Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: You Enjoy Myself on December 11, 2012, 10:32 am
-
Where is the freedom at? When I look out my window I don't see as much freedom as I would like (the U.S.). Which country beats them all and why? My best guess would be the Netherlands but I've never left the country so what do I know.
-
The jungles! With excessive amounts of DMT
Freedom doesn't exist in today's society's.
As for the one that is 'most' free, I have no idea...
-
Depends on the freedom. The United States has some of the most progressive free speech laws in the world. France and Germany have less draconian drug laws, but they ban Nazi symbols. None of these countries, including the Netherlands, allows you to keep multiple wives, but Saudi Arabia does. However, Saudi Arabia doesn't allow alcohol.
You might enjoy a corrupt third world country where the authorities are easily bribed.
-
Somalia. You can do whatever you want, just don't get killed in the process.
-
Well if you can live without heil hitler and stuff, then u should be having a great time in Germany or NL, Austria as well. but i think Switzerland might even be the best place to be, since they dont really give a fuck about the EU ;) but they speak jibberish ;) at least, i dont understand them.
-
Human freedom was lost when some caveman decided to build a fence around a certain plot of land! tbh you would need to define what freedom means to you, before deciding to find a place which is free.
-
Reality.
-
Undeclared has the most freedom :)
-
Not a country but go deep into Antarctica and odds are you can get away with anything.
-
Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Hong Kong, Maccau, Singapore, maybe South Korea - simply the countries, where government provides the most necessary services (police, law, courts, elementary schools...) only and leaves people alone so they're free to produce and keep the fruit of their labour.
-
Czech Republic
-
Which prision has the most freedom?
I asked myself the same question a while back. It took me a while to realize that I wasn't asking myself exactly the right question - I felt like a cow wondering "which slaughterhouse has the cleanest floor?"
Then I heard about seasteading and discovered that the high seas are about as close as I could get to my idea of freedom. as long as you aren't laundering money or smuggling drugs to the US or an actual pirate (I'm sure this list isn't exhaustive) you can do pretty much whatever floats your boat if you're far enough from shore. ;)
Now I ask myself "how can I live as free as possible?" and so far what I've come up with is a combination of perpetual travel (i.e. wherever you are, the gov't considers you a tourist/traveler), crypto-anarchy, agorism and tradecraft. Now I'm always looking for more weapons to add to my arsenol of freedom
Once I can afford a nuclear powered submarine yaht, I will be satisfied 8)
-
Every country has different levels of freedom for its citizens based on different factors. Even in a complete dictatorship there are some people that have significant freedoms while others have no liberties at all. If you have money and power then freedom is likely to follow regardless of what country you are in.
-
I'd love to be able to say Denmark, but frankly; it's just not true. "Freedom" is a peculiar concept in a statist nation, but if you're into specific 'freedoms' (is there such a thing? to divide freedom into discrete units seems ironically paradoxical to me) then Czech Republic, as of recent, enjoys laxed drug laws and the Jizerka mountains are great for exploration - both inner and outer ;)
-
Mumbai, india
-
Well, if we're going to specific places, i'd suggest the village of Vang Vieng in Laos. While Laos actually has pretty stringent drug control by the letter of the law, it is not enforced there, and the most common activities for tourists include bobbing down the river in a tube, smoking some pot on the way down, and enjoy a 'magic pizza' after... though smoking some opium is no problem at all either.
Combine that with bars that play infinite re-runs of series like friends or the simpsons on big screens, and you get the idea.
-
Native-American reservations?
-
this sounds like the SR-Server is seated there?! 8)
I suspect so - its that random humming thing under the bar. This would also explain why the site is often that slow, given Laos' "developing" internet architecture :D
-
Mumbai, india
[/HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA my nigga vaibjo is from mumbai/masharata he said you can bribe cops so easy man, but if your white you need to watch out for them fuckin Muslims. But I heard Mumbai is ran by some dude not even there anymore he in dubai he said
-
Laws are one thing and culture is another. You will be limited in your freedom if you live where you grew up. You will generally be constrained by the moral code of social conduct. Expats enjoy a ton of freedom in that respect, and Thailand offers a lot of pleasures to pursue. But drug laws are harsh and there is no free speech here. People are regularly jailed for speaking out against the government or monarchy.
-
Oh dear Thailand :)
I love the country, but in terms of legislation its a very very odd one. Drug legislation is extremely harsh by the letter of the law, and drug dealing is considered to be a crime worse than murder, since it is an assault on society as a whole rather than just on a single individual. Drug trafficking carries the death sentence in thailand. Despite that many drugs are widely available in the country at very reasonable prices.
Enforcement is very very variable in thailand, and outside of bangkok pretty lax where drugs are concerned.
If you insult the king on the other hand, you can count on several years of imprisonment regardless of where you do that. I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from visiting thailand, but if you do, you should be aware of laws and enforcement. Just stating something can get you into much more trouble than posessing some drugs for personal use there. In bankgok i'd suggest keeping to smoking a drinking - any other drugs can lead to very expensive bribes and even prosecution.
-
That is hard to decipher, because countries have varying laws on varying topics.
Road laws, perhaps Germany or Europe.
Drug laws, probably Netherlands.
Freedom of speech, the United States.
Freedom of personal choices, the United States or parts of Europe.
