Something for all you prohibitionists to think about
Tim Starr
>Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> writes in alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,soc.culture.singapore,soc.culture.netherlands:
>>In article <9411301511.AA02568@the-hague>, Mike Schenk <m...@tinac.com> wrote:
>>>>>Sorry but I don't agree, there is no large degree of individual liberty
>>>>>in the United States. Sure there is more liberty than in certain Asian
>>>>>countries but in the average European country you will experience much
>>>>>more individual liberty than in the US.
>>>>
>>>>Which is why Europe has higher taxes, more regulations, larger welfare states,
>>>>etc., than the USA?
>>>
>>>Larger welfare states, higher taxes, true, but far less regulations than
>>>in the USA.
>>
>>Such as the requirement in Germany that in order to get a business license you
>>must prove to the local authorities that there is a social need for your
>>business?
>
>I didn't know that, I had a feeling that Germany has more rules, that's
>why they call it "Deutsche Gr\"undlichkeit" which means that Germans are
>very strict. But I didn't know if that is true or just a prejudice that
>the Dutch have.
>
>>Such as the virtual gun prohibition in nearly all of Europe except Switzerland?
>
>Which in my opinion is a good thing.....
Regardless of whether you consider it good or not (it isn't), it's still one
less freedom for Europe, and one more for America.
>>Such as the absence of freedom of speech in France?
>
>France has freedom os speech.
Then why does Scientology get away with sueing schools of psychology there for
claiming to have a science of the mind other than Scientology?
>>>>>...US citizens are treated like
>>>>>non-responsible people, resulting in stupid rules and laws to regulate
>>>>>every part of your life.
>>>>
>>>>Quite true.
>>>>
>>>>>...In Europe, people are generally regarded to be
>>>>>responsible individuals and as a result there are far less stupid rules
>>>>>and laws.
>>>>
>>>>Where in Europe are you thinking of? Sweden? Holland? Germany? France?
>>>>England? Which welfare state with an inferior civil liberties record do
>>>>you have in mind?
>>>
>>>At first I was thinking of my home country, the Netherlands, but I know
>>>it holds true for other European countries as well, but not all of them,
>>>I know.
>>
>>Then why does my friend Toine Manders, founder of the Libertarian Party of
>>Holland, want to move to the USA in order to escape the onerous rules &
>>regulations of his home country?
>
>I don't know, maybe he still has the misconception that things are
>better in the US. Having lived in the US I know for sure that in the
>social context things are much and much better in the Netherlands.
>
>> Why was my Dutch babysitter refused
>>permission to live next door to her friend & forced to move to another
>>neighborhood considered fitting to her social class by the local government
>>authorities?
>
>When did this happen?
She moved back to Holland after being liberated from a Japanese concentration
camp in the then-Dutch East Indies, now-Indonesia during WWII.
>> Why were the Dutch East Indies notoriously corrupt & ruthless
>>in their enslavement of the natives?
>
>This happened long ago, things have changed since then. Likewise I can
>ask you about the enslavement of black people in the USA.
Fair enough.
>> Why is such a large percentage of the
>>Dutch population on welfare if they're considered to be such responsible
>>individuals?
>
>In the Netherlands these people are on welfare, in the USA these people
>have nowhere to turn to and have to live on the streets or turn to
>crime.
In other words, in the Netherlands, these people are not considered to be
responsible for themselves. Rather, they are coddled by the nanny-state.
Most street people in the USA are there by choice: they're either alcoholics
& drug addicts incapable of working (I know from experience, having tried
to employ many), or simply enamored of the leisure that comes with begging
for a living. Similarly, most criminals in the USA are such by choice,
not because circumstances force them to live lives of crime. Things are
tough, but there are still plenty of opportunities for anyone who wants to
to get a job and make an honest living for themselves.
>...The unemployment rate in the Netherlands is lower than it is in
>the USA.
"Statistics are like women of the night. Once you get 'em down, you can do
anything with 'em." - Mark Twain
>>My maternal grandmother's family was Dutch, but from everything I know I'm
>>much freer here than I'd be there except for drugs & prostitution. And I
>>don't use drugs & can't afford prostitutes.
>
>When your maternal grandmother lived in the Netherlands, things were
>different.
Yah. It was probably a freer country then.
>...If you have a good income in the USA, you can live a good
>life, but try talking to those who for some reason got fired and can't
>find other jobs or got ill and couldn't afford the medical bills. These
>people would have been better of in the Netherlands, much better....
You've changed your argument. First, you were arguing that the Netherlands
were freer than the USA. Now you're claiming that the nanny-state there
takes better care of the tykes in its custody. I'll freely grant you
this second claim. I'm not a tyke, and have no desire to be held in the
protective custody of any nanny-state.
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034...@compuserve.com
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Tim Starr
Brian O Flores <Hamp...@world.std.com> wrote:
>: > Why is such a large percentage of the
>: >Dutch population on welfare if they're considered to be such responsible
>: >individuals?
>
>half of the population of the Netherlands works at any one time, yet
>they have the highest per capita income -- as opposed to the highest
>standard of living that the Danes have -- of any nation in the world.
Is that before or after taxes?
>Yet, when the Dutch work, they are one of the most productive works
>forces in the world. Dutch companies are the fastest growing companies
>in the world, their currency is one of the stablist, and they are
>major producer and agents in many of the products that you consume in
>the US and elsewhere in the world. They do many things well, including
>structure their society, and you might just take a moment to learn a
>thing or two from someone else. No one is asking you to fall on your
>knees and worship them.
I'm happy to learn from the Dutch, as well as from anyone else. The thread
you're jumping in on, though, is one in which I was arguing against someone
else who claimed that the Netherlands were freer than the USA. They are
not. The USA isn't perfect by a _long_ shot, but it's still the freest
country, overall, that I know of.
>The Dutch do not have *welfare* as we understand it in the united
>states. They redistribute the wealth of the nation so that anyone
>has a chance. Kinderengulden(sp?), for example, where every parent
>caring for children gets a certain amount of money per child per
>month until the child is a certain age. Think about this:
>the majority of children in the Netherlands have a chance to lead a
>life without need of basic things, which the United States cannot
>even begin to approach, where one third of children live in poverty.
>
>The connotation of welfare in the US is that it is for people who
>are unable to take care of themselves. The Dutch redistribute the
>wealth so that there are not the great discrepancies of wealth that
>there are in the US. *Welfare* is for everyone.
Sounds like a very well-guilded cage to me, with well-tended herd animals
to be exploited.
>A note on Dutch Imperialism. Remember that the Dutch Empire was
>past its peak when the other European Empires began to grow. When
>comparing the two, you are talking about a hundred year lag time, at
>least.
The Spanish Empire's peak preceded that of the Dutch.
>A note on the French. Yes, they do have a free press, until the
>government decides that they don't like a publication and they sue.
>Gay Pied Hebo, the French national gay magazine is a good example.
>The right wing crypto fascists in the French Government sued them
>and almost dorve them out of business. The Canadian Gov. does the
>same. Yes, a free press, but not a free market.
Close enough.
VARA!
> >>>Larger welfare states, higher taxes, true, but far less regulations than
> >>>in the USA.
> >>
> >
> >>Such as the virtual gun prohibition in nearly all of Europe except
Switzerland?
> >
> >Which in my opinion is a good thing.....
>
> Regardless of whether you consider it good or not (it isn't), it's still one
> less freedom for Europe, and one more for America.
But the reciprocal freedom of Europeans w.r.t. gun prohibition is our freedom
to walk the streets at night without the numbing threat of random acts of
senseless violence.
> >>Such as the absence of freedom of speech in France?
> >
> >France has freedom os speech.
>
> Then why does Scientology get away with sueing schools of psychology there for
> claiming to have a science of the mind other than Scientology?
huh?
> >>Why is such a large percentage of the
> >>Dutch population on welfare if they're considered to be such responsible
> >>individuals?
> >
> >In the Netherlands these people are on welfare, in the USA these people
> >have nowhere to turn to and have to live on the streets or turn to
> >crime.
>
> In other words, in the Netherlands, these people are not considered to be
> responsible for themselves. Rather, they are coddled by the nanny-state.
I don't think you have an accurate picture of Dutch welfare laws. In stead
of treating these people as dirt like in the states, we recognise their
need for food, housing, clothing and leisure. The state provides this to a
certain degree, and in that way doesn't 'coddle' them, but treats them as
people needing help. No-one forces these poeple to take advantage of the
welfare laws.
It leads to fewer homeless people, a higher standard of living, and I dare
say, less violence and crime and a happier nation.
> Most street people in the USA are there by choice: they're either alcoholics
> & drug addicts incapable of working (I know from experience, having tried
> to employ many), or simply enamored of the leisure that comes with begging
> for a living.
What? You've gotta be kidding! Your world view seems to be shaped by a
sense of "if they don't have it, they probably don't want it". I too
believe that if you *really* want something, it is obtainable. But for
someone to *really* want something takes a special kind of person. One
with responsibility, faith and optimism. The first can be present in
anybody, but you'll understand that the latter two are not among the most
prominent characteristics of homeless people.
> Similarly, most criminals in the USA are such by choice,
> not because circumstances force them to live lives of crime. Things are
> tough, but there are still plenty of opportunities for anyone who wants to
> to get a job and make an honest living for themselves.
>
> >...The unemployment rate in the Netherlands is lower than it is in
> >the USA.
>
> "Statistics are like women of the night. Once you get 'em down, you can do
> anything with 'em." - Mark Twain
But the above stands. Unemployment rates are lower in the Netherlands than
in the States. It's not a statistic, it's a fact. A number. They don't
lie. Only when conclusions are drawn from them, do they turn into
statistics.
> >>My maternal grandmother's family was Dutch, but from everything I know I'm
> >>much freer here than I'd be there except for drugs & prostitution. And I
> >>don't use drugs & can't afford prostitutes.
> >
> >When your maternal grandmother lived in the Netherlands, things were
> >different.
>
> Yah. It was probably a freer country then.
We see the States through the eyes of American news sources. (CNN, NBC,
MTV, NYT, NYSE, whatever) and have a pretty good view of what happens in
the USA. Americans are practically devoid of any news from Europe, and
when it arrives in the USA, it is seriously skewed. How can you even begin
to assume you know anything about Europe or the Netherlands if the info
you have is 50 years old, and comes from 1 or 2 sources (your grandmother
and some babysitter).
I'll give you some freedoms not available in the US:
Gambling
Prostitution
Drugs
Smoking
Euthanasia
Abortion
Voting (USA basically has a 2-party system. The Netherlands has 20+
parties, of which 5 or 6 are big enough to have a reasonable influence)
The protection against unreasonable search and seizure (Civil Forfeiture)
You have:
Political Correctness
The Moral Majority
Bill Klinton
The KKK
Newt Gingrich
Need I say more?
_____________________________________________________________________
VARA Radio TV
The Netherlands
_____________________________________________________________________
Eric M. Visser
(in an ungoing discussion with Mike Schenk; just wanted to pick out
one argument, I'll leave the rest for Mike to cut up)
>>> Why is such a large percentage of the
>>>Dutch population on welfare if they're considered to be such responsible
>>>individuals?
>>
>>In the Netherlands these people are on welfare, in the USA these people
>>have nowhere to turn to and have to live on the streets or turn to
>>crime.
>
>In other words, in the Netherlands, these people are not considered to be
>responsible for themselves. Rather, they are coddled by the nanny-state.
And what, pray, does this have to do with freedom? Whether you're
forced to depend on the government for your income or on crime or
prostitution, sounds like basically the same thing to me in terms of
"freedom".
I have the idea that you're equating "freedom" with "economic
freedom", the freedom to be as rich or as poor as you can or like to
be. I think there's a bit more to it than that. And besides, you have
that freedom in the Netherlands too...
And throwing around epithets like "the nanny-state" is not exactly the
right way to win admiration for the force of your arguments...
>Most street people in the USA are there by choice: ...
Yeah, sure. Then how come there's so many of them in the USA, and not
in the Netherlands? You can sleep on the streets in Holland too you
know, if you want to. Just don't pick up your allowance. They won't
force-feed it to you. Ah well, maybe it's all a cultural thing.
Cheers,
Eric.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric M. Visser email: er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd. phone: 044 - 754 - 2671
Kawasaki, Japan fax : 044 - 754 - 2570
=====================================================================
"I think it's a fallacy that taste bottoms out somewhere." -- Calvin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Cluster Macintosh
er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp (Eric M. Visser) wrote:
> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>
> >Most street people in the USA are there by choice: ...
>
> Yeah, sure. Then how come there's so many of them in the USA, and not
> in the Netherlands? You can sleep on the streets in Holland too you
> know, if you want to. Just don't pick up your allowance. They won't
> force-feed it to you. Ah well, maybe it's all a cultural thing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Eric.
> --
Actually, in this extremely wierd way Mr. Starr is correct. Estimates are
that somewhere around 1/3 of all homeless are mentally ill (at least in
San Francisco). Back in the 1970's there were a series of groundbreaking
court decisions handed down by the DC Court of Appeals saying essentially
that the mentally ill could not be institutionalized against their will.
The net result was that scores of mentally ill people across the United
States exercised their newfound liberty and were released into the
streets. The institutions that had once housed them were forced to close
for lack of patients. And then everbody moved to San Francisco. Anyway,
the above case provides an interesting background against which to
evaluate the free-choice/paternalism dichotomy.
Peace
--
This article/message was posted using NewsWatcher from a Macintosh in an Academic Computing Services public cluster at Yale University. Yale University accepts no responsibility for the identity of the author or the content of this message.
Kees van den Doel
VARA! <vr...@knoware.nl> wrote:
>But the reciprocal freedom of Europeans w.r.t. gun prohibition is our
>freedom to walk the streets at night without the numbing threat of
>random acts of senseless violence.
You must be kidding. You must have been watching too much Dutch TV! The
only place in the world I've ever been afraid to walk the streets at
night is Holland. Especially in the weekends there seems to be a high
density of bored thrill seekers, seeking the infliction of serious
bodily damage as a way to get their weekly exercise, and as an
alternative to the deadly boredom of Dutch TV.
There are places in the US I'd rather not go, but there I'd be afraid of
getting mugged, a rational act of violence. The only place I'm aware of
where two legged lifeforms seem to act totally on random (violent)
impulses, with no motives (why should one have motives when the STATE
provides you with all you need?), or anything that resembles rational
behavior, is my beloved FATHERLAND.
Moreover, Mrs VARA!, your electromagnetic pollution of the ether offends
me! Please cease this activity IMMEDIATELY!!
Marc de Jonge
|> In article <ERIC.94De...@matisse.ling.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>,
|> er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp (Eric M. Visser) wrote:
|>
|> > tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
|>
|> >
|> > >Most street people in the USA are there by choice: ...
|> >
|> > Yeah, sure. Then how come there's so many of them in the USA, and not
|> > in the Netherlands? You can sleep on the streets in Holland too you
|> > know, if you want to. Just don't pick up your allowance. They won't
|> > force-feed it to you. Ah well, maybe it's all a cultural thing.
|> >
|> > Cheers,
|> >
|> > Eric.
|> > --
|>
|> Actually, in this extremely wierd way Mr. Starr is correct. Estimates are
|> that somewhere around 1/3 of all homeless are mentally ill (at least in
|> San Francisco).
Minor nit: 1/3 is 'most of'. But be that as it may,
|> Back in the 1970's there were a series of groundbreaking
|> court decisions handed down by the DC Court of Appeals saying essentially
|> that the mentally ill could not be institutionalized against their will.
Not unless they have comitted serious crimes I presume?
|> The net result was that scores of mentally ill people across the United
|> States exercised their newfound liberty and were released into the
|> streets. The institutions that had once housed them were forced to close
|> for lack of patients. And then everbody moved to San Francisco. Anyway,
|> the above case provides an interesting background against which to
|> evaluate the free-choice/paternalism dichotomy.
In my opinion a false dichotomy: there are a lot of things possible between
forced institutionalization and ignoring people all together. One could for
example offer help to these people to live a normal life....
-------------
Marc de Jonge (dej...@geof.ruu.nl)
Public Cluster Macintosh
> In my opinion a false dichotomy: there are a lot of things possible between
> forced institutionalization and ignoring people all together. One could for
> example offer help to these people to live a normal life....
> -------------
> Marc de Jonge (dej...@geof.ruu.nl)
Point well taken.
Matt Baggott
dej...@hotspot.geof.ruu.nl (Marc de Jonge) wrote:
>|> In article <ERIC.94De...@matisse.ling.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>,
>|> er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp (Eric M. Visser) wrote:
>|> Back in the 1970's there were a series of groundbreaking
>|> court decisions handed down by the DC Court of Appeals saying essentially
>|> that the mentally ill could not be institutionalized against their will.
>|> The net result was that scores of mentally ill people across the United
>|> States exercised their newfound liberty and were released into the
>|> streets. The institutions that had once housed them were forced to close
>|> for lack of patients. And then everbody moved to San Francisco. Anyway,
>|> the above case provides an interesting background against which to
>|> evaluate the free-choice/paternalism dichotomy.
>In my opinion a false dichotomy: there are a lot of things possible between
>forced institutionalization and ignoring people all together. One could for
>example offer help to these people to live a normal life....
I agree.
It is an incredible simplification to blame homelessness on 1970s court
decisions. Decarceration of the mentally ill was in full swing in the 60s and
began even before the use of chlorpromazine and other antipsychotics.
Any credible theory of homelessness and mental illness should account for that.
Furthermore, I've seen at least one study which suggests that mental illness
frequently develops subsequent to homelessness.
Also, because they are no longer appropriate forums for this discussion, I have
edited my follow-up line to to exclude soc.culture.netherlands and
soc.culture.singapore. Editing follow-up and newsgroup lines is a practice I
urge everyone to adopt.
>-------------
>Marc de Jonge (dej...@geof.ruu.nl)
--M@
Tim Starr
Eric M. Visser <er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp> wrote:
>tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>(in an ungoing discussion with Mike Schenk; just wanted to pick out
> one argument, I'll leave the rest for Mike to cut up)
>
>>>> Why is such a large percentage of the
>>>>Dutch population on welfare if they're considered to be such responsible
>>>>individuals?
>>>
>>>In the Netherlands these people are on welfare, in the USA these people
>>>have nowhere to turn to and have to live on the streets or turn to
>>>crime.
>>
>>In other words, in the Netherlands, these people are not considered to be
>>responsible for themselves. Rather, they are coddled by the nanny-state.
>
>And what, pray, does this have to do with freedom? Whether you're
>forced to depend on the government for your income or on crime or
>prostitution, sounds like basically the same thing to me in terms of
>"freedom".
Then you have no clue what freedom is. Freedom is not being taken care of
from womb to tomb by Big Mother. Freedom is not being on the dole, at the
mercy of the strings attached to the public purse by politicians and the
arbitrary whims of welfare bureaucrats.
The only difference between a life of crime and a life on the dole is that
criminals at least have the courage to steal their ill-gotten gains them-
selves instead of waiting around for the State to do it for them and then
glorifying the State for robbing others to support them like the captive
pets they are.
Prostitution, on the other hand, is an honorable and noble profession in
which valuable personal services are freely exchanged for some good
consideration in return. Prostitutes are much freer than welfare bums and
crooks.
>I have the idea that you're equating "freedom" with "economic
>freedom", the freedom to be as rich or as poor as you can or like to
>be. I think there's a bit more to it than that. And besides, you have
>that freedom in the Netherlands too...
Economic freedom is a necessary part of total freedom. And, as I have
argued, we have more of it, still, in the USA than there is in the Netherlands.
>And throwing around epithets like "the nanny-state" is not exactly the
>right way to win admiration for the force of your arguments...
Goethe once said that none are more totally enslaved than those who falsely
believe they are free. Why should I seek the admiration of slaves?
>>Most street people in the USA are there by choice: ...
>
>Yeah, sure. Then how come there's so many of them in the USA, and not
>in the Netherlands? You can sleep on the streets in Holland too you
>know, if you want to. Just don't pick up your allowance. They won't
>force-feed it to you. Ah well, maybe it's all a cultural thing.
Yes, I think it is cultural.
Marc Paul Jozef Van Loo
: There are places in the US I'd rather not go, but there I'd be afraid of
: getting mugged, a rational act of violence. The only place I'm aware of
: where two legged lifeforms seem to act totally on random (violent)
: impulses, with no motives (why should one have motives when the STATE
: provides you with all you need?), or anything that resembles rational
: behavior, is my beloved FATHERLAND.
Jezus, wie is deze eikel?
Tim Starr
>Starr) wrote:
>> In article <9412091435.AA05980@the-hague>, Mike Schenk <m...@tinac.com> wrote:
>> >Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> writes in soc.culture.netherlands:
>> >>In article <9411301511.AA02568@the-hague>, Mike Schenk <m...@tinac.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >>>Larger welfare states, higher taxes, true, but far less regulations than
>> >>>in the USA.
>> >>
>> >
>> >>Such as the virtual gun prohibition in nearly all of Europe except
>Switzerland?
>> >
>> >Which in my opinion is a good thing.....
>>
>> Regardless of whether you consider it good or not (it isn't), it's still one
>> less freedom for Europe, and one more for America.
>
>But the reciprocal freedom of Europeans w.r.t. gun prohibition is our freedom
>to walk the streets at night without the numbing threat of random acts of
>senseless violence.
Tell that to Turks in Germany. Tell that to Pakistanis in England. Tell that
to either Protestants or Catholics in Northern Ireland. Tell that to Algerians
in France. Tell that to the residents of Scotland, which has a higher homicide
rate than that of the USA, as does Sweden.
By contrast, the Swiss have almost no crime, despite being well-armed. And in
the USA, most crime rates have either held steady or declined over the past
decade. The only exception has been prohibition-related crimes in the inner-
cities, which have mostly been young black males killing other young black
males. The crime rates of the non-hispanic caucasian population of the USA
are about the same as those of Canada & Australia - about 2.5 homicides per
100,000 population every year.
