Freer Than France?

Christopher Caldwell is concerned that American society is "growing less spontaneous, less trusting and less free."

"Federal government policy is partly to blame," he argues in the Financial Times, noting the "vast sums" the feds spend "on advertisements to turn citizens into snitches." Zeal for ratting out anti-social behavior, he notes, has spread to private industries and local governments.

According to Caldwell, "the busybody model of social control poses a special problem to the US. For America's war on terrorism involves it in a struggle for the hearts and minds of the world. And it is an open question whether America's domestic society is still free enough in practice to woo the unaffiliated to its way of life."

He asks, Is the U.S. freer than, say, France? "Yes, if you are an entrepreneur. No, if you are a person who wants to smoke a cigarette with your coffee, or drink a beer on your 20th birthday…."

Comments

[Anonymous]

" smoke a cigarette with your coffee, or drink a beer on your 20th birthday...." but not own a firearm to defend your life and the lives of your wife and 5 year old daughter, start your own business that changes the world or run an independent newspaper or even a blog (the EU says what you can and can not say)...

yeah, real free

[Brian]

I'd agree...I wish the US would be more "European" with regard to social mores like drinking, smoking, drugs, and sex...but in the greater context of freedom what they do have seems mostly of the "bread and circuses" variety.

If I thought otherwise, I'd move.

[bomb bomb]

I have a not so bold prediction. This little discussion will turn into a giant pissing contest where people will say, basically "France is more free!" or, "The U.S. is more free!" or whatever country you pick.

Don't matter. With every passing year, there are more and more challenges to whatever freedom we have left. And with every passing year, the voices of free thinkers like you and I get drowned out by the bleating of sheep that want to be protected by the gubmint shepherds.

We better start howling like wolves, or we are gonna be part of the flock.

[Brian]

Well...for the record, I wouldn't go so far as to proclaim the US "more free"...just more free in the particular respects that matter most to me.

Pissing contest averted? We'll see...

[joe]

"With every passing year, there are more and more challenges to whatever freedom we have left."

Really? Compared to when? In 1952, black people weren't allowed to go into many places of business. Are they more free or less free? How about gay people - have they become more or less free in the past 30 years? Women now make up half the work force. Material that would have been designated obscene in 1960 is now on prime time network television. Even the stupid drug war is no more of an intrusion into people's lives than the narcotics laws of the Reefer Madness era - our complaints amount to disappointment that the situation hasn't gotten better. By virtually any reasonable measure, people living in the United States have more personal liberty than at any time since the US Cavalry kicked the Sioux off their land. But to a certain breed of libertarian, the requirement that smokestacks have scrubbers on them cancels this all out, and then some.

Oh why bother.

[Anonymous]

"For America's war on terrorism involves it in a struggle ..."

Heh-heh, Osama won! (And is continuing to win.)

[Anonymous]

yay! porno on prime time! i am sooo free!

[bomb bomb]

Joe, thank you for the lesson in perspective. You are right, we have made tremendous strides in freedom in the last few decades.

Always remember though, there are many people on the left and right who would knock us back a notch or two.

[Nicholas Weininger]

I would say we've made strides in terms of the *equality* of freedom-- i.e. who is considered a first-class citizen for freedom purposes. But the amount of freedom that those considered first-class citizens have has gone steadily downward.

A hundred years ago in this country, if you were not a straight white male, you had very little freedom. But if you were a straight white male, you had much more freedom than anyone of any race, gender, and/or sexual orientation has today. The problem, from a libertarian point of view, is that since then we've leveled freedoms downward when we should have leveled upward.

[thoreau]

I think Joe makes an excellent point of putting things in perspective, and Nicholas Weininger refines that perspective still further.

Leveling downward solved half the problem: Inequality of freedom (note that I don't say "inequality of condition"). Now we should tackle the second half of the problem. But when we do so let's keep some perspective. We need calm, rational people who argue that even more freedom would unleash tremendous benefits, not people who go around bemoaning that we're in an abysmal pit of tyranny.

Go ahead, call me a liberal Democrat. (I think that will be the way I sign every post from now on.)

[Anonymous]

why would people call you a liberal democrat for arguing for MORE freedom? all i hear from liberal democrats are ways to reduce my freedoms.