Living in Australia, everything is very restricted here. Australia is extremely over-governed. Freedom is going down the drain. Police and the Government have far too much power and it is abused.
As a civil libertarian and being pro-democracy, if I were to live in another country it would be the US, Switzerland or the Netherlands.
-
i would vouch for Netherlands if its associated with drugs. ;D
-
3 options as I see for freedom; all expensive. Cheapest first. On the high seas, under the ocean, & space.
NCK
-
That is hard to decipher, because countries have varying laws on varying topics.
Road laws, perhaps Germany or Europe.
Drug laws, probably Netherlands.
Freedom of speech, the United States.
Freedom of personal choices, the United States or parts of Europe.
Living in Australia, everything is very restricted here. Australia is extremely over-governed. Freedom is going down the drain. Police and the Government have far too much power and it is abused.
As a civil libertarian and being pro-democracy, if I were to live in another country it would be the US, Switzerland or the Netherlands.
The Netherlands are over rated when it comes to lax drug laws. Certainly they are lax compared to the Nazis in the USA, but in a handful of countries all drugs are entirely legal for personal use.
-
this one.
-
this one.
I'm assuming you mean the United States, but I might be wrong.
-
The Netherlands are over rated when it comes to lax drug laws. Certainly they are lax compared to the Nazis in the USA, but in a handful of countries all drugs are entirely legal for personal use.
Well, that totally depends on how you look at things. If your main question is "will i end in jail for smoking pot, snorting coke or shooting heroin", the answer in the netherlands is a rather definite "No".
The problem with the Dutch drug policy is that is entirely based on 'tolerance'. Possessing and using amounts of drugs for personal use (one or a few single doses) is technically still illegal, but never prosecuted. In case of drugs other then cannabis a small amount will be confiscated by police if found, but prosecution is unlikely, and even if it does the penalty would be a relatively small fine.
This all seems nice enough, but its not without its problems. For example with cannabis, an amount of 5 grams or less is considered to be for personal use and no action is taken. 5 to 30 grams is considered a 'tradeable' amount and will be confiscated, possibly prosecuted resulting in a fine. Amounts over 30 grams are likely to be prosecuted and still result in prison sentences sometimes, especially when the amount is large or the intent to sell is proven.
Obviously this can cause odd situations. Someone that smokes a gram a day may have 30 grams for strict personal use, just as you may buy a carton of cigarettes or box of wine for personal use over the course of more than a day or two.
Politically it's still an issue though. There is a fairly large part of parliament that would want to legalize it entirely, but so far this has never reached a majority. Other parties want to keep things the way they are, and a fair number want to impose more regulation, such as only allowing coffeeshops a certain distance away of schools, or only making them accessible for dutch nationals.
As usual in dutch politics this will end in taking no action at all - you'll probably still be able to smoke pot in amsterdam as a foreigner, and you still would not want to get busted with 100 grams of pot in the glove compartment.
-
To everyone saying third-world countries, just because the government doesn't restrict your freedom doesn't mean you're free. Freedom is all about possibilities. Maybe I want to be able to surf the internet on my iPhone while eating a Big Mac not dead because the government helped pay for surgery. Though maybe I'd also like to do so while high.
at that, Nordic Europe seems best right now.
-
To everyone saying third-world countries, just because the government doesn't restrict your freedom doesn't mean you're free. Freedom is all about possibilities. Maybe I want to be able to surf the internet on my iPhone while eating a Big Mac not dead because the government helped pay for surgery. Though maybe I'd also like to do so while high.
at that, Nordic Europe seems best right now.
Are you saying that the third world has no Big Macs? Internet? Iphones? Socialized medicine? Most of the third world is not like sub-Saharan Africa.
-
If you have money and power then freedom is likely to follow regardless of what country you are in.
This. Money and power control everything and freedom is no exception. Because really, how much freedom do the dirt poor have in even the freest of countries? A lot of my friends have never been on a plane, rarely been 100 miles away from home, and not because of lack of want. Our freedom gets restricted by more than just laws.
-
Well, if we're going to specific places, i'd suggest the village of Vang Vieng in Laos. While Laos actually has pretty stringent drug control by the letter of the law, it is not enforced there, and the most common activities for tourists include bobbing down the river in a tube, smoking some pot on the way down, and enjoy a 'magic pizza' after... though smoking some opium is no problem at all either.
Combine that with bars that play infinite re-runs of series like friends or the simpsons on big screens, and you get the idea.
you must be joking, it's full of white middle class idiots, drunk as a skunk or on mushrooms and making a twat of themselves, lovely place just shame about us westerners that go there. i feel sorry for the locals that have to put up with them, I hated it. cambodia is much better to visit and smoke ice. less teenage idiot westerners too.
-
Portugal imho !
-
Portugal imho !
you're not Portuguese, Man!
-
That's for sure but their drug policy isn't so restricted... From point of my country it's paradise !
-
Well, if we're going to specific places, i'd suggest the village of Vang Vieng in Laos. While Laos actually has pretty stringent drug control by the letter of the law, it is not enforced there, and the most common activities for tourists include bobbing down the river in a tube, smoking some pot on the way down, and enjoy a 'magic pizza' after... though smoking some opium is no problem at all either.