American violence is only "random" to those who don't understand it because
all they know about it is what they've been told by the talking heads on TV.
And it's only numbing to cowards who don't have the self-respect who aren't
willing to defend themselves.
>> >>Why is such a large percentage of the
>> >>Dutch population on welfare if they're considered to be such responsible
>> >>individuals?
>> >
>> >In the Netherlands these people are on welfare, in the USA these people
>> >have nowhere to turn to and have to live on the streets or turn to
>> >crime.
>>
>> In other words, in the Netherlands, these people are not considered to be
>> responsible for themselves. Rather, they are coddled by the nanny-state.
>
>I don't think you have an accurate picture of Dutch welfare laws. In stead
>of treating these people as dirt like in the states, we recognise their
>need for food, housing, clothing and leisure. The state provides this to a
>certain degree, and in that way doesn't 'coddle' them, but treats them as
>people needing help. No-one forces these poeple to take advantage of the
>welfare laws.
>It leads to fewer homeless people, a higher standard of living, and I dare
>say, less violence and crime and a happier nation.
A State that considers its citizens dependent upon it so as to need to be
provided with goods such as food, clothing, shelter, etc., is not treating
them as free and independent beings. This point is true no matter how much
you like being coddled by the Dutch nanny-state, no matter how much you like
the social effects of such elitism.
>> Most street people in the USA are there by choice: they're either alcoholics
>> & drug addicts incapable of working (I know from experience, having tried
>> to employ many), or simply enamored of the leisure that comes with begging
>> for a living.
>
>What? You've gotta be kidding! Your world view seems to be shaped by a
>sense of "if they don't have it, they probably don't want it". I too
>believe that if you *really* want something, it is obtainable. But for
>someone to *really* want something takes a special kind of person. One
>with responsibility, faith and optimism. The first can be present in
>anybody, but you'll understand that the latter two are not among the most
>prominent characteristics of homeless people.
You've merely restated my point: most street people are there by choice.
>> >>My maternal grandmother's family was Dutch, but from everything I know I'm
>> >>much freer here than I'd be there except for drugs & prostitution. And I
>> >>don't use drugs & can't afford prostitutes.
>> >
>> >When your maternal grandmother lived in the Netherlands, things were
>> >different.
>>
>> Yah. It was probably a freer country then.
>
>We see the States through the eyes of American news sources. (CNN, NBC,
>MTV, NYT, NYSE, whatever) and have a pretty good view of what happens in
>the USA. Americans are practically devoid of any news from Europe, and
>when it arrives in the USA, it is seriously skewed. How can you even begin
>to assume you know anything about Europe or the Netherlands if the info
>you have is 50 years old, and comes from 1 or 2 sources (your grandmother
>and some babysitter).
And my sister, who was there recently, and my cousin, who lives there and
works for Royal Dutch Petroleum, and ISIL members who are Dutch nationals
and spoke with me at length at out conference last October in Mexico, etc.
>I'll give you some freedoms not available in the US:
>
>Gambling
We have legal gambling in Nevada, Atlantic City, Indian reservations, Bingo
parlors, card rooms, lotteries, etc.
>Prostitution
>Drugs
Those things are illegal, yes, as I've already admitted.
>Smoking
Legal.
>Euthanasia
Now legal in Oregon.
>Abortion
Legal.
>Voting (USA basically has a 2-party system. The Netherlands has 20+
>parties, of which 5 or 6 are big enough to have a reasonable influence)
Legal, and a power rather than a freedom.
>The protection against unreasonable search and seizure (Civil Forfeiture)
What happens to a Dutch national if he doesn't pay his taxes?
>You have:
>
>Political Correctness
>The Moral Majority
>Bill Klinton
>The KKK
>Newt Gingrich
None of whom hold any legal power over me, with the possible exception of
Newt. The KKK is dead. My local paper just ran a long article about its
long-overdue demise last Sunday.
Further, we don't have the draft, either.
KU...@frcpn11.in2p3.fr
tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
> [Deletia]
>
>A State that considers its citizens dependent upon it so as to need to be
>provided with goods such as food, clothing, shelter, etc., is not treating
>them as free and independent beings. This point is true no matter how much
>you like being coddled by the Dutch nanny-state, no matter how much you like
>the social effects of such elitism.
>
I have the impression, that you forget that `the State' is not an abstract
entity, but are our *chosen* representatives.
By which I mean, that we, the Dutch, choose for a gouvernment that takes
these kind of measures.
And I want it that way, because I consider a human society as being a little
bit more than a jungle where everybody has to fight and struggle to stay
alive. That would be the behaviour of animals.
I consider myself to be a human being.
Greetings,
Ronald
Pete Zakel
>VARA! <vr...@knoware.nl> wrote:
>>Gambling
>
>We have legal gambling in Nevada, Atlantic City, Indian reservations, Bingo
>parlors, card rooms, lotteries, etc.
Yeah, but that's not everywhere in the country. Distances from country to
country in Europe are smaller than distances from state to state in the
western United States, and we don't have the great rail and other public
tranportation systems that pervade Europe.
>>Prostitution
>>Drugs
>
>Those things are illegal, yes, as I've already admitted.
Actually, there is legal Prostitution in almost all counties in Nevada
(notably, it is illegal in the counties in which Reno and Las Vegas reside).
>>Smoking
>
>Legal.
But much less pervasive than in Europe, thank the gods. Of course, part of
the reason for such high smoking rates in other countries is the agreements
that allow the US Tobacco Cartel to do mass marketing in those countries.
And note that smoking is illegal in many public places nowadays, and on all
scheduled airline flights, whereas smoking is pretty much legal everywhere
in Europe.
>>Euthanasia
>
>Now legal in Oregon.
But still subject to court challenges.
>>Abortion
>
>Legal.
And illegal in many parts of Europe still, if I remember correctly. Of
course, going from one country to another is pretty easy, as I mentioned
before.
>>Voting (USA basically has a 2-party system. The Netherlands has 20+
>>parties, of which 5 or 6 are big enough to have a reasonable influence)
>
>Legal, and a power rather than a freedom.
Yes, but the point that the US 2-party system is pretty flawed is a good
one. There is almost no choice anymore when it comes to national politics.
And the media focuses so much attention on the national and state sector,
that almost everyone has forgotten that one wields the most power in local
elections, and these elections are the ones that affect individuals the most.
It's a sad commentary on the state of US politics that more people show up
for a presidential election, where their vote means almost nothing, than show
up for local-only elections, where some things can be affected by just a few
hundred votes (or even tens of votes, in a few cases).
>>The protection against unreasonable search and seizure (Civil Forfeiture)
>
>What happens to a Dutch national if he doesn't pay his taxes?
I don't know much about other countries, but I do know that the precedent
set by RICO and the asset forfeiture laws that have followed indicate an
abysmal lack of respect for the US Constitution by the legislators, courts
and police.
>None of whom hold any legal power over me, with the possible exception of
>Newt. The KKK is dead. My local paper just ran a long article about its
>long-overdue demise last Sunday.
Hmmmm -- I think the news of the death of the KKK and its ilk may be
premature. We still have far too much racism in the US -- just look at
Prop. 187 in California, which, IMHO, is due much more to racism than to
any fears of illegal immigrants.
>Further, we don't have the draft, either.
But we do still have REGISTRATION for the draft! And the denial of student
loans for any MALE (also we have a sexist armed services) who doesn't
register.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy -
but that could change."
-Vice President Dan Quayle
ANDRES ZLOTSKY
Not only do I second Ronald, but I also must note that he was perhaps a bit too
gentle in addressing an all too crucial issue. A "State" that allegedly goes
about its business by leaving its subjects to fend for themselves merely in
order to stay alive is not only a contradiction of the notion of state -- it is
a mockery of itself, and even a monstrosity that denies the grounds of its own
existence.
As Ronald rightly states, a state which distances itself from its function as
the main benefactor of the society from which it stems is not fit for humans.
Only though prolonged, loud -- deafening, actually -- brain-washing propaganda
by the Gingriches and their kind can lead the electorate to become as dazed as
to believe that it is choosing for anything. As anyone who follows the most
basic of logics should realize, the existence of that pseudo-state is not
different from its non-existence: we need not to support an institution that
does not work for those who elect it.
Unfortunately, the far-right pseudo- religious (but in reality diabolic)
fanaticism has these days fooled many people into believing that the law of the jungle
equals freedom. It takes a fool, and a suicidal one, to even imagine that
free access to guns could possibly ensure anyone's safety.
And I have not even mentioned the impact -- that is, the increase in violence
-- that the new bigoted doctrins of childish hatred will cause to arise among
us.
I sincerely hope that those who support that false notion will be able to wake
up and come to their sensesbefore it is too late. _That_ will have on all of
us the effect of truly diminyshing violence and establishing real freedom.
Andres
A Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to us all.
Robert Entriken
From: Eric M. Visser, er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
Date: 16 Dec 94 02:47:14 GMT
In article <ERIC.94De...@matisse.ling.flab.fujitsu.co.jp> Eric M.
Visser, er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp writes:
>tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>(in an ungoing discussion with Mike Schenk; just wanted to pick out
> one argument, I'll leave the rest for Mike to cut up)
>
of the
>>>>Dutch population on welfare if they're considered to be such
responsible
>>>>individuals?
>>>
>>>have nowhere to turn to and have to live on the streets or turn to
>>>crime.
>>
Mister Visser comes very close to the mark here. In The Netherlands,
there are indeed very very few homeless, and crime (other than bicycle
and car radio theft) is relatively non-existent compared to the
on-going threat of random violence here in the US. In the US, indeed,
more people turn to crime, and consequently an embarassingly large
portion of our population is in prison, with three-strikes to make it
even worse. Conclusion: AmericanWelfare[1995] = LifeInPrison
I side with the Dutch. Simple economics should prove that keeping
people out of prison with a minimum of social support is far cheaper
than the cost of keeping them in prison. This does not even count the
quality of life arguements.
>>In other words, in the Netherlands, these people are not considered to
be
>>responsible for themselves. Rather, they are coddled by the
nanny-state.
>
>And what, pray, does this have to do with freedom? Whether you're
>forced to depend on the government for your income or on crime or
>prostitution, sounds like basically the same thing to me in terms of
>"freedom".
>
>I have the idea that you're equating "freedom" with "economic
>freedom", the freedom to be as rich or as poor as you can or like to
>be. I think there's a bit more to it than that. And besides, you have
>that freedom in the Netherlands too...
>
>And throwing around epithets like "the nanny-state" is not exactly the
>right way to win admiration for the force of your arguments...
>
I respect Mister Starr's forthrightness in presenting his philosophy
on individual rights. I, being born and raised in the US, share the
realization of the importance of individual rights worth dieing for.
However, such "L-word" style comments such as "nanny-state" do seem to
degrade a good discussion and contribute nothing positive.
>>Most street people in the USA are there by choice: ...
This is sadly true, but they would use shelters if they were safe.
>
>Yeah, sure. Then how come there's so many of them in the USA, and not
>in the Netherlands? You can sleep on the streets in Holland too you
>know, if you want to. Just don't pick up your allowance. They won't
>force-feed it to you. Ah well, maybe it's all a cultural thing.
The real answer is that The Netherlands supports their population with
safe housing, whereas I am still waiting to see the Housing and Urban
Developement Adjency (name change?) show a positive net worth.
There are many cultural differences between the US and The
Netherlands. The Dutch seem to be emanently more practical, whereas
Americans are more likely to suffer poor decisions based on false
theoretical arguements (idealism?) i.e. supply-side economics (yes,
an opinion). Some time ago, one poster put it quite simply, that the
Dutch recognize a problem for what it is, implement a solution, and go
on with their lives. We Americans will debate the point until only
radical alternatives are left to choose from.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Eric.
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric M. Visser email: er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
>Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd. phone: 044 - 754 - 2671
>Kawasaki, Japan fax : 044 - 754 - 2570
>=====================================================================
>"I think it's a fallacy that taste bottoms out somewhere." -- Calvin
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sincerely,
Robert Entriken
P.S. Voor nog meer Nederlandse content...
Prettige Kerstdagen en Gellukige Nieuwe Yaar!
Ik miss je Sinter Klaas.
--------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are my own and not related to my employers.
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin L. Barthelemy
[...]
: We see the States through the eyes of American news sources. (CNN, NBC,
: MTV, NYT, NYSE, whatever) and have a pretty good view of what happens in
: the USA. Americans are practically devoid of any news from Europe, and
: when it arrives in the USA, it is seriously skewed. How can you even begin
: to assume you know anything about Europe or the Netherlands if the info
: you have is 50 years old, and comes from 1 or 2 sources (your grandmother
: and some babysitter).
If you are depending upon American news sources like the ones you named and
believe it to be accurate, you have an incredibly inaccurate view of the
United States. US news media are only in it for the $$$$$$$$$$$$ and can't
be bothered with accuracy. They've found that the unwashed masses will
be more entertained (and therefore watch, listen to or read more of it) by
sensational reporting and pseudo-documentaries than by the more mundane
balanced and accurate reporting they _should_ be doing.
: Need I say more?
*no*
--
==> I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous <==
** George Orwell was an optimist. **
Kevin L. Barthelemy
0...@td-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> <1994Dec19....@cc.ruu.nl>
Organization: Prairienet, the East-Central Illinois Free-Net
Distribution:
Marc de Jonge (dej...@hotspot.geof.ruu.nl) wrote:
: p...@directory.yale.edu (Public Cluster Macintosh) writes:
: |> In article <ERIC.94De...@matisse.ling.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>,
: |> er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp (Eric M. Visser) wrote:
: |>
: |> > tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
: |> >
: |> > >Most street people in the USA are there by choice: ...
: |> >
: |> Actually, in this extremely wierd way Mr. Starr is correct. Estimates
are
: |> that somewhere around 1/3 of all homeless are mentally ill (at least in
: |> San Francisco).
This is not just a San Francisco thing...this is the case in many parts of
the US.
: Minor nit: 1/3 is 'most of'. But be that as it may,
In which universe?
: |> Back in the 1970's there were a series of groundbreaking
: |> court decisions handed down by the DC Court of Appeals saying essentially
: |> that the mentally ill could not be institutionalized against their will.
: |> The net result was that scores of mentally ill people across the United
: |> States exercised their newfound liberty and were released into the
: |> streets. The institutions that had once housed them were forced to close
: |> for lack of patients. And then everbody moved to San Francisco. Anyway,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where did you get _that_ idea?
: |> the above case provides an interesting background against which to
: |> evaluate the free-choice/paternalism dichotomy.
: In my opinion a false dichotomy: there are a lot of things possible between
: forced institutionalization and ignoring people all together. One could for
: example offer help to these people to live a normal life....
In fact, help has been offered to many of these people. You are forgetting
that they are mentally ill. Many of them are paranoid.
Jezus Chriztus
Marc Paul Jozef Van Loo <scip...@leonis.nus.sg> wrote:
> Jezus, wie is deze eikel?
The Emperor, aka the BOSS OF THE WORLD!!
Jezus
Sturkenboom Paul
> Date: Thu, 22 DEC 1994 07:34:08 GMT
> From: Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com>
> Newgroups: alt.drugs, talk.politics.drugs, soc.culture.singapore,
> soc.culture.netherlands
> Subject: Re: European freedoms (was: Re: Something for all you prohibitionists to think about)
Tim,
Stop wrapping yourself in the American Flag and stand back and take a
close, unbiased look. You might just see how you are wrong if you were
not so closed minded.
Greetings,
Paul
Lamont Granquist
>> American violence is only "random" to those who don't understand it because
>> all they know about it is what they've been told by the talking heads on TV.
>> And it's only numbing to cowards who don't have the self-respect who aren't
>> willing to defend themselves.
Granted you're correct, but i'm still waiting for a rationale other than
"freedom" for not having gun control. I've yet to see any kind of solid
stats on the utility of guns for defense. The stats i've heard suggest that
households with guns are more dangerous (domestic disputes, accidents, etc).
I also seriously doubt the utility of guns in the hands of the people for a
popular revolution -- i expect it just leads to a very bloody state of
affairs which would result in another totalitarian state.
Personally, when i get my shit together to do something about defending
myself i'm going to learn one of the martial arts...
>> >> Most street people in the USA are there by choice: they're either alcoholics
>> >> & drug addicts incapable of working (I know from experience, having tried
>> >> to employ many), or simply enamored of the leisure that comes with begging
>> >> for a living.
>> >
>> >What? You've gotta be kidding! Your world view seems to be shaped by a
>> >sense of "if they don't have it, they probably don't want it". I too
>> >believe that if you *really* want something, it is obtainable. But for
>> >someone to *really* want something takes a special kind of person. One
>> >with responsibility, faith and optimism. The first can be present in
>> >anybody, but you'll understand that the latter two are not among the most
>> >prominent characteristics of homeless people.
>>
>> You've merely restated my point: most street people are there by choice.
Lets go over learned helplessness one more time.
We take a dog and tie it up in a harness so that it is entirely immobile.
We then deliver a large electrical shock to its paw repeatedly and there is
nothing that the dog can do to escape. We then take a room which is
divided in half with both of the floors independently electrocuted and
a small barrier in between them. A normal dog placed in this room will
quickly learn to jump the barrier when an electrical current is placed on
the floor to escape shock. The dog which had previously been immobilized
and shocked will sit on the floor and whimper. Even when it is picked up
and taken across the barrier to the other side it still will not learn
and when the floor is electrocuted it will again sit on the floor and
whimper. Has the dog made a "choice" to stay on that side? Does it
"like" the electric shocks?
The parallel with the homeless i think is rather similar -- and i'm not
surprised that they've internalized the fact that they "like" being
homeless. When they've been rendered incapable of dealing with the
rest of society and find any attempt to get back into society meets them
with failure they'll quickly come to like their situation better than
the alternative.
This suggests two alternatives. Either kill the homeless to put them
out of their misery (these social darwinists always seem to be a little
bit leery of actually going out and engaging in the logical extention of
their thought) or else help them back into society. Personally, i doubt
that having the death penalty for failure would result in a society
that i'd like to live in. There are also studies suggesting that
learned helplessness can be unlearned, and that probably the homeless
could be brought back into society (ideally we'd have a socialist-inspired
safety-net in place to avoid them winding up there in the first place,
however).
Plus, life is not a zero-sum game. This is fundamentally why social
darwinism and naive individualism is wrong based on its premises.
>> >Smoking
>>
>> Legal.
Not for long.
>> >Abortion
>>
>> Legal.
Not for long.
>> >Voting (USA basically has a 2-party system. The Netherlands has 20+
>> >parties, of which 5 or 6 are big enough to have a reasonable influence)
>>
>> Legal, and a power rather than a freedom.
You can pick either the business party or the big-business party in the
US. Joy, what freedom.
>> Further, we don't have the draft, either.
That can be changed.
--
Lamont Granquist (lam...@u.washington.edu)
Dumb and Dumber: Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms.
Pete Hartman
>Stop wrapping yourself in the American Flag and stand back and take a
>close, unbiased look. You might just see how you are wrong if you were
>not so closed minded.
Your message would be more effective if it weren't at the end of
dozens of lines of irrelevantly quoted material.
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
the difference between underground electronic music of the 80's and
underground electronic music of the 90's can be summarized in one word:
Prozac.
Pete Hartman
>Personally, when i get my shit together to do something about defending
>myself i'm going to learn one of the martial arts...
Which, despite hollywood's portrayals to the contrary, won't do you
shit good against a gun.
In all serious my sensei said that if you are faced with any form of
projectile weapon, run.
Eric M. Visser
>In article <ERIC.94De...@matisse.ling.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>,
>Eric M. Visser <er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp> wrote:
>>tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>>>>> Why is such a large percentage of the
>>>>>Dutch population on welfare if they're considered to be such responsible
>>>>>individuals?
>>>>
>>>>In the Netherlands these people are on welfare, in the USA these people
>>>>have nowhere to turn to and have to live on the streets or turn to
>>>>crime.
>>>
>>>In other words, in the Netherlands, these people are not considered to be
>>>responsible for themselves. Rather, they are coddled by the nanny-state.
>>
>>And what, pray, does this have to do with freedom? Whether you're
>>forced to depend on the government for your income or on crime or
>>prostitution, sounds like basically the same thing to me in terms of
>>"freedom".
>
>Then you have no clue what freedom is. Freedom is not being taken care of
>from womb to tomb by Big Mother. Freedom is not being on the dole, at the
>mercy of the strings attached to the public purse by politicians and the
>arbitrary whims of welfare bureaucrats.
Ha, and _YOU_ are calling _ME_ clueless?! That's a joke! Freedom's got
nothing to do with the presence of absence of a safety net -- or if it
does, maybe you can explain the connection to me (mind you, I said
explain -- not just state that it exists, I've already taken note that
that's your opinion).
Now before I go on, I want to make one thing clear: I'm not arguing
that the Netherlands are a freer place than the United States. I'd
need to see more arguments from both sides before I can make up my
mind about that one (besides, I can't help but feeling that this kind
of one-upmanship (if that's the right word) is not very interesting).
What I do want to argue is that you're not making sense.
Everybody lives under certain constraints: we all pay taxes, whether
we like to or not, and we all obey the laws or else risk going to
prison. That does not make us slaves of the government. I think any
meaningful discussion has to stay within these constraints; if not, it
would probably be better to start a discussion on whether a wild
animal is freer than a human being, it's basically the same question
and you short-circuit the nationalistic crap.
I don't think the amount of freedom you have depends on the amount of
taxes you pay. If these taxes are used to enhance everyone's freedom,
which is basically the idea, then you're getting your money's worth.
Whether you get your money's worth or not again depends not on the
level of taxation, but on the quality of your government.
>The only difference between a life of crime and a life on the dole is that
>criminals at least have the courage to steal their ill-gotten gains them-
>selves instead of waiting around for the State to do it for them and then
>glorifying the State for robbing others to support them like the captive
>pets they are.
Oh, this is great. So given the choice between a criminal and a person
on the dole, you admire the criminal and despise the person on the
dole. Most jobless people don't enjoy being jobless, you know. Is that
so hard to understand?
