I totally disagree with that i would say britain is much closer to the european concept, britain is much more liberal than america, i find the general attitude of the british ppl much more european than you might expect. britain and europe are more flexible in their attitudes and more willing to embrace change, i would say that in certain areas including beliefs about social, political and personal freedom there is a difference of about 30 yrs, whether that is good or bad, again is down to personal choice.
I agree cheeky_monkey Britain is somewhere between mainland Europe and America on most issues, however, in some Ideas we are closer to Europe and some closer to America. All in all we are more European the US.
I obviously don´t have first hand knowledge. But having spent a good amount of time in England, I personally find the general British attitude to be very similiar to the general Swedish attitude. Britain is definitely a part of Europe, I´m not so sure about Norway though.
A few posts back, GP said that he can't understand why some people think that they have better freedoms than others. I don't remember where you are from GP, but if you are referring to how americans often think that we have eveything best, so we should force our way down everybody else's throughts, I think I can answer why. That concept of Evengelical Democracy has been with America for a long time. When America was building an empire in the 1880-1900s time, one reason for taking over countries was to give them Christianity and Democracy. Evengelical Democracy is a very arogant philosophy. All it is is the opinion that because America is the best country (in our mind, again very arogant) that OUR form of democracy is what made it best. Not the British form, French, or Netherland forms, but our is best, so we should help eveybody else by giving them what is best. On a side note, i am personaly appauled by some of the things I have heard about places like the Amsterdam Red Light District. My friend went through it about two weeks ago. You wouldn't catch me dead in there unless the laws were changed and I was in charge of cleaning it out. I find drugs, prostitution, abortion, gay marrage, and a few other things that are almost Netherland exclusiv freedoms appauling. I am an ardent oppontent of abortion and am sad that my first name can be found in the name of the trial that legalised abortion in America, but I am comforted by the fact that Wade was the other side. sorry for rambling.
It's great to see that an American is prepared to say these things about his country on an international forum, thanks Wade. Regardless of anyone's thoughts about this American 'policy' it is good to know that people in the country do realize what their country stands for. It takes guts to say your country is arrogant, true or not... About the Amsterdam red light district, it is obviously and by far the worst abberration of the freedoms the Dutch enjoy. Luckily this area is small and concentrated in an IMO already filthy, ugly and appalling city (Amsterdam). I don't think anyone should take this district to be the very essence of freedoms such as legalized prostitution or gay marriage or whatnot, but rather the worst extremes of it.
freedom's sources i think perhaps the biggest difference may be that in the USA the citizen is held to be the sun source of all power and he loans it to the governments. in theory at least everything is done with the permission and consent of the governed. in most if not all of the british commonwealth the prople are called subjects which implies a subservant position with the government. both our common and written law demand that the government respect the people both as a group and as an individual as the final holder of power in the land. this manifests itself in almost every part of our lives. we may call a cop or pol a G****MN M***ER F***ER to their faces without fear of government action. we can not be forced to testify agianst ourselves [or anybody for that matter once we invoke the right], police powers are limited, our homes are shielded from casual search, we do not have to show ID without cause, we have the right to gather and speak our minds, our press is not only free but protected, we may travel as we wish, we may worship as we wish [ and in some cases do things that otherwise are forbidden ie certain drugs], and many other things that we often fail to think about. as the the right to keep and bare arms it is the right that garantees the other rights by giving the citizens the power and means to defy and overthrow the government should it become needed. a disarmed citizenery remains free only at the whim of its leaders. many of our founding documents mention and allow the overthrow of a oppressive government, i'm unaware of any other country that has similar leanings. we and we alone provide for our revolution to be restarted at need. every other one i can think of does not allow such action and instead talks of having to protect the revolution from all dangers including its citizens.
Re: freedom's sources Up until here - we are the same. Except the normal insult for policemen is F*****g Pigs. But here we differ. We here in Britain have a government that is supposed to serve the people. If it serves from this course, we vote it out of power. This is the theory. It is about as likely to win through in the face of extremists as a bunch of civilians with handguns... But let's not go there.
difference in attitude we could disagree all week about overthrowing a government with handguns but that is not the main point here. the real difference is that here we have the implied right and duty to overthrow a repressive government and have the right to possess the means to do so. you are a subject, i am a free citizen. there is a difference. i am subject to no man or government. the power that you live under flows from london down to you. even the manga carta failed to provide rights to the common man except through his lords. is there any basic document in your system that gives you the right and duty to rebel? we have several starting with our very first. the powers that govern me flow from me and my fellows to washington and the state capitols and then back to me. they are borrowed not owned by the governments. question- what are your rights if the government decides not to hold a vote or ignores the results? as i understand your system [ and i may be wrong] you have no fixed elections for national office. IMHO this opens that way to abuse. second question- do your courts have the right and duty to oversee the legality of your laws and to declare any as unlawful and null and void? any court in the land here may do so subject to review by higher courts with the highest holding the final say.
other thoughts there seems to be some problems here defining just what is a freedom. many of the things listed as freedoms are not really freedoms but rather license. the difference is this. a license may be granted for some activity such as pot smoking or driving. it exists at the pleasure of the issueing government and may be revoked at any time. licenses may be issued one at a time or emass by law. any or all of them are subject tp change or repeal simply by a change of rules or laws. a right stems from the basic documents and agreements that form a government and may not be revoked except by a change in those documents or by a complete failure of the government and its replacement by a new system. within certain limits rights may be limited [felons cannot own guns] but each and every limit has to have a solid basic reason and be limited as much as possible. rights cannot be voided by a simple change for rules and laws. it is this that diefines the differences between truely free peoples and those that are subjects or serfs with licenses. also because rights flow from agreements between people at the most basic level there can be no such thing as animal rights. at no time has an animal or group of animals ever entered into any form of agreement with humans to define the rights and duties of each under such an agreement. lacking that animals can have no rights. they may enjoy protections given them by people but any protections thus granted must fall under the heading of license and not rights.