Combine that with bars that play infinite re-runs of series like friends or the simpsons on big screens, and you get the idea.
you must be joking, it's full of white middle class idiots, drunk as a skunk or on mushrooms and making a twat of themselves, lovely place just shame about us westerners that go there. i feel sorry for the locals that have to put up with them, I hated it. cambodia is much better to visit and smoke ice. less teenage idiot westerners too.
What exactly is your problem with vang vieng? Surely the clientele is mostly westerners drinking and drugging their heads off for a bit, but where is the harm?
The people there seem to be making a very decent living out of the whole situation and earning decent money doing so.
I've been to cambodia too, which does have a nice booze and drug culture too, mostly in phnom penh and the beaches. A downsiide i've noticed in cambodia more then anywhere else in the world is the solvent-abusing kids huffing glue fumes from sandwich bags. I haven't seen any of that in laos - not in vang vieng, not in vientiane or anywhere else in the country.
.
Laos may be much more sparsely populated compared to cambodia, but i got the impression its not nearly as miserable.
-
Mentioning Laos and "freedom" in the same sentence is the epitome of ignorance. I don't even know where to begin with this. LOL. It is a one-party communist surveillance state with a horrible human rights record. Read the book "Hunted like Animals".
This is from Wikipedia:
Main article: Human rights in Laos
The Constitution that was promulgated in 1991 and amended in 2003 contains most key safeguards for human rights. For example, in Article 8 it makes it clear that Laos is a multiethnic state and is committed to equality between ethnic groups. The Constitution also has provisions for gender equality and freedom of religion, for freedom of speech, press and assembly. On 25 September 2009, Laos ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, nine years after signing the treaty. The stated policy objectives of both the Lao government and international donors remain focused toward achieving sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction.[47][48]
However, Amnesty International has raised concerns about the ratification record of the Laos Government on human rights standards and its lack of cooperation with the UN human rights mechanisms and legislative measures which impact negatively on human rights. It has also raised concerns in relation to freedom of expression, poor prison conditions, restrictions on freedom of religions, protection of refugees and asylum-seekers and the death penalty.[49]
In October 1999, 30 young people were arrested for attempting to display posters calling for peaceful economic, political and social change in Laos. Five of them were arrested and subsequently sentenced to up to 10 years imprisonment on charges of treason. One has since died due to his treatment by prison guards, while one has been released. The surviving three men should have been released by October 2009, but their whereabouts remains unknown.[49]
Laos and Vietnamese troops were reported to have raped and killed four Christian Hmong women in Xieng Khouang province in 2011, according to US campaign group The Centre for Public Policy Analysis. CPPA also said other Christian and independent Buddhist and animist believers were being persecuted.[50][51]
-
I've been all over Asia, Europe, North America, and some Middle Eastern Countries. (Also been to Mexico and some islands but I don't really consider that tourist experience worthy.)
Give me a Secular country based on the ideals of Socrates, Thomas Paine, Baruch Spinoza, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, ect.
I still don't know where I will eventually end up but I can wish can't I
-
It's easy to point out a million things wrong in Laos - after all it is a very poor country where the government has little grip on people, and the political agenda is quirky at best.
What gives some parts of laos freedom is simply lack of enforcement: Something may be illegal under national legislation, but if regional and local police do not enforce it, the letter of the law has little effect. This is why you can use drugs quite freely in places like vang vieng, but also why crimes like rapes go unpunished in some areas. There is a degree of anarchy there, which sometimes works out very well, and sometimes not at all.
You see this in several developing countries though. In the west we are very used to the law being upheld, but in many developing countries that simply is not the case all off the time. Often these countries do not have much of a federal police force, leaving enforcement of the national laws at liberty to local authorities.
Its something like how they tried to enforce a smoking ban in indonesia. It is implemented in jakarta, but its not likely anyone on another island gives a shit about it. Add in a bit of corruption and you'll find yourself having a cig with a police officer inl an eastern java bus station, provided you share a $1 beer with the guy. Practically there is nothing wrong with that situation - to the letter of the law there is a problem, but one that it settled amicably. Some call this corrupt, others call it pragmatic, and most aren't even aware of the situation.
-
Its something like how they tried to enforce a smoking ban in indonesia. It is implemented in jakarta, but its not likely anyone on another island gives a shit about it. Add in a bit of corruption and you'll find yourself having a cig with a police officer inl an eastern java bus station, provided you share a $1 beer with the guy. Practically there is nothing wrong with that situation - to the letter of the law there is a problem, but one that it settled amicably. Some call this corrupt, others call it pragmatic, and most aren't even aware of the situation.
^this is true^ ;D :D
-
It's easy to point out a million things wrong in Laos - after all it is a very poor country where the government has little grip on people, and the political agenda is quirky at best.
What gives some parts of laos freedom is simply lack of enforcement: Something may be illegal under national legislation, but if regional and local police do not enforce it, the letter of the law has little effect. This is why you can use drugs quite freely in places like vang vieng, but also why crimes like rapes go unpunished in some areas. There is a degree of anarchy there, which sometimes works out very well, and sometimes not at all.
You see this in several developing countries though. In the west we are very used to the law being upheld, but in many developing countries that simply is not the case all off the time. Often these countries do not have much of a federal police force, leaving enforcement of the national laws at liberty to local authorities.