>Prostitution, on the other hand, is an honorable and noble profession in
>which valuable personal services are freely exchanged for some good
>consideration in return. Prostitutes are much freer than welfare bums and
>crooks.
Don't get me wrong: I have no moral qualms about prostitution, as far
as I'm concerned it's a profession like any other and it shouldn't be
illegal (just like drugs, really :-). But by the very fact that it's
illegal, it's a profession that few people choose of their own free
will (who wants to be in constant apprehension of being picked up by
the cops, beaten up by your pimp or a crazy customer, catching a scary
disease and whatnot), and even fewer stay with of their own free will.
To glorify prostitutes as the last truly free people on Earth (apart
from yourself, I suppose) is really nothing but giving away your
ignorance.
>>I have the idea that you're equating "freedom" with "economic
>>freedom", the freedom to be as rich or as poor as you can or like to
>>be. I think there's a bit more to it than that. And besides, you have
>>that freedom in the Netherlands too...
>
>Economic freedom is a necessary part of total freedom. And, as I have
>argued, we have more of it, still, in the USA than there is in the Netherlands.
Economic freedom is a part, but like with everything else, there is a
tradeoff. It's not black-and-white, and your views on this issue are
just way to simplistic.
>>And throwing around epithets like "the nanny-state" is not exactly the
>>right way to win admiration for the force of your arguments...
>
>Goethe once said that none are more totally enslaved than those who falsely
>believe they are free. Why should I seek the admiration of slaves?
Juvenile bullshit.
>>>Most street people in the USA are there by choice: ...
>>
>>Yeah, sure. Then how come there's so many of them in the USA, and not
>>in the Netherlands? You can sleep on the streets in Holland too you
>>know, if you want to. Just don't pick up your allowance. They won't
>>force-feed it to you. Ah well, maybe it's all a cultural thing.
>
>Yes, I think it is cultural.
Ah. So maybe your ideas of freedom are also culturally predetermined.
Maybe your thinking is not as free as you think. Maybe we can't have a
meaningful discussion anyway. What do you think?
>Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
>The International Society for Individual Liberty,
>1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
>(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034...@compuserve.com
This would give the impression that you regularly think about these
things, but from your posts so far in this thread I haven't been able
to tell. Is this newsletter available electronically? Care to send me
one?
Kenneth van Grinsven
>Kenneth van Grinsven responds:
>>In <3d6q14$30...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com> STN...@prodigy.com >(Pieter
>Coenraads) writes:
>>>A higher standard of living? You have got to be kidding! After
>getting
>>>my HBO diploma in Holland (lived there for 15 years) I emigrated to
>the
>>US, where I outearned bruto & ESPECIALLY netto most of my class.
>>Good for you.
>>Are you saving extra money just in case you might get fired, become
>unable
>>to work, have 3 kids who want to go to college, ...
>As a matter of fact, I am saving extra money. At least it's ME who
>determines how it's spent, NOT the government !
Ok, so what about people who's parents don't support their plans to
go to college, who'll end up working at Dunkin Dougnuts trying to
make enough money to go through college. If they're about average or
a little better, they probably won't receive a private scholarship.
Which means that for alot of people higher education is something
beyond their reach.
That is ofcourse alright if a society based on different classes seems
alright to you, sort of like a heridital system.
But I don't agree with that, and am willing to pay some extra taxes
for that.
>Just another example of freedom, independence & responsibility that is so
>hard to come by in Holland.
Freedom to be selfish, independant of the needs of other people, being
only responsible to yourself and not responsible to the society where
you live in.
Thanks, but I'll pass that.
Kenneth
Edward Hartnett
T> Economic freedom is a necessary part of total freedom. And, as I have
T> argued, we have more of it, still, in the USA than there is in the Netherlands.
As someone who has lived in both the US and Europe, I must
disagree. Much as I love the USA, I felt considerably more free in
Ireland. Even more so when I visited the Netherlands, which I must say
is one of the sanest places on Earth. Yes, the tax burden in Eurpoe is
higher. In Ireland I paid about 60% of my salary in taxes, and then an
addition 15 to 25% on most everything I bought. But these numbers are
misleading when compared to American numbers, for a variety of
reasons.
Firstly, and most importantly, there are more gov't services. You
might argue that you don't want to pay for serives you don't use, but
that is what you do in America anyway, and it only becomes a question
of how much you pay and how many services you get (want them or
not). One important example is higher education. In America you are
expected to pay the ridiculous costs of College via the famous student
loan. In Europe this is not the usual case (as far as I am aware), and
the gov't picks up more of the tab. As a result an American gets a
higher starting salary, but has to pay a hefty student loan payment
every month. Pay scales are considerably lower in Europe for college
grads, but usually you are debt free, and that makes all the
difference.
Secondly in Europe companies give more perks to their employees. Five
weeks vacation are the norm, company cars are far more common, as are
other rewards like a free trip somewhere, etc. The reason of course is
that these will not be taxed as income. In fact, much of this is
*almost* illegal. Basically the companies in America will be much more
stingy with perks. This does vary widely from company to company, both
in Europe and America.
Certain tax breaks are very generous, for example if you are buying a
house or starting a business.
I know these things for a fact, as my brother, who is a year older
than me, and also an electrical engineer, has lived and worked in
Ireland for about 5 years now. He just bought a house. Though he makes
less money on paper, and is taxed more, his lifestyle is about the
same as mine. And Ireland has some of the worst taxes in Europe.
>> And throwing around epithets like "the nanny-state" is not exactly the
>> right way to win admiration for the force of your arguments...
T> Goethe once said that none are more totally enslaved than those who falsely
T> believe they are free. Why should I seek the admiration of slaves?
Calling Europeans slaves is really quite silly. As I say, if they are,
we are too.
In Europe non-violent criminals do not make up the majority of
prisoners in jail, the cops won't break into your house and shoot you
because they don't like your plants, and "live and let live" is a much
more common attitude (from the gov't) than it is in America.
The fact that they tax more and provide more gov't services might bug
you, but most people there are happy with it. And if not, it is
something they can (and do) change to suit the majority. But there is
more freedom on the street than there is in America, sad to say.
--
Edward Hartnett - e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov - (301) 286-2396
Code 910.3, NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt MD, 20771 - fax: 286-1754
IAGO: How poor are they that have not patience! What wound did ever
heal but by degrees? Thou know'st we work by wit, and not by
witchcraft; And wit depends on dilatory time.
Mike Schenk
>>>A higher standard of living? You have got to be kidding! After
>getting
>>>my HBO diploma in Holland (lived there for 15 years) I emigrated to
>the
>>US, where I outearned bruto & ESPECIALLY netto most of my class.
>>Good for you.
>>Are you saving extra money just in case you might get fired, become
>unable
>>to work, have 3 kids who want to go to college, ...
>As a matter of fact, I am saving extra money. At least it's ME who
>determines how it's spent, NOT the government !
Did you also take into account that the cost of living is higher (much
higher) in the US than it is in the Netherlands. Ofcourse you get a
higher salary, but it's not proportional to the higher prices of almost
everything (except cds, jeans and sneakers).
Mike
Jonathan R. Engelsma
|>
|> Did you also take into account that the cost of living is higher (much
|> higher) in the US than it is in the Netherlands. Ofcourse you get a
|> higher salary, but it's not proportional to the higher prices of almost
|> everything (except cds, jeans and sneakers).
|>
Is the cost of living really higher in the USA than the Netherlands?
Here is a list of items/prices that are commonly used to survive in the
Chicago suburbs, and probably would be quite useful in the Netherlands
as well. Somebody in the NL tell us the approx. price there. I realize
a 1 for 1 comparison like this isn't enough to help us conclude where the
cost of living is higher (there are other factors that need to be considered
as well), but I think it is still interesting.
* 2 bedroom, 1 bath apartment (usually includes a refrigerator, stove,
and coin operated shared laundry facilities, heat and hot water)
Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $800/month (rent)
* 3 bedroom, 2 bath, single family home:
Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $160,000 (purchase price)
* New standard 4-door automobile (probably would include air conditioning,
power steering and automatic transmission):
Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $14,000 (purchase prices)
* Loaf of bread (won't taste as good as the fresh baked bread in the NL :-(
Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1.50
* Gallon of milk (4 liters?)
Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $2
* 1 lb. ground beef (0.5 kilo?)
Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $2
* Gallon of gas (4 liters?)
Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1.25
* Cell phone
Cost in Chicago 'burbs: free - $100 with $25/month service contract (12 month)
prime time charge per minute is around $0.35.
* PC (486DX, 340M HD, 8M RAM, VGA)
Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1200
* Typical entree in a mid-priced restaurant (=not fastfood) (ex. a salad, steak,
potato, vegetable, dessert & beverage)
Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $12
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jonathan R. Engelsma Motorola Inc.
enge...@cig.mot.com Cellular Infrastructure Group
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mike Schenk
>In article <D1HMA...@news.research.ptt.nl>, M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl (Mike Schenk) writes:
>|>
>|> Did you also take into account that the cost of living is higher (much
>|> higher) in the US than it is in the Netherlands. Ofcourse you get a
>|> higher salary, but it's not proportional to the higher prices of almost
>|> everything (except cds, jeans and sneakers).
>|>
>
>Is the cost of living really higher in the USA than the Netherlands?
>Here is a list of items/prices that are commonly used to survive in the
>Chicago suburbs, and probably would be quite useful in the Netherlands
>as well. Somebody in the NL tell us the approx. price there. I realize
>a 1 for 1 comparison like this isn't enough to help us conclude where the
>cost of living is higher (there are other factors that need to be considered
>as well), but I think it is still interesting.
I am sure it is more expensive in the US. I've just come back from New
Jersey and I spent a lot more money on day-to-day things in New Jersey
than I did in the Netherlands.
For one thing, houses are much more expensive. The gas and electric
bills are much higher (especially because of the rather poor insulation
of US houses).
>* 2 bedroom, 1 bath apartment (usually includes a refrigerator, stove,
>and coin operated shared laundry facilities, heat and hot water)
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $800/month (rent)
I have a similar apartment in the Netherlands, close to the Hague where
houses are expensive and I pay about half of that.
>* 3 bedroom, 2 bath, single family home:
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $160,000 (purchase price)
Depending on where you buy it. Around the Haguu about the same price,
somewhere else, about half of the price. And don't forget that US houses
usually are made of wood while Dutch houses are made of bricks or
concrete so they last longer and are better insulated.
>* New standard 4-door automobile (probably would include air conditioning,
>power steering and automatic transmission):
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $14,000 (purchase prices)
Cars are less expensive in the US, but the differences isn't as big as I
suspected at first.
>* Loaf of bread (won't taste as good as the fresh baked bread in the NL :-(
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1.50
About the same price, or a little less. BTW in New Jersey a loaf of
bread could be up to 3 dollars and it still tasted awful.
>* Gallon of milk (4 liters?)
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $2
3.57 liters, a little cheaper than in the Netherlands.
>* 1 lb. ground beef (0.5 kilo?)
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $2
A little cheaper than in the Netherlands, about 12 guilders per kilo I
think. which is about 7 dollars
>* Gallon of gas (4 liters?)
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1.25
About three times as much in the Netherlands. However, if you drive a
lot, in the Netherlands people usually use propane wich is actually
cheaper than US gasoline.
>* Cell phone
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: free - $100 with $25/month service contract (12 month)
> prime time charge per minute is around $0.35.
I have no idea, cell phones aren't that popular yet in the US. However,
normal phone bills are usually the same in the Netherlands than in the
US. My phone bill in the US normally was about 18 dollars a month (not
including international calls) and in the Netherlands it is about 45
guilders a month. This is cheaper, but this includes a lot of long
distance calls, while in the US I didn't make long distance calls
because all the people I knew lived close by.
>* PC (486DX, 340M HD, 8M RAM, VGA)
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1200
3500 guilders in the Netherlands, maybe cheaper if you really look for
it. Still a little more expensive than it is in the US, but not so
dramatic as I thought before I moved to the US:
>* Typical entree in a mid-priced restaurant (=not fastfood) (ex. a salad, steak,
>potato, vegetable, dessert & beverage)
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $12
The same price.
Concluding, some things are more expensive in the Netherlands, but these
are not things you buy everyday. Examples are CDs (but not so big as it
used to be, an average cd is now about 15 dollars ex. tax) and jeans
(esp. Levi's). But the cost of electric and gas bills, combined with the
rent or mortgage on a house plus the higher cost of food make the cost
of living much more expensive in the US.
Also things you didn't mention are vegetables, which are very expensive
in the US and because Americans don't eat much vegetables, you have to
make up for it with expensive vitamine tablets. Also going to a doctor
is very expensive in the US.
And another thing, the prices you mentioned are excluding taxes while
the Dutch prices are including taxes.
Mike
Tim Starr
<KU...@frcpn11.in2p3.fr> wrote:
>In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com>
>tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>> [Deletia]
>>
>>A State that considers its citizens dependent upon it so as to need to be
>>provided with goods such as food, clothing, shelter, etc., is not treating
>>them as free and independent beings. This point is true no matter how much
>>you like being coddled by the Dutch nanny-state, no matter how much you like
>>the social effects of such elitism.
>>
>I have the impression, that you forget that `the State' is not an abstract
>entity, but are our *chosen* representatives.
Bullshit. The U.S. government isn't even based upon the consent of the
governed, much less the Dutch. See Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: The
Constitution of No Authority" for more about this. You can ftp it from the
/pub/libernet/something directory on think.com, or read it in "The Lysander
Spooner Reader," published by Fox & Wilkes, San Francisco, and sold by such
libertarian bookstores as Freedom's Forum (a subsidiary of ISIL) or Laissez-
Faire Books.
>And I want it that way, because I consider a human society as being a little
>bit more than a jungle where everybody has to fight and struggle to stay
>alive. That would be the behaviour of animals.
You might want to check into the history of your own country prior to the
conquest of the Hapsburgs, when there was no State there. Things weren't
perfect then, and far worse than today in many ways, but it was hardly the
Hobbesian war of all against all.
>I consider myself to be a human being.
All well and good, but the subject under discussion wasn't what you consider
yourself but what you are considered by your State. Specifically, the
original claim was that your State considers you freer and more independent
than the USA considers me. I have argued the contrary. Whether you want to
be considered less free and independent by your State does nothing to show
that I have argued falsely.
Tim Starr
>In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>>VARA! <vr...@knoware.nl> wrote:
>>>Gambling
>>
>>We have legal gambling in Nevada, Atlantic City, Indian reservations, Bingo
>>parlors, card rooms, lotteries, etc.
>
Nor is it everywhere in Europe, either.
>And note that smoking is illegal in many public places nowadays, and on all
>scheduled airline flights, whereas smoking is pretty much legal everywhere
>in Europe.
Okay: people are somewhat freer to smoke in Europe than they are in the USA.
Freer to poison the air others breathe. How nice.
>>>Euthanasia
>>
>>Now legal in Oregon.
>
>But still subject to court challenges.
And de facto legal in Michigan thanks to jury nullification - something
absent from the entire European Continent, because no trial by jury is
practiced there.
>>>Voting (USA basically has a 2-party system. The Netherlands has 20+
>>>parties, of which 5 or 6 are big enough to have a reasonable influence)
>>
>>Legal, and a power rather than a freedom.
>
>Yes, but the point that the US 2-party system is pretty flawed is a good
>one.
One need only glance at Italian politics to see the flaws of multi-party
systems.
>>>The protection against unreasonable search and seizure (Civil Forfeiture)
>>
>>What happens to a Dutch national if he doesn't pay his taxes?
>
>I don't know much about other countries, but I do know that the precedent
>set by RICO and the asset forfeiture laws that have followed indicate an
>abysmal lack of respect for the US Constitution by the legislators, courts
>and police.
The tide is turning in this regard. The Supreme Court has struck down some
kinds of civil forfeiture, tightening the reins of law-enforcement through
judicial review just as Madison intended. Judicial review absent from many
European countries, I might add.
>>None of whom hold any legal power over me, with the possible exception of
>>Newt. The KKK is dead. My local paper just ran a long article about its
>>long-overdue demise last Sunday.
>
>Hmmmm -- I think the news of the death of the KKK and its ilk may be
>premature. We still have far too much racism in the US -- just look at
>Prop. 187 in California, which, IMHO, is due much more to racism than to
>any fears of illegal immigrants.
Prop. 187 makes people slightly less free in that they might be reported to
the INS and deported, but that's about it.
>>Further, we don't have the draft, either.
>
>But we do still have REGISTRATION for the draft! And the denial of student
>loans for any MALE (also we have a sexist armed services) who doesn't
>register.
I never said the USA was perfect, only better than any of the alternatives.
Tim Starr
Sturkenboom Paul <stu...@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>Tim,
>
>Stop wrapping yourself in the American Flag and stand back and take a
>close, unbiased look. You might just see how you are wrong if you were
>not so closed minded.
I spit on the Stars & Stripes. My flag is the flag of the American
Revolution: the Rattlesnake who's motto is: Don't Tread On Me.
I'm well aware of the many defects of my country. My loyalty is to the
principles it was based upon, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
not to flags, tyrants, etc. If there were a less tyrannical country on
the face of the earth I'd be overjoyed! But I'm aware of none, and no
one has informed me of any. All they have done is crowed to the heavens
how much they love their tyrannies.
Tim Starr
Lamont Granquist <lam...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Sturkenboom Paul <stu...@server.uwindsor.ca> writes:
>>On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Tim Starr wrote:
>>>and others:
>>> American violence is only "random" to those who don't understand it because
>>> all they know about it is what they've been told by the talking heads on TV.
>>> And it's only numbing to cowards who don't have the self-respect who aren't
>>> willing to defend themselves.
>
>Granted you're correct, but i'm still waiting for a rationale other than
>"freedom" for not having gun control. I've yet to see any kind of solid
>stats on the utility of guns for defense. The stats i've heard suggest that
>households with guns are more dangerous (domestic disputes, accidents, etc).
The most commonly-cited statistics allegedly showing that the costs of guns
outweigh their benefits come from the work of Dr. Stanley Kellerman, whose
work is so incompetent on grounds of poor scholarship that no criminology
journal will publish his research - leaving it to _medical_ journals like the
New England Journal of Medicine to publish them even though gun violence in
no way meets such standards of pathogenicity as Koch's postulates. He's the
author of the myth that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used
against a family member than defensively, that those with guns in the home
are 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims, etc. His work has been
roundly criticized by award-winning criminologists in various academic
journals, criminological and medical.
Award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University did a
survey which found that Americans defend themselves with guns up to 2.5 million
times a year, and that 1 out of 6 of these people are absolutely certain that
a death woud've resulted if they hadn't acted as they did. His results were
concordant with almost a dozen other similar surveys, which all found that
Americans defended themselves with guns between about 600,000 to 2.5 million
times annually (the wide variation between their results stems from some
fairly significant differences in the surveys).
>I also seriously doubt the utility of guns in the hands of the people for a
>popular revolution -- i expect it just leads to a very bloody state of
>affairs which would result in another totalitarian state.
Private firearms played a major role in the American revolution, and have
proven effective in many cases since:
"The twentieth century provides NO EXAMPLE of a determined populace with
access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost
in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-
China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the "modern"
army. In China, Cuba, and Nicarague, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-Shek,
Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland,
Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerilla warfare can
triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting
governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people
who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle
it to a standstill, subverting major portions of the army or defeating it
themselves or with major arms supplied by outside forces." - Wayne LaPierre,
"Guns, Crime, and Freedom," pp. 19-20
And LaPierre left out the case of the Iranian revolution against the Shah.
As for the outcome of such conflicts, that's determined by the motives of
the fighters, not their means.
>Personally, when i get my shit together to do something about defending
>myself i'm going to learn one of the martial arts...
By all means, do so. I intend to study more than I've managed to pick up from
those friends of mine who have someday. But consider the following:
"Martial arts training requires that an individual, to be successful, must be
physically fit and trained to such a high degree that one is capable of taking
on several opponents at once... the martial artist who can be so trained and
maintain such a skill level is rare. Further, Dr. Keith Kato, a second _dan_
Black Belt in karate with a doctorate in physics, has concluded that martial
arts are of virtually no use against an attacker armed with a firearm, since
the firearm can be successfully fired before the martial artist can come
within range to disarm the attacker." - J. Neil Schulman, "Stopping Power,"
p. 102
Further, FBI data from the Uniform Crime Index indicate that the safest and
most effective way to defend yourself against a crime is with a gun (which
isn't fired about 95% of the time). Defensive gun use is not only safer than
knives & other weapons, but is even safer than no defense at all. This is no
reason to get trigger-happy or stop avoiding criminal confrontations, but it
does go to show that self-defense with a gun works best if avoidance fails.
>The parallel with the homeless i think is rather similar...
I have never known any such homeless person, have you? All the homeless
people I have known are quite capable of helping themselves. They simply
choose not to. They'd rather beg for enough money to drink their next
meal, pass out & lie in the gutter. Or worse.
I've known homeless people quite capable of helping themselves by working
hard long enough to earn enough to buy another bottle of vodka. They've
displayed talent, initiative, skill, & industriousness - until they can
get drunk again.
>This suggests two alternatives. Either kill the homeless to put them
>out of their misery (these social darwinists always seem to be a little
>bit leery of actually going out and engaging in the logical extention of
>their thought)...
Why should they be put out of their misery? For that matter, why do you
assume that they're uniformly miserable? How do you know they don't prefer
their drunken stupor to the "normal" lifestyle? Why shouldn't they be
free to live their lives the way they want to?
>...or else help them back into society.
All who want help can get it now. I've known some who have done so. I've
actually sheltered a homeless friend in my own home. His father threw him
out in his senior year of high school for pressing charges against him for
beating him with a whip until his back was covered with bruises. He slept
on our living room couch as well as on those of other friends until he could
get back on his feet again. Those who want help should have it made
available to them, so long as none are extorted out of money or labor to
provide it.