[Rick Barton]

"Joe" made argument in defence of the premise that "By virtually any reasonable measure, people living in the United States have more personal liberty than at any time since the US Cavalry kicked the Sioux off their land." But, lets examine some of his evidence:

"Women now make up half the work force."

That is, in part, due to the increasing tax bite that often forces both parents to work. Of course, also, the welfare state has been a force in breaking up both existing and would be families of the less affluent.

"In 1952, black people weren't allowed to go into many places of business. Are they more free or less free? How about gay people - have they become more or less free in the past 30 years? "

The fallacy here is that these folks of course have personal freedom issues beyond those that are only germane to their color and sexual orientation.

"Even the stupid drug war is no more of an intrusion into people's lives than the narcotics laws of the Reefer Madness era."

Not even close. Look at the percapita number of people in prison now as a result of the "war on drugs" and the private assets seized. The "Reefer Madness era" or even alcohol prohibition didn't exract any where near such a hidieous toll.

Also,
"bomb bomb"("bOING bOING'S" big brother perhaps?)wrote:
"...there are many people on the left and right who would knock us back a notch or two."

Not just "who would", more like "who have" but we can fight back if we only will so we can "...still (be) free enough in practice to woo the unaffiliated to ...(our) way of life."

And, we should abolish those stupid curfew laws that serve to punish innocent youth while conditioning them to submit to the will of government.

[Plutarck]

Say - does anyone know of ANY country with a great deal both of financial freedom and personal freedom? That is, for people other than, say, the Sultan/Dictator/El Presidente?

America use to be one, for at least certain groups of people (as noted by others earlier).

This presents a rather pressing question: is there something about being both personally (as in morally/culturally/"what you with consenting adults on your own time is no business of mine") and financially free that over a period of time - such as a few generations - will result in one, and then both, inevitably being lost?

Perhaps it is merely the nature of entropy and fluctuations in nature, and freedom requiring an especially great deal of order to exist at all, that guarantee freedom be quite temporary. Thus a cycle seems to be exposed that freedom breeds comfort and security, which breed complacency and shiftlessness, which lead into oppression and tyranny, which itself is the force that brings about the eventual yearning - and sometimes establishment - of freedom, and so on and so forth, endlessly.

Thus a quote I used recently in another thread comes to mind: "All things are in a constant state of decay. Strive endlessly."

As such, one is made to wonder what sort of process could actually make the cycle unneccessary, and ensuring constant and stable freedom, while not having an equal or greater chance of enthroning constant and stable oppression.

...or something.

[Andrew Lynch]

Nicholas said: "A hundred years ago in this country, if you were not a straight white male, you had very little freedom. But if you were a straight white male, you had much more freedom than anyone of any race, gender, and/or sexual orientation has today."

Patently untrue. I, as a well-paid professional gay mulatto male have more freedoms at my disposal than any straight white male (save the most powerful) living in 1903. Why? Because I have the freedom to date a poor person. I have the freedom to date a rich person. I can date a Chinese person. I can drop out of one career and through hard work and education enter another. If I have the money, I can buy a mansion and live next to a snooty bigot, or I can spend a few years saving money by living in a low-rent neighborhood. None of this alters who I am or the amount of freedom I have. The straight white male of 1903 was locked into a class-driven social structure that stripped him of freedoms those of us living in a more enlightened time take for granted.

[Tom]

Andrew,

In re your comments, check out that cumbersome Marty Scorsese flik from a few years back (The Age of Innocence? The End of Innocence?), the one with Daniel Day-Lweis, Winona Ryder and Michelle Pfeiffer. Tight-ass New York upper crust society in the 1800s, where while it would have been "legal" for a straight white male to marry whomever he wanted, it also would have been social, professional and familial suicide.

[Snob]

Or you might read the novel "The Age of Innocence" by Edith Wharton.

[Archie Medez]

Pluto, sure there is. It's called Eternal Vigilance -- which is just another way of saying, "strive endlessly."

Just like darkness is only the ABSENCE of light, oppression and tyranny imply the absence of freedom.

Both light and freedom require continuous energy and effort.

Sorry.

Maybe in the next universe, we'll try a different game plan.