Its something like how they tried to enforce a smoking ban in indonesia. It is implemented in jakarta, but its not likely anyone on another island gives a shit about it. Add in a bit of corruption and you'll find yourself having a cig with a police officer inl an eastern java bus station, provided you share a $1 beer with the guy. Practically there is nothing wrong with that situation - to the letter of the law there is a problem, but one that it settled amicably. Some call this corrupt, others call it pragmatic, and most aren't even aware of the situation.
+1 This is partly why there is so much freedom in Thailand. You can cite human rights abuses, poverty, and corruption in this government as well but few places allow you to own a cop so cheaply. That is invaluable if you want freedom!
-
I think maybe USA. in my perspective of freedom.
but of course you go to pakistan, and you can kill some1 and nothing happens to you, but if you give a kiss to a woman in the street you may both get shoot at.. so that is really very (some f_cking word i cant remenber)
-
MY PRIVATE ISLAND. You're all welcome if you can find it!
-
A few things to consider:
1. drugs
2. speech
3. guns
With respect to drugs, some countries in Europe are certainly freer than the US.
With respect to speech, the US is certainly freer than Europe. People are not imprisoned for denying the Holocaust, nationalism, racialism, etc., but this is routinely done in Europe.
With respect to guns, the US is freer than most of Europe.
So although the US is backwards compared to Europe in many other respects, I think the US is, on the whole, freer than Europe..
-
A few things to consider:
1. drugs
2. speech
3. guns
With respect to drugs, some countries in Europe are certainly freer than the US.
With respect to speech, the US is certainly freer than Europe. People are not imprisoned for denying the Holocaust, nationalism, racialism, etc., but this is routinely done in Europe.
With respect to guns, the US is freer than most of Europe.
So although the US is backwards compared to Europe in many other respects, I think the US is, on the whole, freer than Europe..
Europes varies highly in liberties. And there are other countries besides Europe and the US. I have read in a ranking of all liberties compared one report said Estonia, one New Zealand, and one Canada. That said, currently Australia and Canada have the strongest economies. So Canada might win overall.
-
A few things to consider:
1. drugs
2. speech
3. guns
With respect to drugs, some countries in Europe are certainly freer than the US.
With respect to speech, the US is certainly freer than Europe. People are not imprisoned for denying the Holocaust, nationalism, racialism, etc., but this is routinely done in Europe.
With respect to guns, the US is freer than most of Europe.
So although the US is backwards compared to Europe in many other respects, I think the US is, on the whole, freer than Europe..
Europes varies highly in liberties. And there are other countries besides Europe and the US. I have read in a ranking of all liberties compared one report said Estonia, one New Zealand, and one Canada. That said, currently Australia and Canada have the strongest economies. So Canada might win overall.
canada does not have free speech. people are put in jail for denying the holocaust and other thought crimes. it is also less free than the US with respect to guns.
-
A few things to consider:
1. drugs
2. speech
3. guns
With respect to drugs, some countries in Europe are certainly freer than the US.
With respect to speech, the US is certainly freer than Europe. People are not imprisoned for denying the Holocaust, nationalism, racialism, etc., but this is routinely done in Europe.
With respect to guns, the US is freer than most of Europe.
So although the US is backwards compared to Europe in many other respects, I think the US is, on the whole, freer than Europe..
Europes varies highly in liberties. And there are other countries besides Europe and the US. I have read in a ranking of all liberties compared one report said Estonia, one New Zealand, and one Canada. That said, currently Australia and Canada have the strongest economies. So Canada might win overall.
canada does not have free speech. people are put in jail for denying the holocaust and other thought crimes. it is also less free than the US with respect to guns.
That wasn't really my opinion I was just repeating what I read. I guess I'm a drone.
-
the land of money. when you have enough money you can buy your freedom
-
the land of money. when you have enough money you can buy your freedom
Which can pretty much happen anywhere. All countries have their price. Some will welcome you and your self made fortune with open arms knowing that your just being on board is to their net benefit. That's the way it should be. Lots of people surrender their US citizenships when they decide they prefer not to get hit with billion dollar tax receipts. See Saverin, Eduardo.
Because really, most people referring to "freedom" seem to think of it in one of two ways. Either it's the 1) freedom from taxation or 2) freedom from being persecuted by the government for victimless crimes (namely drug possession and use).
If you find yourself newly wealthy and can find a government to help you minimize or even skirt altogether #1, you might decide to reward that government with patronage. What good is retaining your US citizenship when the US government is one of the only in the world that retains the right to tax you even if you have dual citizenship and move to your other country of citizenship? East Asian Tigers are great for this. Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore, along with their maximum rates enjoyed by the rich makes you understand why the rich work so hard to emigrate there. To give you an idea, the highest income tax rate for Hong Kong's wealthiest is 15%. In Singapore it's 20%. In the East Asian gambling Mecca of Macau it's 12%. So to say the rich skate there comparatively is a vast understatement.
If you're independently wealthy and want to find a country that will allow #1 and #2 then you pull a McAfee and move to a semi-autonomous rogue state like Belize that offers luxuriously dark banks out of reach of the IRS while their LE and coast guard are notoriously easy and cheap to bribe. Problem with McAfee is that he insisted on adding a #3 to the list, needing a government that would also allow him to commit murder after he offed his neighbor during a bath salt induced MDPV binge who he got tired of always complaining about his dog.
Still, given how much he was allowed to get away with for a quite a long fucking time ... I'm actually quite partial to Belize.