>Plus, life is not a zero-sum game. This is fundamentally why social
>darwinism and naive individualism is wrong based on its premises.
Strawman.
>>> >Smoking
>>>
>>> Legal.
>
>Not for long.
Nah. It'll be legal for a long time to come. The Tobacco industry gives
too much money to electoral campaigns for it to ever be prohibited.
>>> >Abortion
>>>
>>> Legal.
>
>Not for long.
Nah. Not even Reagan could get any anti-abortion legislation past Nancy.
>>> >Voting (USA basically has a 2-party system. The Netherlands has 20+
>>> >parties, of which 5 or 6 are big enough to have a reasonable influence)
>>>
>>> Legal, and a power rather than a freedom.
>
>You can pick either the business party or the big-business party in the
>US. Joy, what freedom.
It isn't freedom, it's power. That's why it's so distasteful. The only
thing that a multi-party system would do is make it so that you could
authorize neo-segregationists like the American Independent Party or eco-
fascists like the Green Party to rob, enslave, tyrannize & enslave the
people, that's all, just like in all the multi-party countries around the
globe right now.
>>> Further, we don't have the draft, either.
>
>That can be changed.
That still doesn't change the fact that we don't have it right now, whereas
Holland and most other European countries do.
Mike Schenk
>In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.94122...@server.uwindsor.ca>,
>Sturkenboom Paul <stu...@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>>Tim,
>>
>>Stop wrapping yourself in the American Flag and stand back and take a
>>close, unbiased look. You might just see how you are wrong if you were
>>not so closed minded.
>
>I spit on the Stars & Stripes. My flag is the flag of the American
>Revolution: the Rattlesnake who's motto is: Don't Tread On Me.
>
>I'm well aware of the many defects of my country. My loyalty is to the
>principles it was based upon, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
>not to flags, tyrants, etc. If there were a less tyrannical country on
>the face of the earth I'd be overjoyed! But I'm aware of none, and no
>one has informed me of any. All they have done is crowed to the heavens
>how much they love their tyrannies.
Maybe you should take your head out of your arse and have a look around.
Almost any Western country has more freedom than the US. You're just to
stupid to see it.
Mike
Tim Starr
Eric M. Visser <er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp> wrote:
>>>>In other words, in the Netherlands, these people are not considered to be
>>>>responsible for themselves. Rather, they are coddled by the nanny-state.
>>>
>>>And what, pray, does this have to do with freedom? Whether you're
>>>forced to depend on the government for your income or on crime or
>>>prostitution, sounds like basically the same thing to me in terms of
>>>"freedom".
>>
>>Then you have no clue what freedom is. Freedom is not being taken care of
>>from womb to tomb by Big Mother. Freedom is not being on the dole, at the
>>mercy of the strings attached to the public purse by politicians and the
>>arbitrary whims of welfare bureaucrats.
>
>Ha, and _YOU_ are calling _ME_ clueless?! That's a joke! Freedom's got
>nothing to do with the presence of absence of a safety net -- or if it
If you aren't free to fail, you aren't free. You may not want to be free
to fail, but, if so, then you don't want freedom, you want serfdom.
>Everybody lives under certain constraints: we all pay taxes, whether
>we like to or not, and we all obey the laws or else risk going to
>prison. That does not make us slaves of the government. I think any
>meaningful discussion has to stay within these constraints; if not, it
>would probably be better to start a discussion on whether a wild
>animal is freer than a human being, it's basically the same question
>and you short-circuit the nationalistic crap.
In other words, grant you your unsound premises, and you'll be willing
to discuss things with me? No, thanks. Taxation & subjugation to
the involuntary jurisdiction of the State does indeed make one enslaved
to the State. (BTW, IRS spokespeople admit that at least 20% of the U.S.
tax-liable population doesn't pay income taxes.) Beasts have no free
will, and thus aren't capable of being as free as human beings.
>I don't think the amount of freedom you have depends on the amount of
>taxes you pay. If these taxes are used to enhance everyone's freedom,
>which is basically the idea, then you're getting your money's worth.
"I don't think the amount of freedom you have depends on how much of your
hard-earned money is robbed from you by the threat of force. If the gang
of thieves uses the money to enrich themselves & their cronies, which is
the basic idea, then they're getting your money's worth."
>Whether you get your money's worth or not again depends not on the
>level of taxation, but on the quality of your government.
The level of taxation is one of the things that goes to show what the quality
of the government is.
>>The only difference between a life of crime and a life on the dole is that
>>criminals at least have the courage to steal their ill-gotten gains them-
>>selves instead of waiting around for the State to do it for them and then
>>glorifying the State for robbing others to support them like the captive
>>pets they are.
>
>Oh, this is great. So given the choice between a criminal and a person
>on the dole, you admire the criminal and despise the person on the
>dole. Most jobless people don't enjoy being jobless, you know. Is that
>so hard to understand?
Whether they enjoy their lot has nothing to do with how they compare to the
freelance criminal.
>>Prostitution, on the other hand, is an honorable and noble profession in
>>which valuable personal services are freely exchanged for some good
>>consideration in return. Prostitutes are much freer than welfare bums and
>>crooks.
>
>Don't get me wrong: I have no moral qualms about prostitution, as far
>as I'm concerned it's a profession like any other and it shouldn't be
>illegal (just like drugs, really :-). But by the very fact that it's
>illegal, it's a profession that few people choose of their own free
>will (who wants to be in constant apprehension of being picked up by
>the cops, beaten up by your pimp or a crazy customer, catching a scary
>disease and whatnot), and even fewer stay with of their own free will.
How many prostitutes do you know? I have a friend who works with the S.F.
Task Force on Prostitution here, and knows quite a few. None have reported
being so coerced into their occupation. Such cases don't represent the
norm in the profession. Rather, they represent the exception to the rule.
Most prostitutes make good money, work short hours of their own choosing,
live well, take frequent vacations, drive nice cars, etc. They'd be even
better off if it were legal, and be less dependent upon the whims of their
madams/pimps (if they have any - most establish their own independent client
base & work for themselves), but they're still considerably better of than
either crooks or those on the dole.
>To glorify prostitutes as the last truly free people on Earth (apart
>from yourself, I suppose) is really nothing but giving away your
>ignorance.
Since I did no such thing, I displayed no such ignorance. You've simply
erected a strawman from the figments of your own imagination to strike down
in my place.
>>>I have the idea that you're equating "freedom" with "economic
>>>freedom", the freedom to be as rich or as poor as you can or like to
>>>be. I think there's a bit more to it than that. And besides, you have
>>>that freedom in the Netherlands too...
>>
>>Economic freedom is a necessary part of total freedom. And, as I have
>>argued, we have more of it, still, in the USA than there is in the Netherlands.
>
>Economic freedom is a part, but like with everything else, there is a
>tradeoff. It's not black-and-white, and your views on this issue are
>just way to simplistic.
How do you know whether my views are simple or complex?
>>>And throwing around epithets like "the nanny-state" is not exactly the
>>>right way to win admiration for the force of your arguments...
>>
>>Goethe once said that none are more totally enslaved than those who falsely
>>believe they are free. Why should I seek the admiration of slaves?
>
>Juvenile bullshit.
So much for one of the most celebrated minds in European history.
>>>>Most street people in the USA are there by choice: ...
>>>
>>>Yeah, sure. Then how come there's so many of them in the USA, and not
>>>in the Netherlands? You can sleep on the streets in Holland too you
>>>know, if you want to. Just don't pick up your allowance. They won't
>>>force-feed it to you. Ah well, maybe it's all a cultural thing.
>>
>>Yes, I think it is cultural.
>
>Ah. So maybe your ideas of freedom are also culturally predetermined.
>Maybe your thinking is not as free as you think. Maybe we can't have a
>meaningful discussion anyway. What do you think?
Nice try, but no cigar.
>>Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
>>The International Society for Individual Liberty,
>>1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
>>(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034...@compuserve.com
>
>This would give the impression that you regularly think about these
>things, but from your posts so far in this thread I haven't been able
>to tell. Is this newsletter available electronically? Care to send me
>one?
The FNN isn't yet available electronically. We'll be happy to send you
and everyone else a sample copy if you'll send us your regular mailing
address to the compuserve address in my .sig below:
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034...@compuserve.com
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Tim Starr
ANDRES ZLOTSKY <vp24...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>...A "State" that allegedly goes
>about its business by leaving its subjects to fend for themselves merely in
>order to stay alive is not only a contradiction of the notion of state -- it is
>a mockery of itself, and even a monstrosity that denies the grounds of its own
>existence.
A State is nothing more than a territorial monopoly of legitimate violence, and
all States that have ever existed in history have been founded upon conquest &
confiscation. How is any of this contradicted or mocked by a State that will
have nothing to do with providing for the care of its subjects? Are you trying
to say that a State concerned with its own welfare will take good care of its
subjects just as a sheperd takes good care of his sheep so that he will have
more rewards when he fleeces & slaughters them?
>As Ronald rightly states, a state which distances itself from its function as
>the main benefactor of the society from which it stems is not fit for humans.
The State is the main benefactor of Society? How? What does it produce that
it does not first rob from Society in order to make? What does it do that it
does not first disable Society from doing?
>...It takes a fool, and a suicidal one, to even imagine that
>free access to guns could possibly ensure anyone's safety.
On the contrary, as has been amply proven in all 6,000 years of human history,
those that trust to the standing armies of the State for their security are the
suicidal ones. The example of the Jews who let themselves be disarmed by the
Nazis prior to their slaughter should be proof enough of this, but history is
full of plenty more.
>And I have not even mentioned the impact -- that is, the increase in violence
>-- that the new bigoted doctrins of childish hatred will cause to arise among
>us.
What hatred have I expressed? Whom have I directed it at?
Mike Schenk
> <KU...@frcpn11.in2p3.fr> wrote:
>>tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>>
>>> [Deletia]
>>>
>>>A State that considers its citizens dependent upon it so as to need to be
>>>provided with goods such as food, clothing, shelter, etc., is not treating
>>>them as free and independent beings. This point is true no matter how much
>>>you like being coddled by the Dutch nanny-state, no matter how much you like
>>>the social effects of such elitism.
[.....]
>>I consider myself to be a human being.
>
>All well and good, but the subject under discussion wasn't what you consider
>yourself but what you are considered by your State. Specifically, the
>original claim was that your State considers you freer and more independent
>than the USA considers me. I have argued the contrary. Whether you want to
>be considered less free and independent by your State does nothing to show
>that I have argued falsely.
I don't think you have argued this. The Dutch people do not depend on
the State to provide food and so on. Most people are perfectly capable
to provide a living for themselves. However, some people don't and many
times it is for reasons that are beyond their reach. So they can't help
it that they are not able to provide for themselves. Someone who has
been working in a factory that got automized and only has job skills
that aren't required anymore and is above 35 has a hard time finding
another job. The Dutch government supports a person like this and gives
him the oppurtunity to get additional training for another kind of job.
In the US, this would not be possible, this person would not get a new
training and would not be able to support himself. Maybe he gets
wellfare, of which he can't live and he'll end up in the gutter.
And people who have to beg for money in the streets may be independent
and free from the governments, but they most certainly aren't
independent people.
Now to other things, in the US everything goes according to the book. If
you don't follow the book, you're out. Not a very independent way of
living.
Mike
Rob Barends
>DATE: 28 Dec 1994 19:18:14 GMT
>FROM: Jonathan R. Engelsma <enge...@rtsg.mot.com>
>
>In article <D1HMA...@news.research.ptt.nl>, M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl (Mike Schenk) writes:
>|>
>|> Did you also take into account that the cost of living is higher (much
>|> higher) in the US than it is in the Netherlands. Ofcourse you get a
>|> higher salary, but it's not proportional to the higher prices of almost
>|> everything (except cds, jeans and sneakers).
>|>
>
>Is the cost of living really higher in the USA than the Netherlands?
>Here is a list of items/prices that are commonly used to survive in the
>Chicago suburbs, and probably would be quite useful in the Netherlands
>as well. Somebody in the NL tell us the approx. price there. I realize
>a 1 for 1 comparison like this isn't enough to help us conclude where the
>cost of living is higher (there are other factors that need to be considered
>as well), but I think it is still interesting.
>
>* 2 bedroom, 1 bath apartment (usually includes a refrigerator, stove,
>and coin operated shared laundry facilities, heat and hot water)
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $800/month (rent)
>
I'm paying $645/mo in Austin, TX
>
>* 3 bedroom, 2 bath, single family home:
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $160,000 (purchase price)
>
Starts at no more than $100K in Austin, TX. Woodframe or brick-veneer, of
course.
>
>* New standard 4-door automobile (probably would include air conditioning,
>power steering and automatic transmission):
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $14,000 (purchase prices)
>
Same. Also includes AM/FM/cassette.
>
>* Loaf of bread (won't taste as good as the fresh baked bread in the NL :-(
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1.50
>
$1.29 for a fresh-baked baguette in Austin, TX.
>
>* Gallon of milk (4 liters?)
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $2
>
Same.
>
>* 1 lb. ground beef (0.5 kilo?)
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $2
>
1.5 lbs extra lean = $1.66 in Austin, TX.
>
>* Gallon of gas (4 liters?)
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1.25
>
One gallon of regular unleaded = $1.09 in Austin, TX.
>
>* Cell phone
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: free - $100 with $25/month service contract (12 month)
> prime time charge per minute is around $0.35.
>
Same.
>
>* PC (486DX, 340M HD, 8M RAM, VGA)
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1200
>
Depends. Mail order from Dell is $1100, but buying a Compaq at Circuit City
would be about $1200 in Austin, TX. I bought mine at a CompuAdd inventory
sale (right after they closed their retail outlets) for $995.
>
>* Typical entree in a mid-priced restaurant (=not fastfood) (ex. a salad, steak,
>potato, vegetable, dessert & beverage)
> Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $12
>
That surprises me. The (alcoholic) beverage alone costs $3.50 here. Same for
any kind of dessert (cheese cake, ice cream). And the entree ranges from
$7 (fettucine alfredo, pizza, chicken lo mein) to $15 (salmon steak, prime
rib). I drop about $20.- + tip when I eat out in Austin, TX.
>
>--
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Jonathan R. Engelsma Motorola Inc.
>enge...@cig.mot.com Cellular Infrastructure Group
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
Rob.
Adriana C. Bruggeman
: In article <D1HMA...@news.research.ptt.nl>, M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl (Mike Schenk) writes:
: |>
[intro-discussion geknipt]
: * 2 bedroom, 1 bath apartment (usually includes a refrigerator, stove,
: and coin operated shared laundry facilities, heat and hot water)
: Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $800/month (rent)
* similar, excluding heat and hot
Cost in Blacksburg, VA: $400 / month (rent)
: * 3 bedroom, 2 bath, single family home:
: Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $160,000 (purchase price)
* 3 bedroom, 2 bath, single family cardboard box:
Cost in Blacksburg, VA: $ pak-'m-beet de helft
: * New standard 4-door automobile (probably would include air conditioning,
: power steering and automatic transmission):
: Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $14,000 (purchase prices)
* New cool 12-speed bike (including free air):
Cost in Blacksburg, VA: $560
: * Loaf of bread (won't taste as good as the fresh baked bread in the NL :-(
: Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1.50
* Loaf of decent bakery-fresh bread:
Cost in Blacksburg, VA: $2.29
* Loaf of factory-made pre-chewed bread:
Cost in Blacksburg, VA: $0.99
: * Gallon of milk (4 liters?)
: Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $2
* Quart of Yogurt (0.9 liter)
Cost in Blacksburg, VA: $1.99
: * 1 lb. ground beef (0.5 kilo?)
: Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $2
* head lettuce
Cost in Blacksburg, VA: $1.50 (winter), $0.99 (summer)
* 2 pound carrots (0.9 kg)
Cost in Blacksburg, VA: $1.29
* 1 pound bananas (0.45 kg)
Cost in Blacksburg, VA: $0.49
: * Gallon of gas (4 liters?)
: Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1.25
* Not in my bike, please!
: * Cell phone
: Cost in Chicago 'burbs: free - $100 with $25/month service contract (12 month)
: prime time charge per minute is around $0.35.
* Telefooncel (?)
Cost in Blacksburg, VA: $0.25 / local call
* Telephone fees (free local calling)
Cost in Blacksburg, VA: $19.95 / month
: * PC (486DX, 340M HD, 8M RAM, VGA)
: Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1200
* don't need no stinking PC
: * Typical entree in a mid-priced restaurant (=not fastfood) (ex. a salad, steak,
: potato, vegetable, dessert & beverage)
: Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $12
* Typical too much beer, pizza (hold the dead animals) and loud music
Cost in Blacksburg, VA: $8 - $10 (incl. tip)
Jeaan
Blacksburg, VA (...edu.usa!)
Jonathan R. Engelsma
|> Jonathan R. Engelsma <enge...@rtsg.mot.com> writes in soc.culture.netherlands:
|> >In article <D1HMA...@news.research.ptt.nl>, M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl (Mike Schenk) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> Did you also take into account that the cost of living is higher (much
|> >|> higher) in the US than it is in the Netherlands. Ofcourse you get a
|> >|> higher salary, but it's not proportional to the higher prices of almost
|> >|> everything (except cds, jeans and sneakers).
|> >|>
|> >
|> >Is the cost of living really higher in the USA than the Netherlands?
|> >Here is a list of items/prices that are commonly used to survive in the
|> >Chicago suburbs, and probably would be quite useful in the Netherlands
|> >as well. Somebody in the NL tell us the approx. price there. I realize
|> >a 1 for 1 comparison like this isn't enough to help us conclude where the
|> >cost of living is higher (there are other factors that need to be considered
|> >as well), but I think it is still interesting.
|>
|> I am sure it is more expensive in the US. I've just come back from New
|> Jersey and I spent a lot more money on day-to-day things in New Jersey
|> than I did in the Netherlands.
Sorry to hear you had to spend some time in the "armpit". Don't base US cost
of living on that region. For the most part, the rest of the country is much
more affordable and much less congested.
|>
|> For one thing, houses are much more expensive. The gas and electric
|> bills are much higher (especially because of the rather poor insulation
|> of US houses).
Or are utility bills higher because in the USA homes actually have furnaces and
air conditioning that are used? The house I lived in last year in the NL did
not have central heat - only a heater in the living room. I froze my butt
off during the colder months! I'm sure this was an exception though. I
assume that most homes in the NL have at central heat these days. ;-)
|> >* 3 bedroom, 2 bath, single family home:
|> > Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $160,000 (purchase price)
|>
|> Depending on where you buy it. Around the Haguu about the same price,
|> somewhere else, about half of the price. And don't forget that US houses
|> usually are made of wood while Dutch houses are made of bricks or
|> concrete so they last longer and are better insulated.
Perhaps the Dutch homes are constructed better but you must admit they are
much much smaller than the homes in the USA. Also, some of the ways homes
are constructed is governed by the climate. For example, the dakpannen used
as roofing on Dutch homes seem so much more durable than the tar shingles that
are used here (I think they also look better.) However, a local builder told
me they don't hold out well in the rather extreme winters we get here in
the Chicago area. Evidently the snow laying on them for months at a time
and the freezing/thawing temperature cycles causes them to crack.
|>
|> >* New standard 4-door automobile (probably would include air conditioning,
|> >power steering and automatic transmission):
|> > Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $14,000 (purchase prices)
|>
|> Cars are less expensive in the US, but the differences isn't as big as I
|> suspected at first.
Nevertheless, I suspect you will pay a very high premium if you want features
that are commonly standard on a lot of autos in the USA (air, power steering,
automatic transmission, cruise control etc.)
|> >* Loaf of bread (won't taste as good as the fresh baked bread in the NL :-(
|> > Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1.50
|>
|> About the same price, or a little less. BTW in New Jersey a loaf of
|> bread could be up to 3 dollars and it still tasted awful.
Agreed. Bread in the USA will never stand up to bread in Europe. Cheese
falls into that same category.
|> >* Gallon of gas (4 liters?)
|> > Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1.25
|>
|> About three times as much in the Netherlands. However, if you drive a
|> lot, in the Netherlands people usually use propane wich is actually
|> cheaper than US gasoline.
Is propane the usual fuel for autos in the NL? My impressions are that
gasoline and diesel are more common.
|>
|> >* Cell phone
|> > Cost in Chicago 'burbs: free - $100 with $25/month service contract (12 month)
|> > prime time charge per minute is around $0.35.
|>
|> I have no idea, cell phones aren't that popular yet in the US. However,
|> normal phone bills are usually the same in the Netherlands than in the
|> US. My phone bill in the US normally was about 18 dollars a month (not
|> including international calls) and in the Netherlands it is about 45
|> guilders a month. This is cheaper, but this includes a lot of long
|> distance calls, while in the US I didn't make long distance calls
|> because all the people I knew lived close by.
I don't know exact prices, but I can promise you cell phones and the
associated service charges are much more costly all over Europe than
in the USA.
|> Concluding, some things are more expensive in the Netherlands, but these
|> are not things you buy everyday. Examples are CDs (but not so big as it
|> used to be, an average cd is now about 15 dollars ex. tax) and jeans
|> (esp. Levi's). But the cost of electric and gas bills, combined with the
|> rent or mortgage on a house plus the higher cost of food make the cost
|> of living much more expensive in the US.
|>
|> Also things you didn't mention are vegetables, which are very expensive
|> in the US and because Americans don't eat much vegetables, you have to
|> make up for it with expensive vitamine tablets. Also going to a doctor
|> is very expensive in the US.
huh what?? Americans don't eat veggies? You were hanging out with the
wrong crowd in NJ! All normal Americans learn to each their spinach at a very
young age. Also, veggies aren't that expensive. A 16 oz bag of frozen
veggies (enough for 4+ people 1 meal) costs around $1. Fresh veggies are
slightly more expensive but are still quite plentiful and cheap. Besides
many Americans have enough room in their yards for a small veggie garden
and can even raise their own if they wish.
