Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As the PM was probably aware that most Americans become apoplectic when the idea of socialism arises could he have been making an attempt at humor, satire or sarcasm and the audience just didnt get it ?
As the PM was probably aware that most Americans become apoplectic when the idea of socialism arises could he have been making an attempt at humor, satire or sarcasm and the audience just didnt get it ?
I was thinking the same thing, but then I heard that someone went up to him and told him in the ear he is not supposed to say that in the US, so he corrected himself by saying that he is not a real socialist and that the socialist party in Europe is like the Democrats in the US But that could have been an attempted joke as well
I don't know why he said he is a socialist because actually he isn't (probably because he officially is from the Socialist Party, which however would make people like Marx turn in their graves). Either way, since Americans know (next to) nothing about Portuguese politics, they had to assume he meant what he said. Now, what if a politician from a Muslim country spoke to a group of US students and said he was a proud Muslim, would they also boo? After all, a lot of Americans seem to despise Islam. Here, if a guest has views we don't like we keep it to ourselves as it has no consequence for us anyway.Point is, people who claim to enjoy the freedom of speech and thought should also grant others that freedom who don't think their way, don't you think?
The same kind of statement could be said by those in North Korea, if a speaker says something that you don't like just keep it to yourself. In the US we have a strong and vibrant history of listening to what people say and then expressing our opinion about it. Freedom of Speech cuts both ways.
I would like to ask how do Portuguese politics differ from any other kind of politics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
About a year ago I saw a funny video of a speech by Dawkins at a Lynchburg college, the reactions and the discussion that followed were very telling
In what way telling... If you could link to the original video it may help explain what point you're attempting to get across. Beyond casting snide comments.
However one thing I can say is the Dawkins is a polarizing personality, and you should be very careful in assuming that whatever you saw was representative. Most media is informative entertainment, with the emphasis on informative, but not without entertainment. If there was a controversial reaction by a section of that audience, do you think that the media is going to provide a balanced report, or focus on the controversy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
PS: We believe in personal freedom and responsibility as well, but since Americans are so educated I am not surprised they don't know
Not on the same scale, by any means. I'm European born, so I understand the difference in perception. In Europe there's an attitude of disagreement with restrictive policies of the Government that they should not. In the US the attitude is the Government will not.
Well you're in Portugal, didn't you guys not have a secondary school system until the 60's...? Except for that government elite, people in glass houses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
If you review the studies done for instance by Freedom House and others, you will notice we enjoy the same amount of - if not more, just think of the massive privacy violations (http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/rankings2007/map.jpg - broken link) in the US - personal freedom in Europe as people in the US.
If you look at the color coded maps, which expresses the differentials of the top countries, then you see a slightly different picture (http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/images/blackmap.JPG). Europe is predominantly blue (the second highest bracket) France is lower (green), Luxembourg, Switzerland, UK, Ireland, Cyprus and Estonia are higher (fuchsia), the US, Canada and NZ round out the highest bracket.
Now reading Privacy International's reports for a few European countries (and I think this might be interesting to you), then the picture is not so cut and dried as it is made out to be. The overall low rating of the US seems to be down to data policy of private businesses, and lack of specific laws governing this on the Federal level. This is not necessarily the responsibility of the Federal Government, since information collected by a private organization is often informed consent (if you bothered to read the agreement you signed or clicked Ok on). Now if the company changes that policy without informing you, then you have a legal position if you feel that you have been damaged by that companies action.
It certainly can't be because of Carnivore (which has been replaced) since the UK and the Netherlands are both guilty of similar offenses (and only a moron would believe that every other security conscious country has not tried the same). It can't be because of certain provisions of the Patriot act (no-name warrants for communication interception), since pretty much every country in Europe is guilty of the same offenses, indeed in many cases with less judicial oversight (wiretap warrants issued by a national security minister or secretary, not via a Judicial review). This has been shown to be more of an issue in Europe over the US, since there are many instances of European opposition parties, State Prosecutors and other leaders, King Juan Carlos, for example who have been illegally "wiretapped".
So the only thing that I can see is that there is no official Federally mandated law to regulate business use of private data. Not that we don't have legal regulation of private data, just not a top down mandate.
Now the big problem isn't private companies having this ability. It's governments having this ability. For instance the Greek Government were recently wiretapped, because of a feature that exists in Ericsson phones (Swedish) on the Vodafone network (British), that is supposed to be disabled in phones sold in Greece. The big BlackBerry security threat was all about certain countries having easier surveillance , and routing information through servers outside of the legal jurisdiction of the complaining parties. Siemens,Nokia and Secure Computing built Irans surveillance infrastructure (two European and an American company). What happened to much vaunted european privacy laws in that situation, does it not apply to other countries? No, its elitism at its finest, its ok for other people to do this we'll even help them, just not "us" we're better than that. Unfortunately the technologies are there, what's available for the UAE, Saudi, India and China can be quickly be turned on in Europe and the US.
I'm sure you don't mind though, since you trust the government more than businesses. However I'd like to draw your attention to something, in the short term say a generation, a business can only take your money, but a government can take your rights, your liberties, your property and your existence. This is why most Americans have far more fear of government than business. I'm surprised being in Portugal, you're not more concerned with this too... It's only 36 years since the end of Salazar's Fascist Estado Novo.
