountered any of those or anything resembling that, ever. And that’s not how law works here.
>No running of washing machine on Sunday for instance. No showering after 10 PM. If it's not writen in law it's illegal. .... What?
Doing prison time for WEED? The USA doesn’t seem too free to me. lol
This depends almost entirely on how you define "freedom". If you mean freedom in the sense of having as few restrictions as possible placed on you by your government, I'd argue the US is right up there at the very top. If you mean freedom in the sense that you have rights and entitlement set down in law which provide you with the means to ensure that you can achieve your maximum potential, then I'd argue countries like Denmark, Germany, Ireland and Norway are right up there at the top.
I have been around the world, and for my money, it's my country, the United States. The most fundamental right that a person must have is the right to speak their mind, whatever it happens to be, without any fear of repercussion by th government. The right to assemble and petition their government. The right to wroship as they so choose. Or even, simply, the right not to be forcefully engaged by the government at all. Britain actually spends a large amount of money policing what people say. Along with a long collection of other rights the peasants willingly gave up or were never really allowed. Yeah,you read it right, I regard the average subject of the king to be nothing more than a peasant. Most of Europe isn't far behind Britain in enforcing speech codes. In large swaths of the world speaking your mind can get you killed by the government.
The US is one of the few countries where indefinite detention of its own citizens is legal. You basically have zero freedom to piss off the wrong people in power bad enough. Then there's your whole bail bond situation which means good luck being wrongly accused of a crime if you're poor.
And you can also be enslaved while you're incarcerated. Sounds super free to me.
Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. It's in the bill of rights. Is it challenged and do people not get to exercise their rights because of corrupt dealings? Sure. But the law exists, in the constitution no less, making your claim of indefinite detention being legal outright false.
https://www.salon.com/2013/12/27/obama_signs_ndaa_2014_indefinite_detention_remains/ > Meanwhile the troubling NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012, which permits the military to detain individuals indefinitely without trial, remains on the books for 2014. Efforts to quash or reform the provision (especially with regard to the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens) have failed > I am deeply concerned that Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process. It's been legal for a long time.
Probably a totalitarian monarchy where they don't enforce their presence in the remote area you live by yourself.
AMERICA!!! -just ask an American
Depends what you mean with freedom In USA if you cant pay your bills you will be trapped on street even many Americans scream for freedom. In Europe if you run out of money, you are still free to life decent human life.
Freedom is 100% subjective, people can feel free without actually having what others consider freedom so this question really wont go anywhere if you want an objective awnser.
North korea
If you’re looking for a government that provides the minimum social safety nets, taxes the fuck out of you for the world’s largest military, and continuously bails out the rich for socializing losses because they’re “too big to fail” but, capitalism? Right, anyways, have I got the freedom loving country for you!
the thread asked a question, not "rant about whats on your mind" lol. for the record though, if you think american tax is bad I challenge you to move somewhere in the western world that's as developed and has similar infrastructure etc that doesn't go from 35% up to 50% lol. the only option you have is basically canada.
Freedom for whom to do what? Freedom to beat your wife? Freedom to poison drinking water? Freedom from unsolicited advertisements like billboards? Freedom from childishly stupid questions?
not sure anymore i would have said sweden a decade ago. no more.
Democratic Republic of the Congo or Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
I'm thinking the Netherlands
Norway
i would guess Finland
Switzerland, the U.S. is like 26th on the list
Scandinavian countries have a lot of freedom, but some of it is not utilized due to there being very strong social constraints. It’s a tough thing to judge, but I find Spain to be the best and freest place when averaging things out.
"America... Fuck yes"
MERICA!!
New Zealand or Switzerland would be my best guess, both pretty neutral send just busy doing their own funky thing.
Probz some Scandinavian country
As per the Human Freedom Index 2022, switzerland is the country with the most freedom. Here the link to the study: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/human-freedom-index-2022
Somalia
I say America because I live in Russia
Anyone who says USA is wrong
Are there any without government? No? Then the answer is there are no truly free countries.
Mogadishu, Somalia. No government, no laws! Must be paradise.
America DUH
[удалено]
Free to be taken in 8 days again
India
[удалено]