daily reminder that your freedom is only truly gauged on how free your speech is, your ability to arm yourself, and your choice of political options.
if you can't have "hate speech", can't have "assault weapons", and all your political parties are essentially the same (example: both left and right parties are for open borders), you're not free.
>and all your political parties are essentially the same (example: both left and right parties are for open borders), you're not free
Pretty much no country is free right now then, including the United States
Camden Morris
Freedom of speech is a myth, just like freedom of the press. All press is partisan to a degree. The "freedom" you'll have in your speech is determined by the current political party in power.
Gabriel Rodriguez
Actually, freedom is measured by two things: a. does the power come from the people b. does the government adhere by the mandate of the people
Once your government exceeds it's mandate it's no longer acting as a legitimate government.
Jackson Clark
>have a de facto police state >can't drink before 21 >retarded drug laws >highest incarceration rate in the world >get your dick snipped before turning 1 >home of SJW culture that hates able bodied cis white men >voicing your support of Trump literally gets you assaulted >affirmative action everywhere
>free
Jacob Lopez
this might sound too normal but at the same time its a pretty realistic insight 2bh yeah theres always some fashion that takes over mainstream including the current regime in power, and people and media are just driven and biased by it and some of the consequences talk what freedom is like.
James Martinez
it depends on the topic
I'd argue that the only real thing Dems and Repubs aren't different in is the fact that the Democrats are about as capitalistic as republicans. same shit, slightly different approach. other things are different then.
i tend to see that european political parties have different economic policies debated, but every single party with any chance follows the same political correctness agenda.
Jordan Ramirez
>and all your political parties are essentially the same No self awareness what so ever.
Gabriel Perry
>>have a de facto police state explain >>can't drink before 21 agreed, it's absurd but not oppresive. just retarded. >>retarded drug laws not in all states >>highest incarceration rate in the world i think reform should be made, but i can't say that imprisoning criminals is a violation of freedom >>get your dick snipped before turning 1 agreed, absolutly horrendous but that is because the parents choose to. there is no state enforcment, and i won't get my son snipped as i was. >>home of SJW culture that hates able bodied cis white men that was taken to like a duck on water by europeans most of y'all have taken it much further than we could >>voicing your support of Trump literally gets you assaulted which is illegal, and they've been met with law enforcment >>affirmative action everywhere i can't remember if that is state-enforced, i thought it was just a private decision, that would be ostracized by liberals and their media if you didn't do it
Austin Wilson
>explain Not him, but he obviously refers to your lack of privacy. Security from the government.
Adam Hall
see the levels of hysteria from the left this election has proven we are quite different in social regards
also
Christian Richardson
>americans >free
Ayden Ramirez
i don't know man, we have plenty of privacy laws, i hear in many European countries LEOs can at any given time without warning see how your firearms are stored if you own a weapon
our 4th Amendment specifically protects us in this, and only long-gone shitholes like NYC allow frisking.
Bentley Morgan
>there is no state enforcment, Somebody post it.
Brandon Moore
>does the government adhere by the mandate of the people Yes.
Landon Adams
Trump specifically wants to make stop and frisk federal you moron.
Matthew Green
i wanna visit Netherlands now
Parker Martinez
>we have plenty of privacy laws Here it's illegal for ISP's to watch your internet traffic. There are no decryption orders. There is no mass surveillance (yet).
>without warning see how your firearms are stored if you own a weapon Your second amendment is meant to protect you from a government that exceeds it's mandate, which it does. But apparently it does nothing as your government officials are all still there.
We elected a King for that reason. Who can sack the entire government if it steps outside of it's boundaries. We have senate that only checks if laws are constitutional or not, while in the USA you have to wait until the supreme court. And our judges are independent of our any political parties, unlike the USA. So our supreme court doesn't consist of biased shits.
nonetheless, i do not know the specifics about it's prevalence in Europe. How is it in regards to this over there?
Joshua Hernandez
>Here it's illegal for ISP's to watch your internet traffic. There are no decryption orders. There is no mass surveillance (yet). this i do not argue against. the government needs to curtail their domestic surveillance, but while terrorism is still a threat they will hide behind it's existence as an excuse. I hope this changes.
>our second amendment is meant to protect you from a government that exceeds it's mandate, which it does. But apparently it does nothing as your government officials are all still there. Trump's election has proven that by the established laws in this country, we can still make changes in policy. however, i was asking about search and seizure regarding weapons as a privacy issue, not a philosophy of firearms ownership issue.
Nathan Baker
looking deeper into it, i tend to find that it changes heavily based on state. my current state (Texas) has a rather good record, but the state i will begrudgingly move to next (Colorado) is not.
i hope with a republican-majority Supreme Court, this changes.
Jayden Myers
>i hope this changes Look at who your president is and his policy on "cyber".