-
A lot of hedge funds are based in Bermuda,
-
I'm surprised how many people answered U.S. With the incarceration rates in the U.S. and the U.S.'s major roll in the global war on drugs, if the U.S. is the most free country, then it's a sad day for freedom.
-
I'm surprised how many people answered U.S. With the incarceration rates in the U.S. and the U.S.'s major roll in the global war on drugs, if the U.S. is the most free country, then it's a sad day for freedom.
Then it's a sad day for freedom. Prior to 911 there were these ideals called "civil liberties" that were considered sacred. We were actually protected by an assumption of privacy by the 4th amendment of the constitution from the gov eavesdropping on you without a warrant. No longer. The patriot act has turned the assumption of privacy into a joke and we can be eavesdropped on during insecure forms of communication without a warrant so it's just safer to assume that you are. :(
And while it's true the incarceration rate is high and the penalties for drug trafficking out of control, it's also true that the system is heavily biased against people of color. Or more specifically ... blacks. If you're black the system is far less likely to grant you second chances. If you're black and caught in that line of work, odds are you'll soon be sold as a slave by the prison industrial complex to the slaver of corporate America that will pay a handsome bounty for the right to exploit your production while paying you $1 an hour.
-
I'm surprised how many people answered U.S. With the incarceration rates in the U.S. and the U.S.'s major roll in the global war on drugs, if the U.S. is the most free country, then it's a sad day for freedom.
Then it's a sad day for freedom. Prior to 911 there were these ideals called "civil liberties" that were considered sacred. We were actually protected by an assumption of privacy by the 4th amendment of the constitution from the gov eavesdropping on you without a warrant. No longer. The patriot act has turned the assumption of privacy into a joke and we can be eavesdropped on during insecure forms of communication without a warrant so it's just safer to assume that you are. :(
And while it's true the incarceration rate is high and the penalties for drug trafficking out of control, it's also true that the system is heavily biased against people of color. Or more specifically ... blacks. If you're black the system is far less likely to grant you second chances. If you're black and caught in that line of work, odds are you'll soon be sold as a slave by the prison industrial complex to the slaver of corporate America that will pay a handsome bounty for the right to exploit your production while paying you $1 an hour.
i agree with you on everything, except the last paragraph. as i understand, the reason blacks are more likely to be in jail in the US is because they commit more crimes than other groups; just as whites are more likely to be incarcerated compared with Asians - simply because white people are more prone to crime than asians. (I am not suggesting a racial proclivity to crime; tbe differing crime rates may be due to social and economic factors; but it doesn't seem to be due to institutional white racism.)
-
i agree with you on everything, except the last paragraph. as i understand, the reason blacks are more likely to be in jail in the US is because they commit more crimes than other groups; just as whites are more likely to be incarcerated compared with Asians - simply because white people are more prone to crime than asians. (I am not suggesting a racial proclivity to crime; tbe differing crime rates may be due to social and economic factors; but it doesn't seem to be due to institutional white racism.)
Socioeconomics will always play a supporting role, but to deny racism as the undisputed star behind the ridiculously lopsided incarceration rates ... well I think the empirical evidence clearly shows otherwise. Research has documented gaping disparities in treatment of blacks throughout the system starting from unequal enforcement on down to unequal sentencing. Whether the racism is "institutional" is a bit harder to pin down since its been made intentionally nebulous by design. But the reality is racism still pervades these institutions in practice even if it's supposed to be rid of Jim Crow in theory.
So let's start with how blacks are generally presumed guilty and subjected to far harsher treatment by LE than other racial groups. For instance, studies have shown they're much more likely to get pulled over and their vehicles searched even after adjusting for socioeconomic factors. The disparity of their treatment by LE has been so pervasive even that the DoJ had to step in with a number of local LEA's around the country for flagrant civil rights violations. LAPD and NOPD serve as prolific examples of institutional racism that have become commonplace in big city LEAs nationwide.
All the empirical data collected has concluded that all racial groups buy and sell drugs at the same rate. Not that blacks are somehow more prone to distribution and consumption of illegal narcotics. Yet somehow LE agencies disproportionately target blacks and black neighborhoods in their WoD. Why? This can be partially explained by socioeconomics. But it doesn't account for all of it. And do you need me to tell you how racist the crack laws on the books were and still are? In 2010 they were changed so that instead of sentencing at 100 times the severity than if a person were caught with the equivalent amount of coke in their possession, it's now only 18 times the severity. What a relief huh? So with such fucked up racist laws on the books, can you really say with a straight face that courts treat the inner city slinger to the same punishments as the suburban yayo dealer? The larger populations of black dealers languishing in prison received much stiffer sentences not because they commit "more crimes", nor is it because there are more black dealers than any other race. It's because they're doing 15-25 years for selling crack.
And don't get me started on the overwhelming evidence that shows the biggest indicator in determining whether a defendant will be given the death sentence in sentencing is the race of the defendant if the victim is white. A premium is placed on white life in this regard by the human juries in the "system".
-
the reason i am doubtful that white racism plays a major role in black incarceration rates, is because there have been surveys in which people are asked: what crime have you been a victim of in the last year? who was the perpetrator? what was the race? and what is found is that blacks, whites, and asians are being reported as perpetrators of crimes at roughly the same rate at which they are being incarcerated for these crimes.
i don't know if this applies to victimless crimes such as drug dealing, so you may be right on that score. there may be a racial bias against blacks, it just doesn't seem to be a major factor when it comes to assault, rape, murder, etc.