On your map, which is not overly detailed, the British isles and a couple of other European countries are the same color as the US. Having lived in Britain myself, I have to say that feel much more free here in Portugal than I did in Britain, but the map suggests the opposite. To me it seems that your map only resembles economic freedom, which is certainly greater in Britain. In this respect Britain is probably the most American country in Europe.
I don't know what Portugal was like in the past, I am not Portuguese. From what I have heard and read over the years, it has changed quite a lot during the past couple of decades. 50 years ago it must have been like a developing country.
Regarding the whole freedom discussion it seems to me that theory is quite different from reality. In Europe and a number of Asian countries people enjoy a lot more freedom than one might think while in the US people are so busy talking about their freedom and constitution that they don't realize they are not nearly as free anymore as they think they are.
I don't trust bad governments, nor bad companies. The difference is that in my view at least over here in Europe governments are on average morally superior to companies. Thus I trust them more. There are so many ways businesses cheat on customers, while with governments I can look up my rights and exert pressure if necessary.
Regarding the video, I don't have the link, it was from a thread on CD.
On your map, which is not overly detailed, the British isles and a couple of other European countries are the same color as the US. Having lived in Britain myself, I have to say that feel much more free here in Portugal than I did in Britain, but the map suggests the opposite. To me it seems that your map only resembles economic freedom, which is certainly greater in Britain. In this respect Britain is probably the most American country in Europe.
My "Map" is from the same source you quoted the State of World Liberty Project. So are you now saying that it's inaccurate, or choosing to cherry pick to try to prove a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Regarding the whole freedom discussion it seems to me that theory is quite different from reality. In Europe and a number of Asian countries people enjoy a lot more freedom than one might think while in the US people are so busy talking about their freedom and constitution that they don't realize they are not nearly as free anymore as they think they are.
Agreed, however while we have had some regression in personal freedoms, they're still a great deal better than all but perhaps a few countries. Here's a test for you, go stand at the Brandenburg gate and profess your belief in Hitlers vision, while thumping a copy of Mein Kampf, see what happens (you'll be arrested and likely imprisoned for breach of Volksverhetzung, German free speech is only that which is not outlawed, which is an oxymoron). Do the same professing your belief in Marx in Times Square thumping your copy of Das Kapital, you'll get a lot of hecklers, but it's unlikely you'd be arrested and imprisoned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I don't trust bad governments, nor bad companies. The difference is that in my view at least over here in Europe governments are on average morally superior to companies. Thus I trust them more. There are so many ways businesses cheat on customers, while with governments I can look up my rights and exert pressure if necessary.
What's "morally superior" by who's definition? Certainly not everyone (Ayn Rand for one would strongly disagree). With governments you can look up your rights and under the right circumstances exert pressure, however tell that to Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov, Steven Biko, or the Tiananmen Square "Tank Man".
If you do not believe that you can bring pressure to bear on companies, then by implication you're denying the function of democracy. If a business is doing something that is disagreeable (whatever that is) then stop buying products and services from that business, use an alternative, or do without. If enough people protest in this manner, then the company will comply or cease trading (barring government interference), of course you need to be holding a popular position for this to work. This is the very definition of democracy. So if this process cannot function for a company, then how can it possibly function for a government? It's not like a company has control of the police, intelligence services, and military to coerce you into buying their products and services, or to force you to stop protesting about their practices (unless you have fewer freedoms or greater government corruption [which would make me question your trust] than you seem to think you do).
Your logic is irrational, if bringing pressure to a government works, then the same must work on a business, however if it does not work on a business, then it cannot work on a government. Both require populist positions, if however you do not hold a populist position, and the business is not responding to pressure then it's completely understandable, and your disenchantment with business is just personal angst on them not listening to your unpopular position.
I did not say the map is inaccurate, gee why do people on this board always put words in other people's mouths?! I said it is not overly detailed. It does not say for instance what kind of freedom it is about, nor what the percentages refer to. From the relationships between the colors and countries I concluded it is about economic freedom.
I know and I think it is a good thing that people in Germany can't do that. I would find it troubling if Americans could gather on Times Square to protest in favor of the reintroduction of slavery (which would be the closest analogy to German history) while of course thumping a copy of das Kapital would be nothing special as the US has never had a socialist or communist dictatorship.
In Germany and most other countries freedom of speech does not mean that you can say anything without consequences. You can say anything, but only if you are willing to accept the consequences. There are strict rules as to what is considered OK and what not. If you feel your freedom of right has been violated unjustly, you can have that checked by courts.
Recently for instance they discovered that a lot of German companies had for years systematically abused the lucrative Stiftung Warentest quality certificate, which many consumers use when deciding which products to buy (for instance they put that symbol on their sites, but in connection with the wrong or other versions of products that have never been tested). While I do know that the government is wasting taxpayers' money I don't have the feeling I am being cheated on.
There are just many more watchdogs controlling the government (journalists, other institutions, etc.) as compared to companies where scandals are usually uncovered by accident and after a long time.
If someone or a group wants to gather in Times Square and protest for the return of Slavery, they most certainly can. Would there be legal consequences for doing so? No.
I don't have the unfettered right to slander someone. I don't have the right to injure others by yelling "FIRE!". But, we do have the right to say whatever suits us with those few - very few - exceptions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But that could have been an attempted joke as well 