As for the doctor... Mama Moto takes care of the bulk of that for me and
my family. I suppose if you are self-employed or unemployed and have no
health insurance, medical costs here can be quite staggering.
|>
|> And another thing, the prices you mentioned are excluding taxes while
|> the Dutch prices are including taxes.
Thats true, on all the prices I quoted but that of real estate and rent.
The rest of the items would have an $0.08 sales tax added here in Illinois.
Significant on a $13k automobile, but not for a $1 bag of veggies!
Jonathan
Gustaaf Van Moorsel
> that are commonly standard on a lot of autos in the USA (air, power steering,
> automatic transmission, cruise control etc.)
Power steering is common, too. The other three aren't. But the original poster
claimed that cars in the US are only marginally cheaper. They are not. They
are a *lot* less expensive. My Plymouth Voyager cost less then $16K all-in
(including airbag, cruise, AC, etc). In Holland a car like that easily costs
f60K, or about twice the American price. Ah, you'll say: An American car. But
also European cars are only 2/3 of the price.
> Agreed. Bread in the USA will never stand up to bread in Europe. Cheese
> falls into that same category.
And beer. Microbreweries are good but expensive.
> |> About three times as much in the Netherlands. However, if you drive a
> |> lot, in the Netherlands people usually use propane wich is actually
> |> cheaper than US gasoline.
>
> Is propane the usual fuel for autos in the NL? My impressions are that
> gasoline and diesel are more common.
Thing is, if you use propane, you pay an enormous surcharge on the road tax.
One only gains if one drives *a lot* each year. For most people, propane is
as expensive as gas; difference is that the tax is paid yearly instead in
installments at the pump. Here in the US my road tax is about $40/year.
> Thats true, on all the prices I quoted but that of real estate and rent.
> The rest of the items would have an $0.08 sales tax added here in Illinois.
> Significant on a $13k automobile, but not for a $1 bag of veggies!
How often do you buy a new car? How often do you buy veggies?
Another type of items which are *a lot* cheaper in the US are TV's and VCR's.
A typical 13" color TV runs $160 (Toshiba, Sharp), or $200 (19"). VCR's also
cost around $200. All these can be had even cheaper if one goes for the
Koran/Taiwanese brands. Problem of course is, that once you have bought one,
you'll find there's nothing to watch .....
Gustaaf
W Dale Brownawell
of an analysis done by the World Bank which said that residents of the
US have the second highest buying power (behind Luxembourg) in the
world, although their earnings place them only in seventh place.
Mike Schenk
>In article <D1JIz...@news.research.ptt.nl>, M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl (Mike Schenk) writes:
>|> Jonathan R. Engelsma <enge...@rtsg.mot.com> writes in soc.culture.netherlands:
>|> >Here is a list of items/prices that are commonly used to survive in the
>|> >Chicago suburbs, and probably would be quite useful in the Netherlands
>|> >as well. Somebody in the NL tell us the approx. price there. I realize
>|> >a 1 for 1 comparison like this isn't enough to help us conclude where the
>|> >cost of living is higher (there are other factors that need to be considered
>|> >as well), but I think it is still interesting.
>|>
>|> I am sure it is more expensive in the US. I've just come back from New
>|> Jersey and I spent a lot more money on day-to-day things in New Jersey
>|> than I did in the Netherlands.
>
>Sorry to hear you had to spend some time in the "armpit". Don't base US cost
>of living on that region. For the most part, the rest of the country is much
>more affordable and much less congested.
Well, the armpit is actually quite nice, as soon as you get south or
east of Newark. So don't feel sorry for me!
>|>
>|> For one thing, houses are much more expensive. The gas and electric
>|> bills are much higher (especially because of the rather poor insulation
>|> of US houses).
>
>Or are utility bills higher because in the USA homes actually have furnaces and
>air conditioning that are used? The house I lived in last year in the NL did
>not have central heat - only a heater in the living room. I froze my butt
>off during the colder months! I'm sure this was an exception though. I
>assume that most homes in the NL have at central heat these days. ;-)
Central heating is very common in the Netherlands, Air conditioning is
not, basically because it never gets hot around here :-(.
>|> >* 3 bedroom, 2 bath, single family home:
>|> > Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $160,000 (purchase price)
>|>
>|> Depending on where you buy it. Around the Haguu about the same price,
>|> somewhere else, about half of the price. And don't forget that US houses
>|> usually are made of wood while Dutch houses are made of bricks or
>|> concrete so they last longer and are better insulated.
>
>Perhaps the Dutch homes are constructed better but you must admit they are
>much much smaller than the homes in the USA. Also, some of the ways homes
Yes, that's true, however, a big house is expensive as far as heating or
airco goes. I had a rather small house to NJ standards, but it still was
enormous to Dutch standards and I only used half of it anyway.
>are constructed is governed by the climate. For example, the dakpannen used
>as roofing on Dutch homes seem so much more durable than the tar shingles that
>are used here (I think they also look better.) However, a local builder told
>me they don't hold out well in the rather extreme winters we get here in
>the Chicago area. Evidently the snow laying on them for months at a time
>and the freezing/thawing temperature cycles causes them to crack.
Yes, but because of the extreme temperatures I would actually suspect
American houses to be much better insulated.
>|> >* New standard 4-door automobile (probably would include air conditioning,
>|> >power steering and automatic transmission):
>|> > Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $14,000 (purchase prices)
>|>
>|> Cars are less expensive in the US, but the differences isn't as big as I
>|> suspected at first.
>
>Nevertheless, I suspect you will pay a very high premium if you want features
>that are commonly standard on a lot of autos in the USA (air, power steering,
>automatic transmission, cruise control etc.)
Yes, but I still don't understand why someone wants automatic
transmission. That's the thing I hated most in NJ, driving around in an
automatic....
>|> >* Loaf of bread (won't taste as good as the fresh baked bread in the NL :-(
>|> > Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1.50
>|>
>|> About the same price, or a little less. BTW in New Jersey a loaf of
>|> bread could be up to 3 dollars and it still tasted awful.
>
>Agreed. Bread in the USA will never stand up to bread in Europe. Cheese
>falls into that same category.
Well, after a while, I started using Swiss Cheese, that is not so bad.
>|> >* Gallon of gas (4 liters?)
>|> > Cost in Chicago 'burbs: $1.25
>|>
>|> About three times as much in the Netherlands. However, if you drive a
>|> lot, in the Netherlands people usually use propane wich is actually
>|> cheaper than US gasoline.
>
>Is propane the usual fuel for autos in the NL? My impressions are that
>gasoline and diesel are more common.
Yes, propane only pays of if you drive over 15.000 kms or more in a
year. This is because you have to pay a higher road tax. And that's
another thing that is cheaper in the US, there is no road tax.
>|> Also things you didn't mention are vegetables, which are very expensive
>|> in the US and because Americans don't eat much vegetables, you have to
>|> make up for it with expensive vitamine tablets. Also going to a doctor
>|> is very expensive in the US.
>
>huh what?? Americans don't eat veggies? You were hanging out with the
>wrong crowd in NJ! All normal Americans learn to each their spinach at a very
>young age. Also, veggies aren't that expensive. A 16 oz bag of frozen
>veggies (enough for 4+ people 1 meal) costs around $1. Fresh veggies are
>slightly more expensive but are still quite plentiful and cheap. Besides
>many Americans have enough room in their yards for a small veggie garden
>and can even raise their own if they wish.
True, raising veggies on a balcony is not so easy.
>|> And another thing, the prices you mentioned are excluding taxes while
>|> the Dutch prices are including taxes.
>
>Thats true, on all the prices I quoted but that of real estate and rent.
>The rest of the items would have an $0.08 sales tax added here in Illinois.
>Significant on a $13k automobile, but not for a $1 bag of veggies!
Well, that just depends on how many bags of veggies you eat in a year.
Actually, I found sales tax more annoying because you never knew how
much you had to pay. Especially in NJ where there are silly rules for
sales tax. It is 6% but you don't pay it on everything and I still
haven't found out when you pay and when you don't.
Mike
Mike Schenk
>In article 2...@delphinium.cig.mot.com, enge...@rtsg.mot.com (Jonathan R. Engelsma) > >
>> Nevertheless, I suspect you will pay a very high premium if you want features
>> that are commonly standard on a lot of autos in the USA (air, power steering,
>> automatic transmission, cruise control etc.)
>
>Power steering is common, too. The other three aren't. But the original poster
>claimed that cars in the US are only marginally cheaper. They are not. They
>are a *lot* less expensive. My Plymouth Voyager cost less then $16K all-in
>(including airbag, cruise, AC, etc). In Holland a car like that easily costs
>f60K, or about twice the American price. Ah, you'll say: An American car. But
>also European cars are only 2/3 of the price.
It depends on the type and brand of car. If you want to buy a car in the
US and take it to Europe you can only buy certain brands, like Honda,
because most brands make cars specifically for the US and other types
for Europe and you cannot take it with you unless you have a type
inspection which costs thousands of dollar.
The cars I saw that I could take to Europe were not much cheaper in the
US than they are over here. Except that they have airco and so on
standard, but I don't need that, and usually, having manual transmission
did not make the car cheaper and I don't want automatic transmission.
If you want to take a Voyager to Europe, you will have to change the
suspension, which makes the car more expensive.
>> Agreed. Bread in the USA will never stand up to bread in Europe. Cheese
>> falls into that same category.
>
>And beer. Microbreweries are good but expensive.
What do you expect from a country where they call Heineken a first class
beer!!? ;-).
>> |> About three times as much in the Netherlands. However, if you drive a
>> |> lot, in the Netherlands people usually use propane wich is actually
>> |> cheaper than US gasoline.
>>
>> Is propane the usual fuel for autos in the NL? My impressions are that
>> gasoline and diesel are more common.
>
>Thing is, if you use propane, you pay an enormous surcharge on the road tax.
>One only gains if one drives *a lot* each year. For most people, propane is
>as expensive as gas; difference is that the tax is paid yearly instead in
>installments at the pump. Here in the US my road tax is about $40/year.
But you have to pay tolls, which I just find annoying. But you're still
cheaper off, that's true.
>> Thats true, on all the prices I quoted but that of real estate and rent.
>> The rest of the items would have an $0.08 sales tax added here in Illinois.
>> Significant on a $13k automobile, but not for a $1 bag of veggies!
>
>How often do you buy a new car? How often do you buy veggies?
>
>Another type of items which are *a lot* cheaper in the US are TV's and VCR's.
>A typical 13" color TV runs $160 (Toshiba, Sharp), or $200 (19"). VCR's also
>cost around $200. All these can be had even cheaper if one goes for the
>Koran/Taiwanese brands. Problem of course is, that once you have bought one,
>you'll find there's nothing to watch .....
And it doesn't make sense to buy them and take them to Europe because
you can only use them as furniture....
Mike
Paul Ruiterman
: In article <D18HF...@cadence.com>, Pete Zakel <p...@cadence.com> wrote:
: >In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
: >>In article <vrtv-15129...@mac-6.knoware.nl>,
: >>VARA! <vr...@knoware.nl> wrote:
SNIP! A lotta simple minded stuff
: And de facto legal in Michigan thanks to jury nullification - something
: absent from the entire European Continent, because no trial by jury is
: practiced there.
This is were the need to jump in quickly (and leave quietly) overcomes me.
First! I hope you realize that your comment re: "no trial by jury is
practiced there" is in fact Wrong!!
Second! I don't know how to explain this to you in a gentle yet simple way.
But, let me try. The Trial By Jury System SUCKS BONES!!
I refer you to the O.J. Jury selection Scandal!
I refer you to numerous juries consisting of Yankee Boneheads handing out
ridiculous awards to old broads spilling hot coffee over themselves and
drunken idiots falling of ladders and hurting their tiny wittle heads!
Most of those awards, by the way, are reduced substantially by judges
on appeal. (So much for the jury system)
More simplicity [SNIP]ped
Paul(Here come the judge)R.
Tim Starr
Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
>>...the subject under discussion wasn't what you consider
>>yourself but what you are considered by your State. Specifically, the
>>original claim was that your State considers you freer and more independent
>>than the USA considers me. I have argued the contrary. Whether you want to
>>be considered less free and independent by your State does nothing to show
>>that I have argued falsely.
>
>I don't think you have argued this. The Dutch people do not depend on
>the State to provide food and so on.
Yes, they do, if they're on welfare. And if a greater fraction of the Dutch
are on welfare than the Americans (as I am told by my Dutch acquaintances),
then the Dutch State considers its people less free than the American one
does as indicated by its treatment of them.
>...Most people are perfectly capable
>to provide a living for themselves. However, some people don't and many
>times it is for reasons that are beyond their reach. So they can't help
>it that they are not able to provide for themselves. Someone who has
>been working in a factory that got automized and only has job skills
>that aren't required anymore and is above 35 has a hard time finding
>another job. The Dutch government supports a person like this and gives
>him the oppurtunity to get additional training for another kind of job.
Precisely: the Dutch State does not leave such a person free to fail. Thus,
he is less free than if he were left free to fail. He may not want that
freedom, and you may not want it for him or yourself either, but that does
nothing to change the fact that those who aren't free to fail are less free
than those who are.
>In the US, this would not be possible, this person would not get a new
>training and would not be able to support himself. Maybe he gets
>wellfare, of which he can't live and he'll end up in the gutter.
>
>And people who have to beg for money in the streets may be independent
>and free from the governments, but they most certainly aren't
>independent people.
They may not be able to support themselves by making an honest living for
themselves, but that doesn't mean they aren't politically independent. They
aren't subject to coercion, nor do they live by means of it unless they choose
to turn to a life of crime.
>Now to other things, in the US everything goes according to the book. If
>you don't follow the book, you're out. Not a very independent way of
>living.
Whereas in other countries everything goes according to the whims of some
tyrant. If you don't follow his whims, you're out. That's even less of an
independent way of living. When it comes to the rule of law versus the rule
of men, I'll take the rule of law every time.
Tim Starr
Paul Ruiterman <pa...@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca> wrote:
>Tim Starr (tims...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: In article <D18HF...@cadence.com>, Pete Zakel <p...@cadence.com> wrote:
>: >In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>: >>In article <vrtv-15129...@mac-6.knoware.nl>,
>: >>VARA! <vr...@knoware.nl> wrote:
>
>SNIP! A lotta simple minded stuff
>
>: And de facto legal in Michigan thanks to jury nullification - something
>: absent from the entire European Continent, because no trial by jury is
>: practiced there.
>
>This is were the need to jump in quickly (and leave quietly) overcomes me.
>
>First! I hope you realize that your comment re: "no trial by jury is
>practiced there" is in fact Wrong!!
In what part of the European Continent is there trial by jury? You, Sir,
seem to be posting from Canada, which is most certainly not part of that
continent.
>Second! I don't know how to explain this to you in a gentle yet simple way.
> But, let me try. The Trial By Jury System SUCKS BONES!!
It's far from perfect, I'll go along with you that far. But it still remains
one more check against unjust prosecution by the State than in most other
European countries I'm aware of.
>I refer you to the O.J. Jury selection Scandal!
Jury selection as commonly practiced in the USA is constitutional.
>I refer you to numerous juries consisting of Yankee Boneheads handing out
>ridiculous awards to old broads spilling hot coffee over themselves and
>drunken idiots falling of ladders and hurting their tiny wittle heads!
U.S. Civil law has been skewed in favor of plaintiffs over the past few
decades, true, but this is a defect of the legislature and judicial decision,
not the jury system. Those jurors are doing exactly as they're told by
convicting those who've broken the law as it has been explained to them by
the judges. And few judges or anyone else makes them aware that they have
the power, duty, and right to acquit anyone and everyone prosecuted unjustly.
(Which is also unconstitutional.)
Tim Starr
Perhaps you could do something to indicate exactly how they are more free,
rather than simply insulting my intelligence because you don't agree with
me. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it. Thus far, no proof has been
forthcoming. As soon as I have pointed out how other countries are less
free, people have started defending them on the very grounds that they are
less free.
Tim Starr
Edward Hartnett <e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>>>> "T" == Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> writes:
>
> T> Economic freedom is a necessary part of total freedom. And, as I have
> T> argued, we have more of it, still, in the USA than there is in the Netherlands.
>
>As someone who has lived in both the US and Europe, I must
>disagree. Much as I love the USA, I felt considerably more free in
>Ireland. Even more so when I visited the Netherlands, which I must say
>is one of the sanest places on Earth. Yes, the tax burden in Eurpoe is
>higher. In Ireland I paid about 60% of my salary in taxes, and then an
>addition 15 to 25% on most everything I bought. But these numbers are
>misleading when compared to American numbers, for a variety of
>reasons.
>
>Firstly, and most importantly, there are more gov't services.
State favors do not constitute freedom, they constitute privilege. I have
never questioned whether there might be more privileges under any European
State than in America.
>Secondly in Europe companies give more perks to their employees. Five
>weeks vacation are the norm, company cars are far more common, as are
>other rewards like a free trip somewhere, etc. The reason of course is
>that these will not be taxed as income.
Forcing companies to give their employees perks isn't an example of
freedom either. It's yet another example of privilege.
>Certain tax breaks are very generous, for example if you are buying a
>house or starting a business.
Same as in the USA.
>>> And throwing around epithets like "the nanny-state" is not exactly the
>>> right way to win admiration for the force of your arguments...
>
>T> Goethe once said that none are more totally enslaved than those who falsely
>T> believe they are free. Why should I seek the admiration of slaves?
>
>Calling Europeans slaves is really quite silly. As I say, if they are,
>we are too.
And so we are! But, as far as I know, less so than they overall.
>In Europe non-violent criminals do not make up the majority of
>prisoners in jail...
Entirely because U.S. drug prohibition is far more draconian, which I freely
grant you. Europe is far superior in that respect. But I still don't think
that makes up for everything else.
>...the cops won't break into your house and shoot you
>because they don't like your plants...
No, they'll just do it if they don't like your politics in Northern Ireland,
to use your example of an allegedly freer country than the U.S.A. And
there's no constitutional prohibition of unreasonable search & seizures or
any requirement that warrants be issued only on probable cause to begin with
there, much less any Posse Comitatus act prohibiting the use of the military
for law-enforcement. The U.S. government may violate the Constitution, but
the U.K. doesn't even have one to begin with.
>..."live and let live" is a much
>more common attitude (from the gov't) than it is in America.
How can you tell?
>The fact that they tax more and provide more gov't services might bug
>you, but most people there are happy with it. And if not, it is
>something they can (and do) change to suit the majority.
Majority rule isn't freedom, it's the tyranny of the majority.
>...But there is
>more freedom on the street than there is in America, sad to say.
What are the facts which support this?
Mike Schenk
>>>...the subject under discussion wasn't what you consider
>>>yourself but what you are considered by your State. Specifically, the
>>>original claim was that your State considers you freer and more independent
>>>than the USA considers me. I have argued the contrary. Whether you want to
>>>be considered less free and independent by your State does nothing to show
>>>that I have argued falsely.
>>
>>I don't think you have argued this. The Dutch people do not depend on
>>the State to provide food and so on.
>
>Yes, they do, if they're on welfare. And if a greater fraction of the Dutch
>are on welfare than the Americans (as I am told by my Dutch acquaintances),
>then the Dutch State considers its people less free than the American one
>does as indicated by its treatment of them.
This is misleading. In the Netherlands all the needy people are on
welfare. In the US, a lot of the needy people do not even get welfare,
you should count these people in as well.
The difference between the US and the Netherlands is that the
Netherlands provide a better safety net than the US. This doesn't mean
that people are not free to fail, they are. And if they fail they don't
even have to use the safety net, but if they want to, it's there. So,
you could even say that the Dutch government gives people more choices
than the US government, so in this respect, Dutch people have more
freedom.
>>...Most people are perfectly capable
>>to provide a living for themselves. However, some people don't and many
>>times it is for reasons that are beyond their reach. So they can't help
>>it that they are not able to provide for themselves. Someone who has
>>been working in a factory that got automized and only has job skills
>>that aren't required anymore and is above 35 has a hard time finding
>>another job. The Dutch government supports a person like this and gives
>>him the oppurtunity to get additional training for another kind of job.
>
>Precisely: the Dutch State does not leave such a person free to fail. Thus,
>he is less free than if he were left free to fail. He may not want that
>freedom, and you may not want it for him or yourself either, but that does
>nothing to change the fact that those who aren't free to fail are less free
>than those who are.
Nope, like I said before, people are free to fail, and they are free to
use the safety net if they do. In the US, a lot of people do not have
the choice to use the safety net.
>>In the US, this would not be possible, this person would not get a new
>>training and would not be able to support himself. Maybe he gets
>>wellfare, of which he can't live and he'll end up in the gutter.
>>
>>And people who have to beg for money in the streets may be independent
>>and free from the governments, but they most certainly aren't
>>independent people.
>
>They may not be able to support themselves by making an honest living for
>themselves, but that doesn't mean they aren't politically independent. They
>aren't subject to coercion, nor do they live by means of it unless they choose
>to turn to a life of crime.
Yes, and this means?
>>Now to other things, in the US everything goes according to the book. If
>>you don't follow the book, you're out. Not a very independent way of
>>living.
>
>Whereas in other countries everything goes according to the whims of some
>tyrant. If you don't follow his whims, you're out. That's even less of an
>independent way of living. When it comes to the rule of law versus the rule
>of men, I'll take the rule of law every time.
This statement clearly shows that you have absolutely no idea what
you're talking about.
In the Netherlands and most European countries, people rely on common
sense, something that does not exist in the USA. If the book doesn't tell
you how to take care of it, you're in deep shit, because Americans are
not taught to rely on common sense.
Mike
Mike Schenk
>In article <D1KDr...@news.research.ptt.nl>,
>Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
>>Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> writes in alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,soc.culture.singapore,soc.culture.netherlands:
>>>principles it was based upon, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
>>>not to flags, tyrants, etc. If there were a less tyrannical country on
>>>the face of the earth I'd be overjoyed! But I'm aware of none, and no
>>>one has informed me of any. All they have done is crowed to the heavens
>>>how much they love their tyrannies.