-
A few things to consider:
1. drugs
2. speech
3. guns
With respect to drugs, some countries in Europe are certainly freer than the US.
With respect to speech, the US is certainly freer than Europe. People are not imprisoned for denying the Holocaust, nationalism, racialism, etc., but this is routinely done in Europe.
With respect to guns, the US is freer than most of Europe.
So although the US is backwards compared to Europe in many other respects, I think the US is, on the whole, freer than Europe..
Europes varies highly in liberties. And there are other countries besides Europe and the US. I have read in a ranking of all liberties compared one report said Estonia, one New Zealand, and one Canada. That said, currently Australia and Canada have the strongest economies. So Canada might win overall.
canada does not have free speech. people are put in jail for denying the holocaust and other thought crimes. it is also less free than the US with respect to guns.
What do guns have to do with freedom in a country? I would like to think that a country is more free due to the fact that you don't have to carry a gun to protect yourself from other human beings.
-
the reason i am doubtful that white racism plays a major role in black incarceration rates, is because there have been surveys in which people are asked: what crime have you been a victim of in the last year? who was the perpetrator? what was the race? and what is found is that blacks, whites, and asians are being reported as perpetrators of crimes at roughly the same rate at which they are being incarcerated for these crimes.
i don't know if this applies to victimless crimes such as drug dealing, so you may be right on that score. there may be a racial bias against blacks, it just doesn't seem to be a major factor when it comes to assault, rape, murder, etc.
Interesting. I'd be interested in reading that study. Do you remember how comprehensive the sample size, like whether they surveyed people of diverse geographic regions to remove as much racial bias of one geographic region that could color survey results?
At any rate, I brought up drug crimes because they account for half of the entire US prison population both federal and state, and it seemed to be what gambino was implicitly referring to by mentioning incarceration rates and the War on Drugs in the same sentence though I could be wrong.
Getting caught up in the US criminal justice system by itself would be bad enough. But I would imagine getting caught up in it and being black would be like being up shit creek without a paddle or any lifelines. Say you get pinned for a crime you didn't commit, which doesn't seem as uncommon as it should be particularly in places like the deep south with prosecutors that only care about their conviction rates no matter what person of color (black) they have to railroad to secure it. Do you take a plea deal where you can do minimal jail time, maybe even avoid it altogether for time served or do you face a potentially all white jury and all the disadvantages their prejudices might imperil you with? Tough call. But being black gives you a far harder negative stereotype to overcome when it comes to persuading juries. Being white or Asian gives you a far better shot at convincing the jury of your innocence.
-
the reason i am doubtful that white racism plays a major role in black incarceration rates, is because there have been surveys in which people are asked: what crime have you been a victim of in the last year? who was the perpetrator? what was the race? and what is found is that blacks, whites, and asians are being reported as perpetrators of crimes at roughly the same rate at which they are being incarcerated for these crimes.
i don't know if this applies to victimless crimes such as drug dealing, so you may be right on that score. there may be a racial bias against blacks, it just doesn't seem to be a major factor when it comes to assault, rape, murder, etc.
Interesting. I'd be interested in reading that study. Do you remember how comprehensive the sample size, like whether they surveyed people of diverse geographic regions to remove as much racial bias of one geographic region that could color survey results?
At any rate, I brought up drug crimes because they account for half of the entire US prison population both federal and state, and it seemed to be what gambino was implicitly referring to by mentioning incarceration rates and the War on Drugs in the same sentence though I could be wrong.
Getting caught up in the US criminal justice system by itself would be bad enough. But I would imagine getting caught up in it and being black would be like being up shit creek without a paddle or any lifelines. Say you get pinned for a crime you didn't commit, which doesn't seem as uncommon as it should be particularly in places like the deep south with prosecutors that only care about their conviction rates no matter what person of color (black) they have to railroad to secure it. Do you take a plea deal where you can do minimal jail time, maybe even avoid it altogether for time served or do you face a potentially all white jury and all the disadvantages their prejudices might imperil you with? Tough call. But being black gives you a far harder negative stereotype to overcome when it comes to persuading juries. Being white or Asian gives you a far better shot at convincing the jury of your innocence.
While this could be true it is also true that many, many police plant drugs on people (there was a big scandal & report in '09). They do this to reach their "arrest quotas" but also to get overtime for more testimonies and reports they have to write. Who do you think they are going to chose to plant drugs on? The white stockbroker or the black hoodlum whom "looks" like a dealer. They just judge by who looks involved in drugs, and arrest them. While they may have been involved with drugs, because they were black, they are not given a fair trial because the planted evidence is all they need. I'd say there is an equal number of all races involved in criminal activity, but a higher percent of blacks being arrested.
-
While this could be true it is also true that many, many police plant drugs on people (there was a big scandal & report in '09). They do this to reach their "arrest quotas" but also to get overtime for more testimonies and reports they have to write. Who do you think they are going to chose to plant drugs on? The white stockbroker or the black hoodlum whom "looks" like a dealer. They just judge by who looks involved in drugs, and arrest them. While they may have been involved with drugs, because they were black, they are not given a fair trial because the planted evidence is all they need. I'd say there is an equal number of all races involved in criminal activity, but a higher percent of blacks being arrested.
