Raindown alienation, Leave this country...

Rui said:
I like freedom in many areas but some freedoms when offered to irresponsible people just make life worse for others - the things I'm against are predominantly areas where I feel that allowing the freedom has a detrimental effect on other humans. So I'm more than happy to sacrifice some of my own liberty if it makes my life better overall. If this does not make sense it's because I'm exhausted today :(
Click to expand...
It should make perfect sense. That's how I used to think when I still believed that some people should / could be helped or changed... Now I think we should just leave 'em to it. Our society seems geared to perpetuate the lifestyles of the irresponsible people but then tries to address the problems they create by taking money and rights away from the responsible people. In the past decade, I've become very fond of Benjamin Franklin's words; "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (they come to mind every time I visit an airport, for one).

If I was going to move anywhere realistically it would probably just be to another part of the UK. I've travelled a lot and there's no place like home.
Click to expand...
I feel privileged to have grown up in the UK, but virtually every other country I visit I'd rather live in than here. Canada and America certainly, I'd leave tomorrow. Same language, more space and especially wilderness, cheaper property / consumer prices, nicer (well, certainly less f*cking miserable) people. ::sigh::

I know a man in Canada who was able to just get on a boat and go in the 50s. Oh, to have those times back again...
 
Lots of people are leaving the UK now. My uncle wanted to at one point and some of my cousins are currently living in German. I agree with Ayase, there is a miserable atmosphere in the UK. It makes me think that we all would have been happier just living in a time of low technology. High technology just creates more misery, responsibility, less free time, less happiness. Lol I say this very hypocritically because I'm going through the selection day processes to get a job at IBM this next Monday.

As for what country to live in, I'd be happy just moving around for a bit, living in different countries. Certain unavoidable things in my life would make that very difficult but I don't feel tied to the UK as such and do plan on living abroad permanently for at least 5 years. Just got to pick a country :p

We currently just accept that this is the way life is but it was not always this way. Did you know that working hours in the UK are longer than those in the rest of Europe. Things suck here right now :s
 
I like living here, I honestly dont think there is anywhere better to live than the UK, dont get me wrong I have many complaints about the government and stuff, but its still better than anywhere else I know of.
 
Some of ayase's answers are... well, okay, at least I know why somewhere crazy came out on top. ^^;

And I can't imagine what Ryo said to end up with Japan top, unless he found the secret "loli rights" question??
 
The only thing that puts me off of staying in the UK is the price of property compared to other countries. However, my friends and family are in the UK, and that means more to me than cheaper houses abroad. Plus because I am married, it is not entirely up to me either.
 
ayase said:
If there are less restrictions placed upon you, then you have more freedom. Surely that's a universal truth?
Click to expand...

What if I want freedom from guns? I don't want one, I don't need one, and I certainly don't want some retarded redneck down the road owning one. And since when were things like that an 'essential liberty'? Restrictions and 'freedoms' have never gone hand in hand, unless you live in the US of A. Like I said, a warped idea of freedom.
 
1. Netherlands
2. Canada
3. Switzerland
3. Australia
5. New Zealand

With Ireland (my country) at 13th and the United States (the country I admire most) at 8th. The United Kingdom was 9th, which is surprising because I marked freedom of expression as being crucially important and I don't think the UK respects that right as often as it should. The Home Office is forever refusing to allow high-profile speakers into the UK because the government doesn't like hearing what they have to say.
 
CitizenGeek said:
The United Kingdom was 9th, which is surprising because I marked freedom of expression as being crucially important and I don't think the UK respects that right as often as it should. The Home Office is forever refusing to allow high-profile speakers into the UK because the government doesn't like hearing what they have to say.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that living in the UK gives us a lot more freedom of speech than living in America o_O
 
CitizenGeek said:
The Home Office is forever refusing to allow high-profile speakers into the UK because the government doesn't like hearing what they have to say.
Click to expand...

We have no actual 'freedom of speech' here which IMO is a good thing as it means total nutjobs can be shutup. Unfortunately this Eurp thing that likes to mess up our country seems to think we should... Anyway, its not just the government, look at the dumb 'pro democracy' weirdos who whined like anything about Nick Griffon being allowed on on the beeb. Talk about two-faced. "Freedom is good but he can't talk as we don't like him".

