Liberty vs. Socialism

[DrYouth]

You have to excuse foreigners their ignorance of liberty: they've never experienced it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_ ... erty_Index

The 2006 State of World Liberty Index was created by combining the rankings of four other indexes of world liberty into one: the "2005 Economic Freedom of the World" Index (Fraser Institute/Cato Institute), the "2006 Index of Economic Freedom" (The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal), the "2005 Freedom in the World" index (Freedom House), and the "2005 Press Freedom Index" (Reporters Without Borders).

These reports are used to score countries in three categories: individual freedom, economic freedom, and government size and taxation. These three scores are then averaged to give a country's overall score.

The 2016 Rankings(2015 Rankings here) reproduce the original ranking concept using the same data sources, albeit adjusting the weighting of data to best capture the original intent of measuring "the ability of the individual to live their lives as they choose." Measures are also standardized appropriately given the different scales used across indices and the government burden category was condensed into the broader indicator of economic freedom.

In the 2016 index, New Zealand is ranked most free overall, while North Korea is last. Hong Kong was ranked most free in economic liberty once again, and Finland and Norway were ranked again most free in the social liberty category.


Rank

Country

1 New Zealand
2 Switzerland
3 Canada
4 Australia
4 Ireland
6 Finland
6 Netherlands
6 Denmark
6 Chile
6 Luxembourg

Take that Liberty nation.... you didn't even rank.

[Speaker to Animals]

The number 3 country on that list has an actual inquisition that charges people for heresy and imprisons them.

[DrYouth]

The man was arrested overnight for posting the following tweet.

I am against all those things and I need you to prove you are also, by killing all refugees at the airport before they come rape your family https://t.co/Y5xiQReNql
— @Hermit_Spirit

He'll appear in court next on March 9... and there will be due process.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.3963237

Hardly an Inquisition.

What do you imagine the ratings were based on?

Why did the USA score so badly?

You might want to think about the hard data rather than celebrate "Liberty Nation" based on your mythology.

[Martin Hash]

The rest of the world redefines "liberty" to excuse their socialism which is what the OP is referring to: you have no idea what our ideology is so you don't know how far away we are.

It's simple really: do the wants of the individual come before the needs of the group or not?

[Speaker to Animals]

The man was arrested overnight for posting the following tweet.

I am against all those things and I need you to prove you are also, by killing all refugees at the airport before they come rape your family https://t.co/Y5xiQReNql
— @Hermit_Spirit

He'll appear in court next on March 9... and there will be due process.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.3963237

Hardly an Inquisition.

What do you imagine the ratings were based on?

Why did the USA score so badly?

You might want to think about the hard data rather than celebrate "Liberty Nation" based on your mythology.

That's exactly what it is. Marxism has become a religion. Heresy is rooted out wherever found. In nations without a constitution that affirms pre-existing human rights, you get kangeroo courts like the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (Orwellian name and all) who seek out any form of heresy and punish the offender.

Inquisition is exactly what it is. You are prosecuting people for beliefs and opinions that run counter to your state religion.

Even when the victim escapes that system without a conviction, the social and financial damage is overwhelming. The effect is quite clear. Don't criticize the marxist ideologies or you will pay a hefty price.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott

If you don't see the problem with having an inquisition shutting down free thought in your country, then maybe don't bother lecturing Americans about liberty. You have no idea what the word even means.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I know you aren't going to buy it, but I am going to give it a shot anyway.

Socialism =/= the needs of the collective over the individual.

Socialism can be viewed as prioritizing the individual workers' right to the profits generated by his labor. Possibly by giving the individual worker a share in the means of production. You might not like it if you are a business owner, but it is about a conflict between rights of individuals, not prioritizing the collective over an individual.

The reason Socialism gets conflated with 'collective rights' is that your average worker does not have the same bargaining position as a capital owner, so the worker has to collaborate to increase his position.

Can you cite any examples ?

A farm co-op is an example. Producers agree to split profits from selling their produce, while agreeing not to undercut each other. By collaborating in this way they hope to make more by cutting out middle men and rent seekers at the same time.

This is the socialist version of a farmers' market.

Of course, it is often 'worse' for the consumer, so some one is having their liberty curtailed, if I include access to cheap produce as a liberty, but this is a conflict between the liberties of producers and consumers, not a devaluing of Liberty as an abstract idea.

And, @Hash, I have it on good authority from the anti-bolshevik hero, Smitty, himself, on public display on this very forum, that I am not a socialist, just a terrible liberal. So, not 'only' socialists argue that socialism and liberty aren't in conflict.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The rest of the world redefines "liberty" to excuse their socialism which is what the OP is referring to: you have no idea what our ideology is so you don't know how far away we are.

It's simple really: do the wants of the individual come before the needs of the group or not?

Groups can't have needs, only individuals who agree to prioritize particular needs, and try to work together towards those goals.

[Speaker to Animals]

The rest of the world redefines "liberty" to excuse their socialism which is what the OP is referring to: you have no idea what our ideology is so you don't know how far away we are.

It's simple really: do the wants of the individual come before the needs of the group or not?

Groups can't have needs, only individuals who agree to prioritize particular needs, and try to work together towards those goals.

And when they don't agree?

[Speaker to Animals]

I know you aren't going to buy it, but I am going to give it a shot anyway.

Socialism =/= the needs of the collective over the individual.

Socialism can be viewed as prioritizing the individual workers' right to the profits generated by his labor. Possibly by giving the individual worker a share in the means of production. You might not like it if you are a business owner, but it is about a conflict between rights of individuals, not prioritizing the collective over an individual.

The reason Socialism gets conflated with 'collective rights' is that your average worker does not have the same bargaining position as a capital owner, so the worker has to collaborate to increase his position.

Can you cite any examples ?

A farm co-op is an example. Producers agree to split profits from selling their produce, while agreeing not to undercut each other. By collaborating in this way they hope to make more by cutting out middle men and rent seekers at the same time.

This is the socialist version of a farmers' market.

Of course, it is often 'worse' for the consumer, so some one is having their liberty curtailed, if I include access to cheap produce as a liberty, but this is a conflict between the liberties of producers and consumers, not a devaluing of Liberty as an abstract idea.

And, @Hash, I have it on good authority from the anti-bolshevik hero, Smitty, himself, on public display on this very forum, that I am not a socialist, just a terrible liberal. So, not 'only' socialists argue that socialism and liberty aren't in conflict.

I am all for voluntary collectives. If you want to do open source projects, great. If you want to join a farm coop, great.

That's not really what we are talking about here either.

[Martin Hash]

I'm a Liberal (Classical, hence the "Liberalist" moniker), not a Libertarian, so I add "except by due process of law" after the liberty credo of individual-before-group, however, the mindset is still liberty first. Socialists are group-first at default.

I don't care what the Farmer's Market people do as long as they don't pass group-first laws that prevent me from selling & buying however I want. All you workers-control-the-means-of-production people need to check out the Marxist end of socialism.