Great point, +1 which kind of ties into what I was saying. Blacks are overrepresented in prison populations by about 3:1 compared to their representation in society. But is that because they're more likely criminals than other racial groups or because they're more likely to be pulled over, targeted for arrest, provoked, and once they're brought in are convicted at a much higher rate because of the inherent human biases within the system not even mentioning the poorer overall representation they'll receive on average from socioeconomic factors?
Cops are more likely to plant shit on people that aren't going to be given the benefit of the doubt. It's not hard to see which race gets the shaft here.
-
First of all, how do you define freedom? Freedom from something, freedom to do something, both? A truly free country is usually thought of as a country not run by a dictator, but, as we all know, dictatorship can take other forms. I don't think any country is truly free, there is always something. Want real freedom? Get several million dollars and see how free you all of a sudden become.
-
thats a complicated question.
i mean, maybe somewhere like Somalia where people just run amok and do whatever they please, but that leads to gangs which limit freedom to those who aren't in it. but you're free to form your own...see what i'm saying?
what does freedom really mean to you?
-
With freedom comes responsibility, which is something people want even less than freedom.
-
Venezuela. You can do whatever you want to do, and nobody tells you SHIT
-
In Somalia they are not free from corruption and nuclear pollution. It's a nuclear duuuump. Other countries sink ships there full of nuclear waste and they bury nuclear waste. They can't even fish anymore so they resort to being pirates to protect their nuclear polluted waters. I don't consider that freedom.
-
Buy a huge yacht. Lay anker in internatinal waters. Freedom at last.
-
Human freedom was lost when some caveman decided to build a fence around a certain plot of land! tbh you would need to define what freedom means to you, before deciding to find a place which is free.
pretty much!
-
if the country has a name, then it is not free
-
if the country has a name, then it is not free
This all makes me want to start the 'Cruise Ship of Freedom' and sail the high seas. Of course you won't have true freedom, you will have to follow my rules or be thrown overboard.
-
http://www.economicswithjustice.co.uk/download-lectures/
These lectures talk about a new form of economics with justice.
For me economics is what enslaved us, that and margret thatcher ;)
-
Chile or Uruguay
check em out !
-
i agree with you on everything, except the last paragraph. as i understand, the reason blacks are more likely to be in jail in the US is because they commit more crimes than other groups; just as whites are more likely to be incarcerated compared with Asians - simply because white people are more prone to crime than asians. (I am not suggesting a racial proclivity to crime; tbe differing crime rates may be due to social and economic factors; but it doesn't seem to be due to institutional white racism.)
Socioeconomics will always play a supporting role, but to deny racism as the undisputed star behind the ridiculously lopsided incarceration rates ... well I think the empirical evidence clearly shows otherwise. Research has documented gaping disparities in treatment of blacks throughout the system starting from unequal enforcement on down to unequal sentencing. Whether the racism is "institutional" is a bit harder to pin down since its been made intentionally nebulous by design. But the reality is racism still pervades these institutions in practice even if it's supposed to be rid of Jim Crow in theory.
So let's start with how blacks are generally presumed guilty and subjected to far harsher treatment by LE than other racial groups. For instance, studies have shown they're much more likely to get pulled over and their vehicles searched even after adjusting for socioeconomic factors. The disparity of their treatment by LE has been so pervasive even that the DoJ had to step in with a number of local LEA's around the country for flagrant civil rights violations. LAPD and NOPD serve as prolific examples of institutional racism that have become commonplace in big city LEAs nationwide.
All the empirical data collected has concluded that all racial groups buy and sell drugs at the same rate. Not that blacks are somehow more prone to distribution and consumption of illegal narcotics. Yet somehow LE agencies disproportionately target blacks and black neighborhoods in their WoD. Why? This can be partially explained by socioeconomics. But it doesn't account for all of it. And do you need me to tell you how racist the crack laws on the books were and still are? In 2010 they were changed so that instead of sentencing at 100 times the severity than if a person were caught with the equivalent amount of coke in their possession, it's now only 18 times the severity. What a relief huh? So with such fucked up racist laws on the books, can you really say with a straight face that courts treat the inner city slinger to the same punishments as the suburban yayo dealer? The larger populations of black dealers languishing in prison received much stiffer sentences not because they commit "more crimes", nor is it because there are more black dealers than any other race. It's because they're doing 15-25 years for selling crack.
And don't get me started on the overwhelming evidence that shows the biggest indicator in determining whether a defendant will be given the death sentence in sentencing is the race of the defendant if the victim is white. A premium is placed on white life in this regard by the human juries in the "system".
Totally agree and this was my first thought as well. The cocaine - crack disparity is all anyone needs to know to realize that there is a prejudice against blacks that results in more of them being incarcerated. When black people essentially get 25 years in prison for the black person version of a drug that white people get a few months or years for, of course they are going to pile up in the prisons. It is also a poor - rich thing though, because even more so than being a black drug, crack is a poor drug.
-
With freedom comes responsibility, which is something people want even less than freedom.
Fucking Amen. Give and inch, take a mile.
-
You can have a lot of freedom if you go to international sea areas, also in space there could be build a new free country if you can afford it
-
If i could choose i would go to Costa Rica
-
Well, I think the problem lies deep within your question. Simply put, it's a bad question.