In the USofA anyone with an axe (or ax) to grind can go grind it wherever they like. Could you seriously imagine a group of skinheads dressed in SS uniforms and KKK robes yelling "Zeig Heil!" and "White power!" marching through London and being protected by the police? And there is nothing anyone can do about it as its their right.

I used to live over there, I prefer it here :)
 
Will-O'-The-Wisp said:
CitizenGeek said:
The United Kingdom was 9th, which is surprising because I marked freedom of expression as being crucially important and I don't think the UK respects that right as often as it should. The Home Office is forever refusing to allow high-profile speakers into the UK because the government doesn't like hearing what they have to say.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that living in the UK gives us a lot more freedom of speech than living in America o_O
Click to expand...
I think this is possibly more a case of freedom of movement than expression, which both countries have at times been guilty of restricting. Hundreds of even quite mildly liberal people were denied access to the US during the Cold War for perceived communist sympathies (and at least you could say that the people the UK currently denies entry to are pretty extreme) but if you're actually a citizen of either country you do have a great amount of freedom of speech.

@2501 - Your freedom from guns is a restriction on others who then don't have that choice. If someone else wants a gun, what gives you the right to decide for them that they aren't allowed one? Allowing something doesn't make it mandatory. Restricting it does.
 
ayase said:
@2501 - Your freedom from guns is a restriction on others who then don't have that choice. If someone else wants a gun, what gives you the right to decide for them that they aren't allowed one? Allowing something doesn't make it mandatory. Restricting it does.
Click to expand...

I can't really agree that people should be allowed things so dangerous. I mean your freedom to posses guns, how 'free' is it? Does it restrict you to handguns? Shotguns? Assault rifles?

Why should we be allowed to freely posses these weapons? "Self defense?" When we already have clear guidelines on reasonable force as it is? Possessing guns would undermine that completely.

I just think 2501 puts a good point. How could honestly feel comfortable walking down a street where everyone is holding some sort of firearm? That's a sick world to live in.

Plus finally, people get angry. Lots of situations occur where a table leg/bottle is smashed, and then used as a club on another in anger. If everyone were to possess guns, there would be a lot less people getting clubbed, and surviving the encounter, and a lot more being shot, and not surviving the encounter.

Or is my reasoning off? I'd be interested to hear your side.
 
Its a freedom on me. Taking your and the USAs rather self centred attitude to 'freedom' I can turn around and say its MY right for you not to have a gun as you having a gun encroaches on my freedom to live in a safe society.

A restriction on you is a freedom for me. You need to remember that these 'freedoms' are not just for the individual.
 
I'm happy to chat about the nature of individual freedom. I don't particularly want another gun debate.

Freedom for me as an individual is the only freedom that matters. You may consider that self centred, but then I'm not the one who wants to decide anything for others. It's hard for me to see how it's more selfish for me to say "Let each individual do what they like" than for you to say "There are things I don't want other people doing".
 
OK, lets ignore the gun debate.

So, in the self centered freedom of the induhvidual USofA its up to the individual alone to ensure they have health care. You are free from the restriction of paying taxes that would go to people other than you. But now you have to fork out full cost if you get ill.

So this one less restriction has now cost you more. Or if you can't afford it this unrestriction has denied you access to health care.

And there is of course copyright. I have the right to protect what I have worked to produce and recoup my costs and time. Its a fundamental part of my freedom. And this is then a restriction on you as you have to give me money if you want my thing. So its good for me, bad for you. But if you steal my thing its good for you and bad for me.
 
But copyright law is good because it protects what you, as an individual, have worked to produce. I don't have anything against copyright law. In the case of music it's enforced by the PRS who are paid by people who want to use copyrighted material or taken to court by them if they don't. Nobody forces you to play copyrighted music and buy a PRS licence, and as such it's not a restriction. It's a choice. I'm fine with licensing fees to cover the cost of something, paid by those who use it.