>>
>>Maybe you should take your head out of your arse and have a look around.
>>Almost any Western country has more freedom than the US. You're just to
>>stupid to see it.
>
>Perhaps you could do something to indicate exactly how they are more free,
>rather than simply insulting my intelligence because you don't agree with
>me. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it. Thus far, no proof has been
>forthcoming. As soon as I have pointed out how other countries are less
>free, people have started defending them on the very grounds that they are
>less free.
But you do exactly the same thing, as soon as someone argues that the US
is less free, you start defending the US and even distort it to a very
strange definition of something you call freedom.
Let me tell you one thing, I have lived in the US for over a year, in
this year I had more encounters with the police and other authorities
than I have in the previous 27 years in the Netherlands. And I did
exactly the same things I would have done if I was in the Netherlands
and would not have any trouble with it. Maybe on a theoretical basis
the US is more free than other countries (the Constitution certainly
implies so), but on a practical level, the US ain't a free country at
all.
Mike
VARA!
Starr) wrote:
> In article <D1KBA...@news.research.ptt.nl>,
> Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
> >...Most people are perfectly capable
> >to provide a living for themselves. However, some people don't and many
> >times it is for reasons that are beyond their reach. So they can't help
> >it that they are not able to provide for themselves. Someone who has
> >been working in a factory that got automized and only has job skills
> >that aren't required anymore and is above 35 has a hard time finding
> >another job. The Dutch government supports a person like this and gives
> >him the oppurtunity to get additional training for another kind of job.
>
> Precisely: the Dutch State does not leave such a person free to fail. Thus,
> he is less free than if he were left free to fail. He may not want that
> freedom, and you may not want it for him or yourself either, but that does
> nothing to change the fact that those who aren't free to fail are less free
> than those who are.
1) No-one forces said person to accept the help that is offered. He has the
freedom to accept or decline, if he declines, he has the additional freedom of
failing. So compared to the US, this man has *MORE* freedom, because under
the Dutch system, he is free to choose if he wants help or not. In the US,
this person is declined the freedom to choose for help, and thus is less free
(by your own reasoning, I might add)
2) I would even think it is possible to argue that freedom to fail is not a
real freedom, but a constraint. Not having a safety net makes it necessary
to restrict your actions ( -> less freedom) to lower the risks of failure.
A safety net allows people to undertake a broader range of actions and
therefore increases freedom.
> >Now to other things, in the US everything goes according to the book. If
> >you don't follow the book, you're out. Not a very independent way of
> >living.
>
> Whereas in other countries everything goes according to the whims of some
> tyrant. If you don't follow his whims, you're out. That's even less of an
> independent way of living. When it comes to the rule of law versus the rule
> of men, I'll take the rule of law every time.
First: name the tyrant of a) Netherlands b) France c) Belgium etc etc etc
These are all countries which are governed by an elected governement. No
tyrants in sight for at least a couple of hundred miles.
So what the hell country are you talking about when you keep mentioning this
mythical 'tyrant'??
Am I right in saying that your basic premise is that authority of any kind
is undesireable? Are you an anarchist? (In an anarchy, everyone has equal
freedom of a high degree, which is what you seem to want). Not that I have
anything against anarchists, just that I think their view is a little, shall
I say, naive....
_____________________________________________________________________
VARA Radio TV
The Netherlands
_____________________________________________________________________
VARA!
> rather than simply insulting my intelligence because you don't agree with
> me. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it. Thus far, no proof has been
> forthcoming. As soon as I have pointed out how other countries are less
> free, people have started defending them on the very grounds that they are
> less free.
Ya sure.....
Let's play a game. It's called "I can do something that you can't"
I can:
walk into a shop, buy an ounce of marihuana, proceed to smoke it in public,
greet the friendly police officer walking by, and not be arrested.
express politically incorrect opinions on TV, newspaper, radio, and not be
whacked by some moral majority group. (and I know that that is legal, but
the point is not just legal freedoms, but social ones too!!)
get help for my heroin addiction without having to worry about having to
register as an addict (and therefore ruin the rest of my life with a stigma)
pay a woman for sex, and not be breaking any laws
gamble for money in any state or province, and not be breaking any laws
rest assured that I will not be searched or arrested without a valid reason
take decissions that could negatively impact my life without fear of totally
screwing up, due to the safety net that is in place.
move to another country if I don't like the way things are run here
have access to good education without forking out $10.000 for tuition fees.
have sex in any way I want (anal, oral, homosexual, lesbian, <insert your
kink>) in any part of the country without breaking any laws.
join the army if I'm gay
marry a man or a woman. Whichever I choose.....
Your turn......
rolf zwaan
(Mike Schenk) wrote:
>
> The cars I saw that I could take to Europe were not much cheaper in the
> US than they are over here. Except that they have airco and so on
> standard, but I don't need that, and usually, having manual transmission
> did not make the car cheaper...
When I bought my stick shift Honda Accord DX '94 in July, it was $700 less
than the version with the automatic transmission.
> What do you expect from a country where they call Heineken a first class
> beer!!? ;-).
>
And unfortunately, American friends typically think they can pleasantly
surprise you by bringing a a couple of bottles to your parties.
Rolf
--
Rolf A. Zwaan
Dept. of Psychology
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1051
Rob Barends
Geen negatieve instelling, gewoon nieuwsgierig,
Rob.
>DATE: 29 Dec 1994 20:06:54 GMT
>FROM: Adriana C. Bruggeman <je...@vtaix.cc.vt.edu>
Jaap Akkerhuis
Yes. Although I heard also comments at the radio, that it of course
depends what you count and apparently mostly consumer goods are
counted. One commentator remarked that if you would also throw in
``Social Services'' like costs for health care etc. the picture would
be quite different.
Another institute publishes yearly th BigMac index: The cost of a big
mac related to the average income. It is always good for a laugh.
The merits of a single number is just as useless as giving a drystone
number to a computer.
jaap
Adriana C. Bruggeman
: Maar, Jeaan, waarom zou iemand (jij, bv.) in Blacksburg, VA, willen wonen ?
: Geen negatieve instelling, gewoon nieuwsgierig,
: Rob.
Nu ja, ze hebben hier een universiteit en meestal mooi weer
en je kan hier ook erg leuk fietsen, vooral als je van bergen houdt.
[prijslijstje geknipt]
: > * Typical too much beer, pizza (hold the dead animals) and loud music
: > Cost in Blacksburg, VA: $8 - $10 (incl. tip)
en dit lijkt me ook wel een aardige reden.
Jeaan
Nico Bartels
=> Adriana C. Bruggeman schreef:
ACB> en je kan hier ook erg leuk fietsen, vooral als je van
ACB> bergen houdt.
Alleen maar bergafwaarts.
Ik heb al moeite met de bruggen over de grachten hier in Amsterdam...
Ciao!
|\ |
| \|ico
--
email: nbar...@gender.xs4all.nl o
Fido : 2:280/407 _ /-_
.........................................(_)>(_)
Adriana C. Bruggeman
: Hoi Adriana!
Ja hallo Nico, zeg maar Jeaan
: => Adriana C. Bruggeman schreef:
Moet je ook wat sportiever voor gaan zitten.
Jeaan
__o
\<.
(_)/(_)
Harryvan
>In article <D1KBA...@news.research.ptt.nl>,
>Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
>>>...the subject under discussion wasn't what you consider
>>>yourself but what you are considered by your State. Specifically, the
>>>original claim was that your State considers you freer and more independent
>>>than the USA considers me. I have argued the contrary. Whether you want to
>>>be considered less free and independent by your State does nothing to show
>>>that I have argued falsely.
>>
>>I don't think you have argued this. The Dutch people do not depend on
>>the State to provide food and so on.
>Yes, they do, if they're on welfare. And if a greater fraction of the Dutch
>are on welfare than the Americans (as I am told by my Dutch acquaintances),
>then the Dutch State considers its people less free than the American one
>does as indicated by its treatment of them.
It seems to me that you judge a country by how free it is. But I believe
that is not the only standard you should look at. Total freedom is not
desirable. If there is total freedom, society is no more than a jungle.
In fact total freedom is impossible, you are always infuenced by others.
And if for example you abolished traffic rules you would be more free,
you'd be dead
in a week, but you'd be more free for a week. So there must be an
optimum of a combination of rules and freedom. In general Dutch define
it somewhere else as the American society does. That does not make the
American society better yhan the Dutch. We believe we live in a better
society than you and you believe you live in a better society than we
do. So i guess we're both glad to be where we are. You also say that the
Dutch government considers its people less free, but it does not
consider it that way simply because it is not thought of that way.
>>...Most people are perfectly capable
>>to provide a living for themselves. However, some people don't and many
>>times it is for reasons that are beyond their reach. So they can't help
>>it that they are not able to provide for themselves. Someone who has
>>been working in a factory that got automized and only has job skills
>>that aren't required anymore and is above 35 has a hard time finding
>>another job. The Dutch government supports a person like this and gives
>>him the oppurtunity to get additional training for another kind of job.
>Precisely: the Dutch State does not leave such a person free to fail. Thus,
>he is less free than if he were left free to fail. He may not want that
>freedom, and you may not want it for him or yourself either, but that does
>nothing to change the fact that those who aren't free to fail are less free
>than those who are.
Ofcourse people are allowed to fail. Welfare is enough to live on, but
it's not that much.
>>In the US, this would not be possible, this person would not get a new
>>training and would not be able to support himself. Maybe he gets
>>wellfare, of which he can't live and he'll end up in the gutter.
>>
>>And people who have to beg for money in the streets may be independent
>>and free from the governments, but they most certainly aren't
>>independent people.
>They may not be able to support themselves by making an honest living for
>themselves, but that doesn't mean they aren't politically independent. They
>aren't subject to coercion, nor do they live by means of it unless they choose
>to turn to a life of crime.
Everybody is subject to coercion. If you're a business owner you can be
coerced by promises of tax cuts.
>>Now to other things, in the US everything goes according to the book. If
>>you don't follow the book, you're out. Not a very independent way of
>>living.
>Whereas in other countries everything goes according to the whims of some
>tyrant. If you don't follow his whims, you're out. That's even less of an
>independent way of living. When it comes to the rule of law versus the rule
>of men, I'll take the rule of law every time.
All other country's ???
P.S. Many tyrants have been supported by the US.
Scott Mincey
: >In article <D1KBA...@news.research.ptt.nl>,
: >Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
: in a week, but you'd be more free for a week. So there must be an
: optimum of a combination of rules and freedom. In general Dutch define
: it somewhere else as the American society does. That does not make the
: American society better yhan the Dutch. We believe we live in a better
: society than you and you believe you live in a better society than we
: do. So i guess we're both glad to be where we are. You also say that the
In any case, the whole argument is simply irrelevant since Holland does not
give residence or work permits to Americans and the US does not give
residence permits or work permits to Dutch citizens (except in rare cases).
Americans therefore have no choice about whether to accept the American
system since they do not generally have the option of living elsewhere.
Not exactly what I'd call freedom to choose what sort of system you would
like to live under.
In Holland at least, one does have the right to live and work in any other
country in the E.C.
SHINER BOCK OR NOTHING
>
> In any case, the whole argument is simply irrelevant since Holland does not
> give residence or work permits to Americans and the US does not give
> residence permits or work permits to Dutch citizens (except in rare cases).
> Americans therefore have no choice about whether to accept the American
> system since they do not generally have the option of living elsewhere.
> Not exactly what I'd call freedom to choose what sort of system you would
> like to live under.
>
>
> In Holland at least, one does have the right to live and work in any other
> country in the E.C.
>
>
>
Is this true? Please say there are ways around it. Holland is where
I want to relocate to once I'm done with school.
Steven
Tim Starr
Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
>Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> writes in alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,soc.culture.singapore,soc.culture.netherlands:
>>Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
>>>>...the subject under discussion wasn't what you consider
>>>>yourself but what you are considered by your State. Specifically, the
>>>>original claim was that your State considers you freer and more independent
>>>>than the USA considers me. I have argued the contrary. Whether you want to
>>>>be considered less free and independent by your State does nothing to show
>>>>that I have argued falsely.
>>>
>>>I don't think you have argued this. The Dutch people do not depend on
>>>the State to provide food and so on.
>>
>>Yes, they do, if they're on welfare. And if a greater fraction of the Dutch
>>are on welfare than the Americans (as I am told by my Dutch acquaintances),
>>then the Dutch State considers its people less free than the American one
>>does as indicated by its treatment of them.
>
>This is misleading. In the Netherlands all the needy people are on
>welfare. In the US, a lot of the needy people do not even get welfare,
>you should count these people in as well.
Nonsense! There's no reason to count a needy person who doesn't get welfare as
someone considered dependent by the State.
>The difference between the US and the Netherlands is that the
>Netherlands provide a better safety net than the US. This doesn't mean
>that people are not free to fail, they are.
Wrong. It means two things: 1) People are more likely to fail because of the
high taxes to pay for the welfare system; 2) People are more likely to become
dependents of the State rather than remain free.
Both are ways in which State provision of a so-called "safety net" (which is
actually a snare by which the State regulates the poor and keeps them in their
place) makes people less free.
>>>In the US, this would not be possible, this person would not get a new
>>>training and would not be able to support himself. Maybe he gets
>>>wellfare, of which he can't live and he'll end up in the gutter.
>>>
>>>And people who have to beg for money in the streets may be independent
>>>and free from the governments, but they most certainly aren't
>>>independent people.
>>
>>They may not be able to support themselves by making an honest living for
>>themselves, but that doesn't mean they aren't politically independent. They
>>aren't subject to coercion, nor do they live by means of it unless they choose
>>to turn to a life of crime.
>
>Yes, and this means?
That they're free, and that they don't violate the freedom of anyone else.
>>>Now to other things, in the US everything goes according to the book. If
>>>you don't follow the book, you're out. Not a very independent way of
>>>living.
>>
>>Whereas in other countries everything goes according to the whims of some
>>tyrant. If you don't follow his whims, you're out. That's even less of an
>>independent way of living. When it comes to the rule of law versus the rule
>>of men, I'll take the rule of law every time.
>
>This statement clearly shows that you have absolutely no idea what
>you're talking about.
>
>In the Netherlands and most European countries, people rely on common
>sense, something that does not exist in the USA.
Bullshit.
>...If the book doesn't tell
>you how to take care of it, you're in deep shit, because Americans are
>not taught to rely on common sense.
Whether it's taught or not, we've still got plenty of it.
Tim Starr
The State most certainly does, indirectly, by taxing a larger percentage of
the average person's income than does the USA. The State says something like:
"We're taking 65% of your income whether you like it or not to pay for a
welfare system. If that bankrupts you, you still have the choice of not going
on welfare, so you're actually freer than if we'd let you keep your money."
>2) I would even think it is possible to argue that freedom to fail is not a
>real freedom, but a constraint.
How? It could be argued that the risk of failure is a constraint, but I don't
see how it could be argued that freedom to fail is a constraint.
>...Not having a safety net makes it necessary
>to restrict your actions ( -> less freedom) to lower the risks of failure.
This assumes that the so-called "safety net" doesn't increase the risk of
failure, which it does.
>A safety net allows people to undertake a broader range of actions and
>therefore increases freedom.
The Welfare State isn't a "safety net," it's the way the modern State keeps
the people under control.
>> >Now to other things, in the US everything goes according to the book. If
>> >you don't follow the book, you're out. Not a very independent way of
>> >living.
>>
>> Whereas in other countries everything goes according to the whims of some
>> tyrant. If you don't follow his whims, you're out. That's even less of an
>> independent way of living. When it comes to the rule of law versus the rule
>> of men, I'll take the rule of law every time.
>
>First: name the tyrant of a) Netherlands b) France c) Belgium etc etc etc
>These are all countries which are governed by an elected governement.
An elective despotism is no less tyrannical than an un-elected one. Besides,
the people in those countries are even more at the mercy of the whims of une-
lected civil servants than we are here in the U.S.A.
>Am I right in saying that your basic premise is that authority of any kind
>is undesireable?
Nope. Involuntary authority is what I object to.
>...Are you an anarchist?
Bingo!
>...(In an anarchy, everyone has equal
>freedom of a high degree, which is what you seem to want). Not that I have
>anything against anarchists, just that I think their view is a little, shall
>I say, naive....
What's naive about it?
Tim Starr
No, I don't. I also judge it by its average standard of living, by its
culture, geographic beauty, cuisine, etc. Many other countries are
superior to the U.S.A. in respects other than overall freedom as far as
I'm concerned.
>...But I believe
>that is not the only standard you should look at.
I agree, but you're changing the subject. This thread started when some
guy claimed that Europe was generally freer than the U.S.A. While I wish
any industrialized country were freer than the U.S.A., I stated my reasons
for doubting this claim. As soon as it became clear to all that I was
right, people immediately being apologists for the greater tyranny of their
choice.
>...Total freedom is not
>desirable. If there is total freedom, society is no more than a jungle.
>In fact total freedom is impossible, you are always infuenced by others.
That's not the kind of freedom I'm talking about. I'm talking about the
equal freedom of all. I'm talking about minimizing coercion. I'm not
talking about never having to get out of the way of anyone else.
>...So there must be an
>optimum of a combination of rules and freedom. In general Dutch define
>it somewhere else as the American society does. That does not make the
>American society better yhan the Dutch.
I agree completely! I never said otherwise.
>...You also say that the
>Dutch government considers its people less free, but it does not
>consider it that way simply because it is not thought of that way.
Whether the Dutch people generally think of themselves as less free than
the U.S.A. has nothing to do with whether their State does. The fact
that the State treats them as if they were less free is ample proof of its
consideration of the people.
>>>In the US, this would not be possible, this person would not get a new
>>>training and would not be able to support himself. Maybe he gets
>>>wellfare, of which he can't live and he'll end up in the gutter.
>>>
>>>And people who have to beg for money in the streets may be independent
>>>and free from the governments, but they most certainly aren't
>>>independent people.
>
>>They may not be able to support themselves by making an honest living for
>>themselves, but that doesn't mean they aren't politically independent. They
>>aren't subject to coercion, nor do they live by means of it unless they choose
>>to turn to a life of crime.
>
>Everybody is subject to coercion. If you're a business owner you can be
>coerced by promises of tax cuts.
Tax cuts aren't coercion, they're the removal of coercion.
>>>Now to other things, in the US everything goes according to the book. If
>>>you don't follow the book, you're out. Not a very independent way of
>>>living.
>
>>Whereas in other countries everything goes according to the whims of some
>>tyrant. If you don't follow his whims, you're out. That's even less of an
>>independent way of living. When it comes to the rule of law versus the rule
>>of men, I'll take the rule of law every time.
>
>All other country's ???
Well, most European ones I'm aware of.
>P.S. Many tyrants have been supported by the US.
Again, I agree completely, and I think it's a terrible thing that this has
been the case. If I had it my way, no tyrants would be supported by the U.S.A.
(or by anyone else, for that matter :-). The U.S.A. may even have been the
cause of the most tyranny ever. But I still think it's a freer country,
overall, than any other industrialized country I know of.
Tim Starr
Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
>Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> writes in alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,soc.culture.singapore,soc.culture.netherlands:
>>>stupid to see it.
>>
>>Perhaps you could do something to indicate exactly how they are more free,
>>rather than simply insulting my intelligence because you don't agree with
>>me. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it. Thus far, no proof has been
>>forthcoming. As soon as I have pointed out how other countries are less
>>free, people have started defending them on the very grounds that they are
>>less free.
>
>But you do exactly the same thing, as soon as someone argues that the US
>is less free, you start defending the US and even distort it to a very
>strange definition of something you call freedom.
I have never insulted the intelligence of anyone in this thread simply because
I disagree with them. Nor have I simply made some general claim without any
concrete examples of how I think other countries are less free then the U.S.A.
Nor have I said: "Yes, the U.S.A. is less free than X country, but I like it
that way." As for the definition of freedom I use, it's the same concept of
negative liberty that you can find in any good political science textbook.
>Let me tell you one thing, I have lived in the US for over a year, in
>this year I had more encounters with the police and other authorities
>than I have in the previous 27 years in the Netherlands.
I'm sorry to say that your report is perfectly believable.
>...And I did
>exactly the same things I would have done if I was in the Netherlands
>and would not have any trouble with it.
Are there no ways in which you've been freer in the U.S.A. than you would've
been there?
>...Maybe on a theoretical basis
>the US is more free than other countries (the Constitution certainly
>implies so), but on a practical level, the US ain't a free country at
>all.
We've certainly got a long way to go to reclaim our freedom, and we've lost
a lot of it, but I've yet to learn of anywhere that's truly freer overall.
VARA!
> In article <vrtv-30129...@mac-4.knoware.nl>,
> VARA! <vr...@knoware.nl> wrote:
> >1) No-one forces said person to accept the help that is offered.
>
> The State most certainly does, indirectly, by taxing a larger percentage of
> the average person's income than does the USA. The State says something like:
> "We're taking 65% of your income whether you like it or not to pay for a
> welfare system. If that bankrupts you, you still have the choice of not going
> on welfare, so you're actually freer than if we'd let you keep your money."
Nope, untrue for several reasons. First, the average wage has been adjusted
up to compensate for the higher taxes. Second, you are groping for straws
when you mention 65%. 35% is more like it. And when you add up all your
american state, local and whatever other taxes you have, you will arrive
at a very comparable figure. So: Bull.
> >2) I would even think it is possible to argue that freedom to fail is not a
> >real freedom, but a constraint.
>
> How? It could be argued that the risk of failure is a constraint, but I don't
> see how it could be argued that freedom to fail is a constraint.
>
> >...Not having a safety net makes it necessary
> >to restrict your actions ( -> less freedom) to lower the risks of failure.
>
> This assumes that the so-called "safety net" doesn't increase the risk of
> failure, which it does.
No it doesn't, as I have demonstrated above.
> >A safety net allows people to undertake a broader range of actions and
> >therefore increases freedom.
>
> The Welfare State isn't a "safety net," it's the way the modern State keeps
> the people under control.
The term 'safety net' were your words. You are contradicting yourself.