How much freedom do you want? Do you need?
Are you so pathetic that you can't create a lifestyle that is replete with freedoms and liberties?--even within a totalitarian regime? If you have access to computer to post on a sophisticated network of computers and servers, reaching out all over the globe, masking your IP and physical location, then I highly doubt you live under oppression. Unless of course, you are retarded.
-
Not a country but go deep into Antarctica and odds are you can get away with anything.
Actually, quite the contrary. Under the Antarctic Treaty, you would quickly be removed if you threatened scientific progress or caused some environmental hazard.
Freedom is a personal article that must be defined each time a human develops into an adult.
-
Depends on the freedom. The United States has some of the most progressive free speech laws in the world. France and Germany have less draconian drug laws, but they ban Nazi symbols. None of these countries, including the Netherlands, allows you to keep multiple wives, but Saudi Arabia does. However, Saudi Arabia doesn't allow alcohol.
You might enjoy a corrupt third world country where the authorities are easily bribed.
Easily bribed... until the next crook offers a bigger proffer and you find yourself looking into the darkness of a hand-crafted steel barrel.
-
this sounds like the SR-Server is seated there?! 8)
I suspect so - its that random humming thing under the bar. This would also explain why the site is often that slow, given Laos' "developing" internet architecture :D
Actually, the smarter option is to follow the way of the moonshiner:::build near a river--but more technologically advanced systems require us to build UNDERNEATH the rivers, for both water-cooled servers & security from aerial/satellite imagery. 8)
-
If you have money and power then freedom is likely to follow regardless of what country you are in.
This. Money and power control everything and freedom is no exception. Because really, how much freedom do the dirt poor have in even the freest of countries? A lot of my friends have never been on a plane, rarely been 100 miles away from home, and not because of lack of want. Our freedom gets restricted by more than just laws.
+1
-
I think maybe USA. in my perspective of freedom.
but of course you go to pakistan, and you can kill some1 and nothing happens to you, but if you give a kiss to a woman in the street you may both get shoot at.. so that is really very (some f_cking word i cant remenber)
It IS the USA because who consumes the most drugs in the world? The most oil in the world? China has us beat with more coal... but the US still have more drugs!!!!
-
I'd go for remote places where you can create your own mikrokosmos of freedom
siberia, alaska or maybe warmer regions like spain. on final thought definitly spain
with the momentary economic situation in spain its pretty cheap to buy land there
and clima isnt so bad either..
i'd love to be totally independend. eating your own grown food
and maybe making some little spare cash from SR ;)
-
If only there were a "right" answer to this ?
-
If only there were a "right" answer to this ?
Bingo... all you've done is revealed where people think is ideal... as variable as stock exchanges... or as the crack concentration in your brother's breast milk.
-
as previously mentioned, it depends on what sort of freedoms you're talking about. Governments by their nature impose restrictions on their people. For example, murder is illegal in just about every country. Portugal has the most drug-friendly laws iirc, while at the other end of the spectrum in Singapore not only will you go to jail for spitting gum onto the sidewalk, but possession of more than 15g of H, 30g of coke or morphine, 250g of meth, or 500g of pot will get you the death penalty (by hanging). Lesser amounts would spare you from capital punishment in favor of spending a few years in jail and getting caned (if you are male, I don't think they cane women or old men)
-
as previously mentioned, it depends on what sort of freedoms you're talking about. Governments by their nature impose restrictions on their people. For example, murder is illegal in just about every country. Portugal has the most drug-friendly laws iirc, while at the other end of the spectrum in Singapore not only will you go to jail for spitting gum onto the sidewalk, but possession of more than 15g of H, 30g of coke or morphine, 250g of meth, or 500g of pot will get you the death penalty (by hanging). Lesser amounts would spare you from capital punishment in favor of spending a few years in jail and getting caned (if you are male, I don't think they cane women or old men)
If you have kilos of cash, then any government will protect you... that is to say, if you can afford your own security force, then you are as safe as you are rich.
Mitt Romney... Bill Gates... Bill Clinton... Rupert Murdoch... British (inbred) Royals... exactly.
-
Bulgaria and Serbia are both pretty good. The governments and police are fairly corrupt but tax rates are low, and at least in Bulgaria, police often will take a bribe to look the other way for most non-crimes like traffic tickets and small drug charges. Bulgarian people are fascinated by foreigners, also, they think us foreigners are cool, and not only that, Bulgaria's aging population means that younger people showing up and having the initiative to run their own businesses, and being that easily 80% of small businesses and sole traders in this country don't pay taxes.
Not only that, but since january, the general attitude towards the government has soured pretty badly in Bulgaria. The government monopoly on heating services and the 'privatised resellers' of this service stung everyone in the middle of a very cold winter with far out-of-scale bills, thousands of protesters were arrested and it's been 3 months and still there is no clear mandate for a proper parliament to be reinstated. Parliament has not been sitting for now nearly 4 months.
Similar things have been happening in Poland as well, and apparently this all comes back to a russian monopoly on natural gas, and a lot of people in the former soviet bloc countries are PISSED about their governments selling them out like this. To me, this kind of thing is a good indicator of how much freedom the common people are defending directly instead of sitting on their hands letting the government pigs decide, which usually gets worse the les active people are in fighting against it.
-
If i could choose i would go to Costa Rica
Any nation that has good roads and access to the Sea.