In terms of things such as healthcare and education, IMO it would be very easy for the government to provide a basic level of service to all and actually lower taxes if they scrapped a load of the other pointless crap they do, and made people pay some of the cost if their treatment was costing an inordinate amount of money (ie: if someone with a terminal disease wants to spend thousands upon thousands of pounds to prolong their life for an extra year, they should pay for that themselves - that's not fair at all, it's very unfair to other people). I believe the US has state education, right? They may soon have state healthcare as well. Canada do, and their taxes are still far lower than ours.
 
See, not all restrictions are bad. But there are some here who see copyright as an assault on their freedom.

The NHS needs a radical kick up the ass, thats not for debate ;) But in terms of what they actually do its better than nowt.

A lot of Americans are fighting social healthcare. They just don't want it. Even a friend of mine who can't afford to go to the doc, and complains bitterly about it, but they DON'T want social healthcare. Thankfully they saw the light on social schooling... just.

Canadian income tax is not far off ours when you take into account federal and provincial tax. Certainly not 'far lower'.

EDIT: I'd pay MORE in Canada. Here I pay 18% income tax. In Canada I'd be paying between 20 and 28%. I'll stay here!!
 
I'm fine with the choice to have something and pay for it or to not have something and not pay for it. I still don't really consider that a restriction. People may feel restricted if they want something but aren't able to afford it... but that's what makes people put effort into working, isn't it?

In Canada, the personal income tax burden is about 6% higher as an average, but then their national insurance contribution (or version of) is apparently only 4.95% compared to our 23.8%.
 
@ayase,

For people to be truly free, they need to be safe. That means good healthcare, good education, good welfare in general. It is the responsibility of states to provide that to all it's citizens. I believe in capitalism, but I also understand that no state can guarantee all of it's citizens a job or the same opportunities. As such, I am happy to call myself a social democrat, someone who believes in freedom and liberty but see's no problem with the welfare state and the taxation that funds it.

ayase said:
I was under the impression that living in the UK gives us a lot more freedom of speech than living in America o_O
Click to expand...

The UK is certainly not a more free country than the U.S. The Home Office banned Geert Wilders from entering the country a while ago on the basis of his opinions. That would never happen in the U.S. Likewise, crazy Muslim preachers (who I detest to the strongest degree possible) are often denied entry on the basis of their opinions and I don't think that's fair and it could never happen in the U.S. And those are only some recent examples. Overall, the U.S. has a vastly superior legal system and legislative process, just by the default of it being one of the world's pre-eminent republics while the U.K. (hilariously for a modern country) still has a hereditary, fundamentally anti-freedom monarchy.

Project-2501 said:
In the USofA anyone with an axe (or ax) to grind can go grind it wherever they like. Could you seriously imagine a group of skinheads dressed in SS uniforms and KKK robes yelling "Zeig Heil!" and "White power!" marching through London and being protected by the police? And there is nothing anyone can do about it as its their right.
Click to expand...

You say it like it's a bad thing. Like it's a bad thing to have police protecting your freedom of expression. It isn't, not according to my values anyway. This quote is over-dramatic perhaps, but I like it: "I hate what you have to say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it". Yes, the KKK and the Neo-Nazis are repulsive but they are entitled to their opinions and, as long as there is a strong constitution underpinning a strong republic (as in the U.S.), there should be no problem with allowing them to express their opinions.
 
Geert Wilders is an attention whore, just like the KKK, national front etc..

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are very far removed from the freedom to insight hatred. History should have taught us that allowing these loonies too much freedom pretty much always ends in disaster.

One freedom they don't have in the USofA is to vote for whoever they like. Imagine if you could only vote tory or labour.
 
Project-2501 said:
One freedom they don't have in the USofA is to vote for whoever they like. Imagine if you could only vote tory or labour.
Click to expand...
That's not entirely correct, is it? Theirs is a two party system but they aren't the only choices. You can vote Lib-Dem here but they'll still never win. Power goes to those who the people with the real power (big business = the media) decide it goes to. That's why I thought freedom from corruption was unimportant (as I consider everywhere to already be corrupt, politically) but that limited government was crucial. As long as they leave people alone, I don't really care who is in control.
 
Back
Top