[Tom]

I think Christopher Caldwell has a decent point. France seems to be more liberal in some of its laws on stuff like alcohol, smoking and porn. The French tried to introduce a Michael Bloomberg-style crackdown on tobacco a few years ago and the French, bless em, payed zero regard to it.

I suspect though, that one reason why France appears to be more liberal in certain respects is that the French have developed a culture of having lots of laws and then totaly pissing all over them.

On the economic side of the ledger, though, it's no contest. The US and for that matter, Britain, are freer. Taxes are generally lower, it is easier to hire and fire staff, and the business world is more open to entrepreneurs.

[B.Franklin]

Junis Chapell, you believe that the debate must extend beyond WHO is to control the increasing controls, and argue the need for controls at all.

Good thinking.

But we missed you during the first Constitutional Convention of 1776. Where were you? We were discussing this very concept. If you'd have been there, we probably wouldn't be in this mess today.

[joe]

"But if you were a straight white male, you had much more freedom than anyone of any race, gender, and/or sexual orientation has today."

In the 1800s, a man in Fitchburg, Mass was held in jail for several months for refusing to shave his beard, or maybe it was for shaving his beard. Anyway, you could be jailed for having the wrong facial hair.

[bomb bomb]

Rick, No relation to bOING bOING:-)

[Junis Chapell]

As long as we continue to support activist governement we will continue to trade our freedoms for whatever saftey and protections the crisis of the moment suggests.

Politicians will always claim to be in search of the great equilibrium - some ephemeral magic point where where are all at once "virtually" free - and "virtually' safe - not realizing (or admiting) that adding to the Jenga pile of rules and regulations we're built up on brings us neither freedom or security.

We have chosen a mixed economy and a mixed society. The only things the typical Americans battle over is not the nature of the system - but who will control the various controls at any given time.

That is what needs to change if America is to survive as a free nation. The debate must extend beyond WHO is to control the increasing controls - and debate the need for the controls at all. Otherwise - we face a slow, steady and assured moral decline and productive rot. Like France.

[Anonymous]

"I suspect though, that one reason why France appears to be more liberal in certain respects is that the French have developed a culture of having lots of laws and then totaly pissing all over them. "

so stupid, oppressive laws that are not even held to the rule of law. sounds like a libertarian paradise! the federalist be damned!

[Nicholas Weininger]

I think some posters here are confusing freedom with social acceptability. The fact that something is socially frowned upon, however strongly, does not mean you are not free to do it. A straight white male in 1903 was indeed free to date a poor, or rich, or Chinese person. The fact that he might be socially ostracized for doing so has no impact on this freedom whatsoever.

Expressing blatant and brutal racism and anti-Semitism, for example, is considered very socially unacceptable today, and for good reason. Indeed, it is likely to make you into at least as much of a social pariah as (say) dating a person of a different race would have 100 years ago. Does that mean that the folks at Stormfront, the Institute for Historical Review, etc. are not free to express their views?

Now, there were some genuine restrictions on the freedom of a 1903 SWM that we don't suffer today: anti-miscegenation laws and censorship of "obscenity", to name two. Yet even these were easier to get around, if one wanted, than such restrictions on private conduct are today; for the State's surveillance apparatus was far weaker then and it did not intervene in daily life in most of the myriad ways it does now.

[Jon Holland]

I am an American Citizen but have lived in the United Kingdom of Great Britain for many years now. Whenever I return to the United States to visit family and friends, I really notice the distinct LACK of freedom in America. Each time I go back to the States, I'm amazed at all the petty rules, regulations and laws. America has become such a restrictive country to live in, that I'm always glad to get back to Britain. I've got to say that British society is so much more free than American. People just go about their everyday business here, without people getting on their backs all the time. There is also absolute freedom of speech. You can say what the hell you like, without people getting all uptight about it. It's far more laid back than in the States. Although I love the country of my birth, and the people, I'm much happier (and much more free) living over here! I'm afraid that the United States of America is most definitely NOT the "land of the free" as many of us Americans think it is. I think that Americans should travel abroad much more, to really see what the rest of the world is actually like, instead of sitting at home watching FOX NEWS on the T.V. and accepting everything they're told!
God bless America & Britain....