I am British. I come from Yorkshire, centre of the Universe. By the way the victorians thought like that then went too far in India. On a side note, i am personaly appauled by some of the things I have heard about places like the Amsterdam Red Light District. My friend went through it about two weeks ago. You wouldn't catch me dead in there unless the laws were changed and I was in charge of cleaning it out. I find drugs, prostitution, abortion, gay marrage, and a few other things that are almost Netherland exclusiv freedoms appauling. I am an ardent oppontent of abortion and am sad that my first name can be found in the name of the trial that legalised abortion in America, but I am comforted by the fact that Wade was the other side. sorry for rambling.[/quote] Apart from the drug legislation you have all that in the US. So my original point is America is no more free that others. You do have different restrictions but no more freedom.
the real difference is that here we have the implied right and duty to overthrow a repressive government and have the right to possess the means to do so. Britain as a nation does, the British Army, Navy and Airforce (And the Police Service?) all owe their allegience to the sovereign, not the government. If any government was considered to be acting repressively or illegally the armed forces could (I believe) step in and intervene at the direction of the ruling Monarch, their heirs and successors. Before you argue that that is largely a theoretical right or not one that is available to the public as a whole consider first that the armed forces are recruited from the general public and many of their friends and families (Though scummy civvies! :lol: ) are members of the public. It is something that is available to the nation as a whole, not individuals, splinter groups and extremists. i am subject to no man or government Yes you are, whether you realise it or not. You are subject to your federal and state laws which are enacted and enforced by state and federal government through the approval of your two houses of government. I am subject to my nation's laws which are enacted and enforced by my nation, through the approval of the houses of commons, lords and the monarch. I see little difference apart from the arguably largely ceremonial role of the monarch. it is this that diefines the differences between truely free peoples and those that are subjects or serfs with licenses. Oh do me a favour! I and my countrymen are far from Serfs to be used and abused at the whim of the local lord! You have a very odd idea of life in Europe... :-? Perhaps you could elaborate on your argument of the differences between rights and licences, I don't really follow it as the right to drive in the UK (For example) is a licence which can be applied for by anyone (Medical restrictions not withstanding) and can only be taken away by alterations to the law or by the licence holding breaking the law. It is enshrined in Law, therefore by your argument it is a right not a licence...? as i understand your system [ and i may be wrong] you have no fixed elections for national office. As far as I'm aware you are wrong, there is a time limit before which elections must be called. second question- do your courts have the right and duty to oversee the legality of your laws and to declare any as unlawful and null and void? Yes, in the UK our serfs/citizens/subjects can take the government to court and appeal to over-rule laws passed by the government.
license if you reread my second post you should see the difference i'm refering to. the ability to drive could be revoked by a simple law change and thus is not a right. the military of any country is made up of its people and history is full of instances where a countries military has acted against its own people. to depend on a military disobeying orders to protect your rights is a thin reed to support your need. your armed forces do belong to the crown. all power flows from the crown and although some has been delgated over the years to others it is still the crown's power. you are a subject because your history and form of government place you under that power without any agreement from you [ or other subjects]. i am a free citizen and subject to no man because here we have loaned power to the government to use within the limits we have set. the government has no power of its own beyond that which we have loaned it. i realize that in practial effect there are small differences in outcome under normal contitions between rights and license but i cannot consider someone who has only license to be truely free. at best it is the freedom of a child to act as his parents allow him to instead of the right to act as he sees fit. license also implies that the government knows best while freedom assumes the people do. yes of course i am subject to the rule of law but that does not make me a subject of the law or the government. the law is a tool to help people live together and is not a ruler when the power behind the law comes from the people. to me any country that names its people something other that free citizens is suspect. the name subject in itsself shows you are under that control of power not your own. to be a disarmed subject only proves it.
Re: license I do not really see the difference between the US and Europe here. In France, we are free citizens too, we have loaned power to the governement under the restrictions and timetable we have set. The governement doesn't have any more power than the constitution gives to it. And any citizen can go to court against the state.
the question then becomes do you have licenses or freedoms. i am not up to speed on your system as much as i should be but my posts reflect what i think to be the true differences between rights and licenses. are your rights enshrined in the basic documents of your government or are they the result of common laws that may be changed. i seem to remember that there was something along the lines of our bill of rights at one time. has this been preserved or has it been replaced?
WONDERFUL like i said i'm not really up to speed. my europe history classes were long ago and far away.
Re: the question then becomes We have the constitution of the fifth republic.(since 1958) This constitution includes the "Déclaration Universelle Des Droits De L'Homme"(Universal declaration of human rights) of 1789. Generally, the constitution guarantees our rights and liberties, as well as it defines which power the governement has.
Re: that's about what i remembered We can own some weapons. However, I hope you are not trying to justify that you are more free because you can have guns.
perhaps since all nasty governments usually start out by disarming their people i think the personal ownership of guns is a valid measure of freedom. not by any means the only one but an important one. freedom has to include the right to self defense and a gun is an important tool for that.