> >> Whereas in other countries everything goes according to the whims of some
> >> tyrant. If you don't follow his whims, you're out. That's even less of an
> >> independent way of living. When it comes to the rule of law versus the
> >> rule of men, I'll take the rule of law every time.
> >
> >First: name the tyrant of a) Netherlands b) France c) Belgium etc etc etc
> >These are all countries which are governed by an elected governement.
>
> An elective despotism is no less tyrannical than an un-elected one. Besides,
> the people in those countries are even more at the mercy of the whims of une-
> lected civil servants than we are here in the U.S.A.
Ya right....
> >Am I right in saying that your basic premise is that authority of any kind
> >is undesireable?
>
> Nope. Involuntary authority is what I object to.
>
> >...Are you an anarchist?
>
> Bingo!
All I can say is try visitting our country. I'm sorry, but your arguments
are only very limited in value. They show that you have no idea of how the
Dutch system works, and that you are blind to certain grave errors in the
American system.
Mike Schenk
>Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
>>Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> writes in alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,soc.culture.singapore,soc.culture.netherlands:
>>>Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
>>>>I don't think you have argued this. The Dutch people do not depend on
>>>>the State to provide food and so on.
>>>
>>>Yes, they do, if they're on welfare. And if a greater fraction of the Dutch
>>>are on welfare than the Americans (as I am told by my Dutch acquaintances),
>>>then the Dutch State considers its people less free than the American one
>>>does as indicated by its treatment of them.
>>
>>This is misleading. In the Netherlands all the needy people are on
>>welfare. In the US, a lot of the needy people do not even get welfare,
>>you should count these people in as well.
>
>Nonsense! There's no reason to count a needy person who doesn't get welfare as
>someone considered dependent by the State.
No, not dependent by the State, but not very independent either. Unless
such a person actually wants to live like that. There are some freedoms
in the sense that someone without a job has a lot of free time, but if
you have to fill that time with begging and trying to get cheap food and
shelter and don't have anything else to do, that doesn't sound very free
to me.
>>The difference between the US and the Netherlands is that the
>>Netherlands provide a better safety net than the US. This doesn't mean
>>that people are not free to fail, they are.
>
>Wrong. It means two things: 1) People are more likely to fail because of the
>high taxes to pay for the welfare system; 2) People are more likely to become
>dependents of the State rather than remain free.
Why are you more likely to fail if there are high taxes?
>Both are ways in which State provision of a so-called "safety net" (which is
>actually a snare by which the State regulates the poor and keeps them in their
>place) makes people less free.
Obviously, you don't have any experience with the welfare system in the
Netherlands or other European countries.
>>>>In the US, this would not be possible, this person would not get a new
>>>>training and would not be able to support himself. Maybe he gets
>>>>wellfare, of which he can't live and he'll end up in the gutter.
>>>>
>>>>And people who have to beg for money in the streets may be independent
>>>>and free from the governments, but they most certainly aren't
>>>>independent people.
>>>
>>>They may not be able to support themselves by making an honest living for
>>>themselves, but that doesn't mean they aren't politically independent. They
>>>aren't subject to coercion, nor do they live by means of it unless they choose
>>>to turn to a life of crime.
>>
>>Yes, and this means?
>
>That they're free, and that they don't violate the freedom of anyone else.
Political independence is not the only type of independence. If you have
to rely on the goodhearted nature of other people, you're still not very
independent.
>>>>Now to other things, in the US everything goes according to the book. If
>>>>you don't follow the book, you're out. Not a very independent way of
>>>>living.
>>>
>>>Whereas in other countries everything goes according to the whims of some
>>>tyrant. If you don't follow his whims, you're out. That's even less of an
>>>independent way of living. When it comes to the rule of law versus the rule
>>>of men, I'll take the rule of law every time.
>>
>>This statement clearly shows that you have absolutely no idea what
>>you're talking about.
>>
>>In the Netherlands and most European countries, people rely on common
>>sense, something that does not exist in the USA.
>
>Bullshit.
Then explain to me why I can't get anything done in the USA without
filling in dozens of forms and putting down my signature all the time.
People in the USA are not free to make decisions on there own, so they
need save-your-ass notes all the time.
Suddenly while typing this last paragraph I see where our differences
are. You are more or less talking about political freedom, while I am
talking about social freedom.
Yes, maybe the political system in the US leaves people with more
freedom than in Europe. However, this freedom is snatched away by the
social culture in the USA. And it is also followed by many state laws.
Why for instance is gambling illegal in most of the US? Why do I have to
show a drivers license when I want to buy a beer? Why do I get stopped
by the police when I drive 5 miles above the speed limit which is set
ridiculously low anyway?
Likewise, in many jobs. During my stay in the USA I worked at a similar
company like my own company. What surprised me was how dependent the
employees at that company are. They are not authorized to take any
decisions, they always have to go to management. They can't decide for
themselves if they want to take a day off. It's all these little things
combined that give most Americans an attitude like "I am not
responsible" basically because they don't have any responsibility.
An example of the last days I spent in the US. I wanted to continue my
bank account so I went to the office to give a change of address to my
house in the Netherlands. At the bank office I spoke to the
vice-president and even she could not decide whether it was possible to
forward my bank statements abroad. She had to call the head office. In
the Netherlands, a decision like that could have been made by any
employee. It turned out that this vice president was authorized to make
the decision anyway but she didn't want to do it without approval of her
supervisor. It is my experience that this is the typical behaviour of
the average American.
Mike
Mike Schenk
>In article <D1ME4...@news.research.ptt.nl>,
>Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
>>Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> writes in alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,soc.culture.singapore,soc.culture.netherlands:
>>>>Almost any Western country has more freedom than the US. You're just to
>>>>stupid to see it.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you could do something to indicate exactly how they are more free,
>>>rather than simply insulting my intelligence because you don't agree with
>>>me. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it. Thus far, no proof has been
>>>forthcoming. As soon as I have pointed out how other countries are less
>>>free, people have started defending them on the very grounds that they are
>>>less free.
>>
>>But you do exactly the same thing, as soon as someone argues that the US
>>is less free, you start defending the US and even distort it to a very
>>strange definition of something you call freedom.
>
>I have never insulted the intelligence of anyone in this thread simply because
>I disagree with them. Nor have I simply made some general claim without any
>concrete examples of how I think other countries are less free then the U.S.A.
One question: Have you actually lived in any of these countries that you
claim are less free than the US?
>Nor have I said: "Yes, the U.S.A. is less free than X country, but I like it
>that way." As for the definition of freedom I use, it's the same concept of
>negative liberty that you can find in any good political science textbook.
>
>>Let me tell you one thing, I have lived in the US for over a year, in
>>this year I had more encounters with the police and other authorities
>>than I have in the previous 27 years in the Netherlands.
>
>I'm sorry to say that your report is perfectly believable.
Then, if my report is so believable, how can you still claim that there
is more freedom in the USA than in the Netherlands.
>>...And I did
>>exactly the same things I would have done if I was in the Netherlands
>>and would not have any trouble with it.
>
>Are there no ways in which you've been freer in the U.S.A. than you would've
>been there?
Only one thing springs to mind. The shops, in the Netherlands the shops
close at a ridiculously early hour, 6 pm. This is actually a law, shops
can only be open between 9 am and 6 pm with the exception of one day
where they can open till 9 pm (this day is selected by the specific
cities and all the shops in that city have to take the same day). They
also have to close on Sunday.
This is the only thing in which I experienced more freedom in the US. And
since this is changing very soon in the Netherlands, my wishes will be
fulfilled anyway.
>>...Maybe on a theoretical basis
>>the US is more free than other countries (the Constitution certainly
>>implies so), but on a practical level, the US ain't a free country at
>>all.
>
>We've certainly got a long way to go to reclaim our freedom, and we've lost
>a lot of it, but I've yet to learn of anywhere that's truly freer overall.
Come live in Europe for some time.
Mike
Kenneth van Grinsven
[...]
>Wrong. It means two things: 1) People are more likely to fail because of the
>high taxes to pay for the welfare system; 2) People are more likely to become
>dependents of the State rather than remain free.
>Both are ways in which State provision of a so-called "safety net" (which is
>actually a snare by which the State regulates the poor and keeps them in their
>place) makes people less free.
Do you actually dare to say those things in a face to face discussion?
Because they totally don't make sense.
Let me give you one chance, and please --->explain<--- why 1) people are more
likely to fail because of the high taxes to pay for the welfare system
and 2) People are more likely to become dependents of the State rathen than
remain free.
To me it seems like you're just making up some phrases, without even thinking
about what you're writing down. So please, found it with some facts.
And I'd like to hear more about that snare too.
Kenneth
Kenneth van Grinsven
>for doubting this claim. As soon as it became clear to all that I was
>right, people immediately being apologists for the greater tyranny of their
>choice.
Huh?
Kenneth
Jonathan R. Engelsma
|> Then explain to me why I can't get anything done in the USA without
|> filling in dozens of forms and putting down my signature all the time.
|> People in the USA are not free to make decisions on there own, so they
|> need save-your-ass notes all the time.
I concur with Mike here. We have some of the most ridiculous lawsuits
here. Spill hot coffee on yourself, bring a lawsuit against MacDonalds
for millions. I also read recently about where somebody fell off the
toilette and injured themself at Macs and brought a lawsuit against
them.
|> Likewise, in many jobs. During my stay in the USA I worked at a similar
|> company like my own company. What surprised me was how dependent the
|> employees at that company are. They are not authorized to take any
|> decisions, they always have to go to management. They can't decide for
|> themselves if they want to take a day off. It's all these little things
|> combined that give most Americans an attitude like "I am not
|> responsible" basically because they don't have any responsibility.
That will vary by company. There are companies in the Netherlands that
have that same culture you describe above.
|> An example of the last days I spent in the US. I wanted to continue my
|> bank account so I went to the office to give a change of address to my
|> house in the Netherlands. At the bank office I spoke to the
|> vice-president and even she could not decide whether it was possible to
|> forward my bank statements abroad. She had to call the head office. In
|> the Netherlands, a decision like that could have been made by any
|> employee. It turned out that this vice president was authorized to make
|> the decision anyway but she didn't want to do it without approval of her
|> supervisor. It is my experience that this is the typical behaviour of
|> the average American.
|>
Interesting story. I had the exact same problem, only I was going from
the Netherlands to the USA. I had a savings account at Rabobank and wanted
them to forward my statements to my US address. The decision was made
immediately by the teller - she simply refused to do it! At least the
US bank tried to accomodate you!
Jonathan
---
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jonathan R. Engelsma Motorola Inc.
enge...@cig.mot.com Cellular Infrastructure Group
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Barbara Saunders
>In article <vrtv-30129...@mac-4.knoware.nl>,
>VARA! <vr...@knoware.nl> wrote:
>>1) No-one forces said person to accept the help that is offered.
>
>The State most certainly does, indirectly, by taxing a larger percentage of
>the average person's income than does the USA. The State says something like:
>"We're taking 65% of your income whether you like it or not to pay for a
>welfare system. If that bankrupts you, you still have the choice of not going
>on welfare, so you're actually freer than if we'd let you keep your money."
>
>
>>therefore increases freedom.
>
>The Welfare State isn't a "safety net," it's the way the modern State keeps
>the people under control.
>
If everyone in the state is taxed, lowering everyone's income by a similar
percentage, that does not increase the risk of failure.
Barbara
Braun Brelin
This is completely *opposite* to my understanding of things. It has been my
experience that in Europe (well, at least in France, where I used to live)
nobody in business could make decisions without going to their superior where
as in America it was the opposite. This is not just hearsay. I work in
Silicon Valley where (at least with startups) people are strongly encouraged
to do things on their own without having to get approval from everybody above
them.
Braun Brelin
bbr...@netcom.com
Eric M. Visser
[*I'm beginning to have the feeling this discussion isn't really going
anywhere, but I'll give it another swing...*]
(ongoing discussion; even number of brackets is me, Tim is odd :-)
>>>>>In other words, in the Netherlands, these people are not considered to be
>>>>>responsible for themselves. Rather, they are coddled by the nanny-state.
>>>>
>>>>>And what, pray, does this have to do with freedom? Whether you're
>>>>forced to depend on the government for your income or on crime or
>>>>prostitution, sounds like basically the same thing to me in terms of
>>>>>"freedom".
>>>
>>>Then you have no clue what freedom is. Freedom is not being taken care of
>>>from womb to tomb by Big Mother. Freedom is not being on the dole, at the
>>>mercy of the strings attached to the public purse by politicians and the
>>>arbitrary whims of welfare bureaucrats.
>>
>>Ha, and _YOU_ are calling _ME_ clueless?! That's a joke! Freedom's got
>>nothing to do with the presence of absence of a safety net -- or if it
>>does, maybe you can explain the connection to me...
>
>If you aren't free to fail, you aren't free. You may not want to be free
>to fail, but, if so, then you don't want freedom, you want serfdom.
And if I'm not free to choose serfdom, how free am I anyway? Okay,
this is just a wise-ass response :-)
But this "freedom to fail" thing is beginning to sound like a litany.
You're really in love with failure, aren't you? :-) As has been
pointed out by many people, including me, the freedom to fail exists
in the Netherlands, and additionally so does the freedom to use or not
use the safety net when you do.
>>Everybody lives under certain constraints: we all pay taxes, whether
>>we like to or not, and we all obey the laws or else risk going to
>>prison. That does not make us slaves of the government. I think any
>>meaningful discussion has to stay within these constraints; if not, it
>>would probably be better to start a discussion on whether a wild
>>animal is freer than a human being, it's basically the same question
>>and you short-circuit the nationalistic crap.
>
>In other words, grant you your unsound premises, and you'll be willing
>to discuss things with me? No, thanks. ...
:-)
> ... Taxation & subjugation to
>the involuntary jurisdiction of the State does indeed make one enslaved
>to the State. (BTW, IRS spokespeople admit that at least 20% of the U.S.
>tax-liable population doesn't pay income taxes.) ...
Oh, so let me get this straight: you don't pay taxes, don't obey the
laws, and when they come and get you you will defend yourself with all
means available? Well, good luck to you, Don Quixote.
I mean, let's face it: we _do_ all pay taxes and obey laws. (In fact,
as Mike and others pointed out and you admitted, we in the Netherlands
need to obey our laws less strictly than you in the US.) As for the
20 % who allegedly don't (am I correct in presuming you're happy with
that and think these people are freer than the rest?), maybe you'd
like to tell me if you think these people would be honest enough not
to use the few social security programs that there are in the US. I
submit 99 % of them would hesitate one minute to take money or help
from the state if it were offered (medical care or whatever). So does
that make them free people, or parasitical crooks?
> ... Beasts have no free
>will, and thus aren't capable of being as free as human beings.
Oh, I see. Yes, that's a useful distinction, I'll grant you that.
>>I don't think the amount of freedom you have depends on the amount of
>>taxes you pay. If these taxes are used to enhance everyone's freedom,
>>which is basically the idea, then you're getting your money's worth.
>
>"I don't think the amount of freedom you have depends on how much of your
>hard-earned money is robbed from you by the threat of force. If the gang
>of thieves uses the money to enrich themselves & their cronies, which is
>the basic idea, then they're getting your money's worth."
^^^^
:-) I like that touch, especially. But well, you're just evading the
discussion here.
>>Whether you get your money's worth or not again depends not on the
>>level of taxation, but on the quality of your government.
>
>The level of taxation is one of the things that goes to show what the quality
>of the government is.
In the sense of: "the less, the better"? Too, too naive altogether.
>>>The only difference between a life of crime and a life on the dole is that
>>>criminals at least have the courage to steal their ill-gotten gains them-
>>>selves instead of waiting around for the State to do it for them and then
>>>glorifying the State for robbing others to support them like the captive
>>>pets they are.
>>
>>Oh, this is great. So given the choice between a criminal and a person
>>on the dole, you admire the criminal and despise the person on the
>>dole. Most jobless people don't enjoy being jobless, you know. Is that
>>so hard to understand?
>
>Whether they enjoy their lot has nothing to do with how they compare to the
>freelance criminal.
Just answer the question: given the choice, would you become a
criminal rather than live on the dole or become homeless? If so, I
would have to assume that morality doesn't come into the equation as
far as you're concerned. Is that correct?
>>>Prostitution, on the other hand, is an honorable and noble profession in
>>>which valuable personal services are freely exchanged for some good
>>>consideration in return. Prostitutes are much freer than welfare bums and
>>>crooks.
>>
>>Don't get me wrong: I have no moral qualms about prostitution, as far
>>as I'm concerned it's a profession like any other and it shouldn't be
>>illegal (just like drugs, really :-). But by the very fact that it's
>>illegal, it's a profession that few people choose of their own free
>>will (who wants to be in constant apprehension of being picked up by
>>the cops, beaten up by your pimp or a crazy customer, catching a scary
>>disease and whatnot), and even fewer stay with of their own free will.
>
>How many prostitutes do you know? I have a friend who works with the S.F.
>Task Force on Prostitution here, and knows quite a few. None have reported
>being so coerced into their occupation. Such cases don't represent the
>norm in the profession. Rather, they represent the exception to the rule.
>Most prostitutes make good money, work short hours of their own choosing,
>live well, take frequent vacations, drive nice cars, etc. They'd be even
>better off if it were legal, and be less dependent upon the whims of their
>madams/pimps (if they have any - most establish their own independent client
>base & work for themselves), but they're still considerably better of than
>either crooks or those on the dole.
Okay, so those exist too, the glamourous ones. I'm not convinced
though that they form the majority. "_None_ have reported being
coerced"? Makes you sort of doubt the veracity of it all, doesn't it?
Also, you say "they'd be even better off if it were legal"; you do
realise I hope that they'd have to pay taxes then, don't you? Which
would make them slaves. Boy does this thing ever get complicated. :-)
Anyway, this has little to do with the issue at hand. There are
prostitutes in the Netherlands too.
>>To glorify prostitutes as the last truly free people on Earth (apart
>>from yourself, I suppose) is really nothing but giving away your
>>ignorance.
>
>Since I did no such thing, I displayed no such ignorance. You've simply
>erected a strawman from the figments of your own imagination to strike down
>in my place.
??? Well, I must have misunderstood you. It still looks to me as if
you did, and repeated that in your latest post.
>>>>I have the idea that you're equating "freedom" with "economic
>>>>freedom", the freedom to be as rich or as poor as you can or like to
>>>>be. I think there's a bit more to it than that. And besides, you have
>>>>that freedom in the Netherlands too...
>>>
>>>Economic freedom is a necessary part of total freedom. And, as I have
>>>argued, we have more of it, still, in the USA than there is in the Netherlands.
>>
>>Economic freedom is a part, but like with everything else, there is a
>>tradeoff. It's not black-and-white, and your views on this issue are
>>just way to simplistic.
>
>How do you know whether my views are simple or complex?
From discussing them with you. Any other questions?
>>>>And throwing around epithets like "the nanny-state" is not exactly the
>>>>right way to win admiration for the force of your arguments...
>>>
>>>Goethe once said that none are more totally enslaved than those who falsely
>>>believe they are free. Why should I seek the admiration of slaves?
>>
>>Juvenile bullshit.
>
>So much for one of the most celebrated minds in European history.
You, one of the most celebrated minds in European history? Oh sorry, I
didn't realise that. Should've been more respectful.
>>>>>Most street people in the USA are there by choice: ...
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, sure. Then how come there's so many of them in the USA, and not
>>>>in the Netherlands? You can sleep on the streets in Holland too you
>>>>know, if you want to. Just don't pick up your allowance. They won't
>>>>force-feed it to you. Ah well, maybe it's all a cultural thing.
>>>
>>>Yes, I think it is cultural.
>>
>>Ah. So maybe your ideas of freedom are also culturally predetermined.
>>Maybe your thinking is not as free as you think. Maybe we can't have a
>>meaningful discussion anyway. What do you think?
>
>Nice try, but no cigar.
Okay, so if you accept that the cultural explanation is little more
than an excuse, then would you care to try again to explain why there
are so many more homeless in the USA than in the Netherlands.
Cheers,
Eric.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric M. Visser email: er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd. phone: 044 - 754 - 2671
Kawasaki, Japan fax : 044 - 754 - 2570
=====================================================================
"I think it's a fallacy that taste bottoms out somewhere." -- Calvin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Adriana C. Bruggeman
I am sorry that I have to dissappoint you, but this useful discussion has
been temporarily suspended, because Tim Starr, who has a friend who knows
prostitutes, is currently in the hospital for some gender-change operations.
I am afraid that he won't return to the net after that either, because
Tina Starr is going to make good money, work short hours of her own choosing,
live well, take frequent vacations, drive nice cars, etc.
Sincerely,
Jeaan Bruggeman
Tim Starr (tims...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <ERIC.94De...@matisse.ling.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>,
: Eric M. Visser <er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp> wrote:
: >>Prostitution, on the other hand, is an honorable and noble profession in
: >>which valuable personal services are freely exchanged for some good
: >>consideration in return. Prostitutes are much freer than welfare bums and
: >>crooks.
: >
: >Don't get me wrong: I have no moral qualms about prostitution, as far
: >as I'm concerned it's a profession like any other and it shouldn't be
: >illegal (just like drugs, really :-). But by the very fact that it's
: >illegal, it's a profession that few people choose of their own free
: >will (who wants to be in constant apprehension of being picked up by
: >the cops, beaten up by your pimp or a crazy customer, catching a scary
: >disease and whatnot), and even fewer stay with of their own free will.
: How many prostitutes do you know? I have a friend who works with the S.F.
: Task Force on Prostitution here, and knows quite a few. None have reported
: being so coerced into their occupation. Such cases don't represent the
: norm in the profession. Rather, they represent the exception to the rule.
: Most prostitutes make good money, work short hours of their own choosing,
: live well, take frequent vacations, drive nice cars, etc. They'd be even
: better off if it were legal, and be less dependent upon the whims of their
: madams/pimps (if they have any - most establish their own independent client
: base & work for themselves), but they're still considerably better of than
: either crooks or those on the dole.