Christian Hall
Geert Wilders has a good chance of winning the elections here in March, and he's about as anti-PC as you can get. Whether he's able to form a coalition and become PM is another question.
I actually wasn't trying to start an argument or say the US is less free than other countries, but my point was that "freedom" can be measured in a lot of ways. For the US it seems to be based mostly around the second amendment, for others (me included) this might be different.
The police state thing was a reference to the enormous US law enforcement apparatus both on local, city, state and federal level.
Jaxon Lopez
>while terrorism is still a threat they will hide behind it's existence as an excuse Here the leaders of all 11 political parties are in the commission that supervises the secret service. So no one party controls it. The opposition parties can just pull the break on any spying if they deem it excessive.
>search and seizure regarding weapons as a privacy issue Well, we have no wild nature or remote towns. So there is no reason to own a gun. If you sign up to own a gun then you also sign up for checks to see if it's safely handled.
Gabriel Allen
>Geert Wilders has a good chance of winning the elections here in March, and he's about as anti-PC as you can get. >Whether he's able to form a coalition and become PM is another question. best of luck
>I actually wasn't trying to start an argument or say the US is less free than other countries, but my point was that "freedom" can be measured in a lot of ways. For the US it seems to be based mostly around the second amendment, for others (me included) this might be different. We tend to take pride in our 1st and 4th Amendments though, i just think our 2nd amendment has the most contrast with the rest of the West. Also, it's a lot more nuanced to discuss the 1st and 4th than it is the 2nd. the debate is still hot between Dems and Repubs on things like Hate Speech.
>The police state thing was a reference to the enormous US law enforcement apparatus both on local, city, state and federal level. i don't mind their size, but rather their function locally, it changes where you go. a right-wing federal government might hopefully crack down on more authoritarian states, but lefties might suddenly change their mind on governemnt overreach now that they aren't in charge.
Nolan Hill
>i can't remember if that is state-enforced, i thought it was just a private decision, that would be ostracized by liberals and their media if you didn't do it IIRC it's wired like companies that do it get a tax benefit since they really can't force a company to hire people. I'm not sure about universities.
Noah Carter
>Here the leaders of all 11 political parties are in the commission that supervises the secret service. So no one party controls it. The opposition parties can just pull the break on any spying if they deem it excessive. i like that dynamic. i think that the Wikileaks phenomenon proved that the FBI/CIA were partisan in their choices. I hope they are made neutral into this next administration and sty there.
>Well, we have no wild nature or remote towns. So there is no reason to own a gun. If you sign up to own a gun then you also sign up for checks to see if it's safely handled. i would argue that such a thing is overreaching on the governments behalf.
John Davis
Until the beginning of last century weapons were legal here as well I believe. Until some prick threatened with a communist revolution.
The literal reason for banning guns was, and I quote: "vuurwapens te houden uit de handen van vuile socialisten" Which means "keeping firearms out of the hands of filthy socialists"
Robert Miller
in unis it tends to change by state i observe
Isaiah Cox
>stay neutral Or the more likely outcome where Trump stacks them for the republicans.
Jaxson Hill
Unfortunately, it's tough to know. I wouldn't have thought the FBI/CUA was stacked in Hillary's favor until it was demonstrated to be so. I *get* that the idea is the executive office appoints administrators there because it's supposedly the extended will if the people, but it's all too easy for it to become a praetorian guard.
Alexander Myers
Becoming what you hate is unfortunate. I'd be of the mind that you should just meet force with greater force, let them be shown to be the savages and crush them when they try.
Anthony Jones
>i like that dynamic. It does lead to some problems though. Because each party has only 1 person, the party leader, that knows what's going on behind closed doors. But he isn't allowed to talk about it in public. They can't even talk about it in parliament or to other party members, which can be a bit problematic.
Camden Myers
Oh look, the country of gag orders is talking about free spech again.
Adrian Green
t. Germany
Jack Allen
>you're
Oliver Lee
>not understanding the meme >german makes sense
Colton Harris
Whatever happened to this guy?
Jack Rivera
Weak excuse, please learn english before you post here.
Michael Diaz
he ded
Carter Moore
Probably a fine or probation if this is his first time.
Jack Cox
as a 420% Anglo-Saxon, i make the rules for english
Stasi got him
Joseph Hall
English is with a capital Eng.
Lucas Jenkins
You're obviously right.
Brody Turner
If you have laws you are not free.
Everything else is semantics
Jason Ross
In lawless situations you're more likely to be at the mercy of people with power. Not free.
Aiden Nelson
Let's agree that no one is free.
Jeremiah Harris
There is a reason why some people were outlawed in the past. Not to make them free but to punish them.
Gabriel Ross
t. anarchist
Mason Ortiz
I'd rather live in a country that has clean drinking water 2bh