: >To glorify prostitutes as the last truly free people on Earth (apart
Otto Pilot
writes:
>survey which found that Americans defend themselves with guns up to 2.5
million
>times a year, and that 1 out of 6 of these people are absolutely certain
that
In Europe, I've never seen a gun in public. Neither has anyone I know.
Noone I know carries a gun. Noone I know has been threatened by one, or
shot by one. Your post suggests I should be *jealous*. Hmm.
My brother lives in the valley (CA). Even in this agricultural area there
is fortressing going on: new estates that are walled - one way in, one
way out. The days of houses facing out on to the main street seem to
vanishing. Fodor's guide to CA tells you where *not* to go at night. Try
finding the same in Fodor's guides for europe. No go zones? Err, no
thanks.
Homeless? The sad thing is, that, in the US they're so bloody
resourceful, sober. Makes you wonder why they're on the street. Perhaps
they wouldn't be in a different society. We've just got the small handful
of hardcore dropouts.
Don't get me wrong, it's a damn fine country - I visit every year and
enjoy it every time, but please don't get on some trip. Every territory
has it crappy bits - trying to tell us the crappy bits are the good bits
just grates, I know what bits are cool and that's why I come back
consistently. If you think we visit to 'admire' guns, the homeless etc
then you should play the planets game: i.e. Which one are you one?
Otto
DanK98
nationalistic and you need to take a good look at what's going on in your
so "perfect" country. If I'm being searched for guns in my Highschool here
in CA there must be something wrong??
Sincerely yours,
Bas.
Tim Starr
Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
>>>This is misleading. In the Netherlands all the needy people are on
>>>welfare. In the US, a lot of the needy people do not even get welfare,
>>>you should count these people in as well.
>>
>>Nonsense! There's no reason to count a needy person who doesn't get welfare as
>>someone considered dependent by the State.
>
>No, not dependent by the State, but not very independent either.
That's changing the subject. The subject at hand was whether the people are
treated more as free & independent beings in Europe than the USA, not whether
the people are in fact self-sufficient or not.
>>>The difference between the US and the Netherlands is that the
>>>Netherlands provide a better safety net than the US. This doesn't mean
>>>that people are not free to fail, they are.
>>
>>Wrong. It means two things: 1) People are more likely to fail because of the
>>high taxes to pay for the welfare system; 2) People are more likely to become
>>dependents of the State rather than remain free.
>
>Why are you more likely to fail if there are high taxes?
The lower your income, the greater your risk of personal bankruptcy. Taxes
lower your income, and thus increase your risk of going bankrupt.
>>Both are ways in which State provision of a so-called "safety net" (which is
>>actually a snare by which the State regulates the poor and keeps them in their
>>place) makes people less free.
>
>Obviously, you don't have any experience with the welfare system in the
>Netherlands or other European countries.
Are there no strings attaced to welfare in Europe?
>>>>>In the US, this would not be possible, this person would not get a new
>>>>>training and would not be able to support himself. Maybe he gets
>>>>>wellfare, of which he can't live and he'll end up in the gutter.
>>>>>
>>>>>And people who have to beg for money in the streets may be independent
>>>>>and free from the governments, but they most certainly aren't
>>>>>independent people.
>>>>
>>>>They may not be able to support themselves by making an honest living for
>>>>themselves, but that doesn't mean they aren't politically independent. They
>>>>aren't subject to coercion, nor do they live by means of it unless they choose
>>>>to turn to a life of crime.
>>>
>>>Yes, and this means?
>>
>>That they're free, and that they don't violate the freedom of anyone else.
>
>Political independence is not the only type of independence.
It's the only relevant kind of independence when it comes to one's relationship
with the State.
>>>>>Now to other things, in the US everything goes according to the book. If
>>>>>you don't follow the book, you're out. Not a very independent way of
>>>>>living.
>>>>
>>>>Whereas in other countries everything goes according to the whims of some
>>>>tyrant. If you don't follow his whims, you're out. That's even less of an
>>>>independent way of living. When it comes to the rule of law versus the rule
>>>>of men, I'll take the rule of law every time.
>>>
>>>This statement clearly shows that you have absolutely no idea what
>>>you're talking about.
>>>
>>>In the Netherlands and most European countries, people rely on common
>>>sense, something that does not exist in the USA.
>>
>>Bullshit.
>
>Then explain to me why I can't get anything done in the USA without
>filling in dozens of forms and putting down my signature all the time.
>People in the USA are not free to make decisions on there own, so they
>need save-your-ass notes all the time.
You seem to be referring to 1) bureaucratic red tape (and you'd be the first
ever to have argued that there's more of that here than in Europe in my
experience); 2) Liability waivers, which are due to our screwed up liability
law system (admittedly inferior to, say, U.K. liability law insofar as we
have no "loser-pays" rule and they do there).
>Suddenly while typing this last paragraph I see where our differences
>are. You are more or less talking about political freedom, while I am
>talking about social freedom.
Bingo!
>Yes, maybe the political system in the US leaves people with more
>freedom than in Europe. However, this freedom is snatched away by the
>social culture in the USA. And it is also followed by many state laws.
>Why for instance is gambling illegal in most of the US?
Isn't it illegal in most of Europe, too?
>...Why do I have to show a driver's license when I want to buy a beer?
You don't have to do that in Europe?
>...Why do I get stopped
>by the police when I drive 5 miles above the speed limit which is set
>ridiculously low anyway?
We don't satisfy their appetite for revenue with taxes, so they have to
make up the difference with fines :-).
>Likewise, in many jobs. During my stay in the USA I worked at a similar
>company like my own company. What surprised me was how dependent the
>employees at that company are. They are not authorized to take any
>decisions, they always have to go to management. They can't decide for
>themselves if they want to take a day off.
First of all, what kind of company was that? What form of business
organization?
Secondly, they chose to work for that firm. They can choose to work for
another with more flexible rules if they like (although they'll probably
have to take a pay cut to do so), or they can start their own business.
Thirdly, how're managers supposed to get their employees to do anything
if they're taking days off all the time? Surprising as it may seem,
paid days off is not the main function of a business. Customer satisfaction
is.
>An example of the last days I spent in the US. I wanted to continue my
>bank account so I went to the office to give a change of address to my
>house in the Netherlands. At the bank office I spoke to the
>vice-president and even she could not decide whether it was possible to
>forward my bank statements abroad. She had to call the head office. In
>the Netherlands, a decision like that could have been made by any
>employee. It turned out that this vice president was authorized to make
>the decision anyway but she didn't want to do it without approval of her
>supervisor. It is my experience that this is the typical behaviour of
>the average American.
I'll have to ask my banker friend about this to see what she has to say
about it.
Just recently, I've read that there's a trade-off between the U.S. system
of government and most other Western democracies: the U.S. has lower tax
levels, but more rigid regulatory authorities, whereas Europe has higher
tax levels, but more flexible regulatory authorities. I'm not sure what I
think of this theory yet, but it seems plausible.
Tim Starr
Kenneth van Grinsven <kenn...@sci.kun.nl> wrote:
>In <timstarrD...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>Wrong. It means two things: 1) People are more likely to fail because of the
>>high taxes to pay for the welfare system; 2) People are more likely to become
>>dependents of the State rather than remain free.
>
>>Both are ways in which State provision of a so-called "safety net" (which is
>>actually a snare by which the State regulates the poor and keeps them in their
>>place) makes people less free.
>
>Do you actually dare to say those things in a face to face discussion?
Sure I do.
>Because they totally don't make sense.
>Let me give you one chance, and please --->explain<--- why 1) people are more
>likely to fail because of the high taxes to pay for the welfare system
Already did. Lower income, greater risk of bankruptcy.
>and 2) People are more likely to become dependents of the State rathen than
>remain free.
The higher the tax levels, the less incentive to earn income & stay off the
dole.
>And I'd like to hear more about that snare too.
Like what?
Tim Starr
VARA! <vr...@knoware.nl> wrote:
>In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com (Tim
>Starr) wrote:
>
>> In article <vrtv-30129...@mac-4.knoware.nl>,
>> VARA! <vr...@knoware.nl> wrote:
>> >1) No-one forces said person to accept the help that is offered.
>>
>> The State most certainly does, indirectly, by taxing a larger percentage of
>> the average person's income than does the USA. The State says something like:
>> "We're taking 65% of your income whether you like it or not to pay for a
>> welfare system. If that bankrupts you, you still have the choice of not going
>> on welfare, so you're actually freer than if we'd let you keep your money."
>
>Nope, untrue for several reasons. First, the average wage has been adjusted
>up to compensate for the higher taxes.
What?
>...Second, you are groping for straws when you mention 65%. 35% is more like
>it. And when you add up all your american state, local and whatever other
>taxes you have, you will arrive at a very comparable figure.
Is the Dutch tax level really only 35%? I find that hard to believe.
>> >2) I would even think it is possible to argue that freedom to fail is not a
>> >real freedom, but a constraint.
>>
>> How? It could be argued that the risk of failure is a constraint, but I don't
>> see how it could be argued that freedom to fail is a constraint.
>>
>> >...Not having a safety net makes it necessary
>> >to restrict your actions ( -> less freedom) to lower the risks of failure.
>>
>> This assumes that the so-called "safety net" doesn't increase the risk of
>> failure, which it does.
>
>No it doesn't, as I have demonstrated above.
Perhaps not relative to countries with higher tax levels, but certainly rela-
tive to those with lower ones.
>> >A safety net allows people to undertake a broader range of actions and
>> >therefore increases freedom.
>>
>> The Welfare State isn't a "safety net," it's the way the modern State keeps
>> the people under control.
>
>The term 'safety net' were your words. You are contradicting yourself.
I don't remember introducing the term. I usually eschew it.
>> >Am I right in saying that your basic premise is that authority of any kind
>> >is undesireable?
>>
>> Nope. Involuntary authority is what I object to.
>>
>> >...Are you an anarchist?
>>
>> Bingo!
>
>All I can say is try visitting our country.
I hope to, and look forward to it.
>...I'm sorry, but your arguments
>are only very limited in value. They show that you have no idea of how the
>Dutch system works, and that you are blind to certain grave errors in the
>American system.
Well, I wish someone would explain these things to me.
Tim Starr
Barbara Saunders <saun...@sybase.com> wrote:
>In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>>In article <vrtv-30129...@mac-4.knoware.nl>,
>>VARA! <vr...@knoware.nl> wrote:
>>>1) No-one forces said person to accept the help that is offered.
>>
>>The State most certainly does, indirectly, by taxing a larger percentage of
>>the average person's income than does the USA. The State says something like:
>>"We're taking 65% of your income whether you like it or not to pay for a
>>welfare system. If that bankrupts you, you still have the choice of not going
>>on welfare, so you're actually freer than if we'd let you keep your money."
>>
>>
>>>A safety net allows people to undertake a broader range of actions and
>>>therefore increases freedom.
>>
>>The Welfare State isn't a "safety net," it's the way the modern State keeps
>>the people under control.
>>
>Please explain this. How does a welfare state keep people under control.
Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. Money always comes with strings
attached. For some strange reason, people realize this when it comes to money
from private businesses, but forget it when it comes to money from the State.
If you don't comply with the State's rules, it cuts you off.
>If everyone in the state is taxed, lowering everyone's income by a similar
>percentage, that does not increase the risk of failure.
Sure it does. It increases it on a national scale!
Tim Starr
Tim Starr
Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
>Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> writes in alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,soc.culture.singapore,soc.culture.netherlands:
>>In article <D1ME4...@news.research.ptt.nl>,
>>Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
>>>Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> writes in alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,soc.culture.singapore,soc.culture.netherlands:
>>>>>Almost any Western country has more freedom than the US. You're just to
>>>>>stupid to see it.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you could do something to indicate exactly how they are more free,
>>>>rather than simply insulting my intelligence because you don't agree with
>>>>me. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it. Thus far, no proof has been
>>>>forthcoming. As soon as I have pointed out how other countries are less
>>>>free, people have started defending them on the very grounds that they are
>>>>less free.
>>>
>>>But you do exactly the same thing, as soon as someone argues that the US
>>>is less free, you start defending the US and even distort it to a very
>>>strange definition of something you call freedom.
>>
>>I have never insulted the intelligence of anyone in this thread simply because
>>I disagree with them. Nor have I simply made some general claim without any
>>concrete examples of how I think other countries are less free then the U.S.A.
>
>One question: Have you actually lived in any of these countries that you
>claim are less free than the US?
I admit that I haven't. I've visited some, but I haven't lived anywhere else.
I realize that this means my experience is highly limited - but I never claimed
to have lots of first-hand experience to draw upon.
>>Nor have I said: "Yes, the U.S.A. is less free than X country, but I like it
>>that way." As for the definition of freedom I use, it's the same concept of
>>negative liberty that you can find in any good political science textbook.
>>
>>>Let me tell you one thing, I have lived in the US for over a year, in
>>>this year I had more encounters with the police and other authorities
>>>than I have in the previous 27 years in the Netherlands.
>>
>>I'm sorry to say that your report is perfectly believable.
>
>Then, if my report is so believable, how can you still claim that there
>is more freedom in the USA than in the Netherlands.
Because encountering the police & other authorities isn't the only indicator to
go by.
>>>...And I did
>>>exactly the same things I would have done if I was in the Netherlands
>>>and would not have any trouble with it.
>>
>>Are there no ways in which you've been freer in the U.S.A. than you would've
>>been there?
>
>Only one thing springs to mind. The shops, in the Netherlands the shops
>close at a ridiculously early hour, 6 pm. This is actually a law, shops
>can only be open between 9 am and 6 pm with the exception of one day
>where they can open till 9 pm (this day is selected by the specific
>cities and all the shops in that city have to take the same day). They
>also have to close on Sunday.
We have that a little bit for liquor stores. Some places the law forces
them to close at a certain time of night, in other places it forbids them
from being open on Sundays. But not for most shops.
>This is the only thing in which I experienced more freedom in the US. And
>since this is changing very soon in the Netherlands, my wishes will be
>fulfilled anyway.
>
>>>...Maybe on a theoretical basis
>>>the US is more free than other countries (the Constitution certainly
>>>implies so), but on a practical level, the US ain't a free country at
>>>all.
>>
>>We've certainly got a long way to go to reclaim our freedom, and we've lost
>>a lot of it, but I've yet to learn of anywhere that's truly freer overall.
>
>Come live in Europe for some time.
I'd like to! I don't suppose you'd care to contribute to my airfare :-)?
Tim Starr
>
>[*I'm beginning to have the feeling this discussion isn't really going
> anywhere, but I'll give it another swing...*]
>
>(ongoing discussion; even number of brackets is me, Tim is odd :-)
>
>>>>>>In other words, in the Netherlands, these people are not considered to be
>>>>>>responsible for themselves. Rather, they are coddled by the nanny-state.
>>>>>
>>>>>>And what, pray, does this have to do with freedom? Whether you're
>>>>>forced to depend on the government for your income or on crime or
>>>>>prostitution, sounds like basically the same thing to me in terms of
>>>>>>"freedom".
>>>>
>>>>Then you have no clue what freedom is. Freedom is not being taken care of
>>>>from womb to tomb by Big Mother. Freedom is not being on the dole, at the
>>>>mercy of the strings attached to the public purse by politicians and the
>>>>arbitrary whims of welfare bureaucrats.
>>>
>>>Ha, and _YOU_ are calling _ME_ clueless?! That's a joke! Freedom's got
>>>nothing to do with the presence of absence of a safety net -- or if it
>>>does, maybe you can explain the connection to me...
>>
>>If you aren't free to fail, you aren't free. You may not want to be free
>>to fail, but, if so, then you don't want freedom, you want serfdom.
>
>And if I'm not free to choose serfdom, how free am I anyway? Okay,
>this is just a wise-ass response :-)
But you're always free to choose to give up some of your freedom. It's being
free to keep it that makes a difference.
>But this "freedom to fail" thing is beginning to sound like a litany.
>You're really in love with failure, aren't you? :-)
No, no.
>...As has been
>pointed out by many people, including me, the freedom to fail exists
>in the Netherlands, and additionally so does the freedom to use or not
>use the safety net when you do.
I've dealt with this argument several times already.
>> ... Taxation & subjugation to
>>the involuntary jurisdiction of the State does indeed make one enslaved
>>to the State. (BTW, IRS spokespeople admit that at least 20% of the U.S.
>>tax-liable population doesn't pay income taxes.) ...
>
>Oh, so let me get this straight: you don't pay taxes, don't obey the
>laws, and when they come and get you you will defend yourself with all
>means available? Well, good luck to you, Don Quixote.
I didn't say that was my course of action. I'm trying to establish a
principle here. Action strategies come afterwards, and take lots more
into consideration.
>I mean, let's face it: we _do_ all pay taxes and obey laws. (In fact,
>as Mike and others pointed out and you admitted, we in the Netherlands
>need to obey our laws less strictly than you in the US.) As for the
>20 % who allegedly don't (am I correct in presuming you're happy with
>that and think these people are freer than the rest?), maybe you'd
>like to tell me if you think these people would be honest enough not
>to use the few social security programs that there are in the US.
Actually, many of them renounce their social security numbers as part
of their legal strategy, as well as their driver's licenses. But I
have no objection to anyone trying to reclaim some of what's been stolen
from them by the State in the form of benefits handed out by it.
>...I
>submit 99 % of them would hesitate one minute to take money or help
>from the state if it were offered (medical care or whatever). So does
>that make them free people, or parasitical crooks?
Some of both, I think.
>>>I don't think the amount of freedom you have depends on the amount of
>>>taxes you pay. If these taxes are used to enhance everyone's freedom,
>>>which is basically the idea, then you're getting your money's worth.
>>
>>"I don't think the amount of freedom you have depends on how much of your
>>hard-earned money is robbed from you by the threat of force. If the gang
>>of thieves uses the money to enrich themselves & their cronies, which is
>>the basic idea, then they're getting your money's worth."
> ^^^^
>:-) I like that touch, especially. But well, you're just evading the
>discussion here.
The serious point is that I don't think it's possible to take things from
people without their consent and enhance their freedom with the proceeds.
Not only don't the ends justify the means, but the means determine the ends.
>>>Whether you get your money's worth or not again depends not on the
>>>level of taxation, but on the quality of your government.
>>
>>The level of taxation is one of the things that goes to show what the quality
>>of the government is.
>
>In the sense of: "the less, the better"? Too, too naive altogether.
All else being equal, yes. What's so naive about that?
>>>>The only difference between a life of crime and a life on the dole is that
>>>>criminals at least have the courage to steal their ill-gotten gains them-
>>>>selves instead of waiting around for the State to do it for them and then
>>>>glorifying the State for robbing others to support them like the captive
>>>>pets they are.
>>>
>>>Oh, this is great. So given the choice between a criminal and a person
>>>on the dole, you admire the criminal and despise the person on the
>>>dole. Most jobless people don't enjoy being jobless, you know. Is that
>>>so hard to understand?
>>
>>Whether they enjoy their lot has nothing to do with how they compare to the
>>freelance criminal.
>
>Just answer the question: given the choice, would you become a
>criminal rather than live on the dole or become homeless?
Unless there were too many strings attached, I'd try to reclaim some of my
tax money through the dole. Otherwise, I'd probably be homeless.
[Description of prostitutes omitted for brevity.]
>Okay, so those exist too, the glamourous ones. I'm not convinced
>though that they form the majority. "_None_ have reported being
>coerced"? Makes you sort of doubt the veracity of it all, doesn't it?
I'm sure some coercion goes on; I wasn't referring to a scientific poll
or survey, just anecdotal evidence. All I was trying to say was that
such cases don't seem to represent the profession as a whole as far as
I can tell.
>Also, you say "they'd be even better off if it were legal"; you do
>realise I hope that they'd have to pay taxes then, don't you? Which
>would make them slaves. Boy does this thing ever get complicated. :-)
Actually, if I ever gave the impression that prostitutes don't pay taxes
that was mistaken. They do. Under "Occupation" on their IRS forms, they
write: "Prostitute," or "whore," etc. The IRS isn't allowed to give out
that kind of information to anyone else who might prosecute them for
practicing an illegal profession.
>Anyway, this has little to do with the issue at hand. There are
>prostitutes in the Netherlands too.
True.
>>>To glorify prostitutes as the last truly free people on Earth (apart
>>>from yourself, I suppose) is really nothing but giving away your
>>>ignorance.
>>
>>Since I did no such thing, I displayed no such ignorance. You've simply
>>erected a strawman from the figments of your own imagination to strike down
>>in my place.
>
>??? Well, I must have misunderstood you. It still looks to me as if
>you did, and repeated that in your latest post.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
>>>>>And throwing around epithets like "the nanny-state" is not exactly the
>>>>>right way to win admiration for the force of your arguments...
>>>>
>>>>Goethe once said that none are more totally enslaved than those who falsely
>>>>believe they are free. Why should I seek the admiration of slaves?
>>>
>>>Juvenile bullshit.
>>
>>So much for one of the most celebrated minds in European history.
>
>You, one of the most celebrated minds in European history? Oh sorry, I
>didn't realise that. Should've been more respectful.
Not me, silly, Goethe!
>>>>>>Most street people in the USA are there by choice: ...
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, sure. Then how come there's so many of them in the USA, and not
>>>>>in the Netherlands? You can sleep on the streets in Holland too you
>>>>>know, if you want to. Just don't pick up your allowance. They won't
>>>>>force-feed it to you. Ah well, maybe it's all a cultural thing.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I think it is cultural.
>>>
>>>Ah. So maybe your ideas of freedom are also culturally predetermined.
>>>Maybe your thinking is not as free as you think. Maybe we can't have a
>>>meaningful discussion anyway. What do you think?
>>
>>Nice try, but no cigar.
>
>Okay, so if you accept that the cultural explanation is little more
>than an excuse, then would you care to try again to explain why there
>are so many more homeless in the USA than in the Netherlands.
I'm not really sure. I don't know enough about your country to tell, but
isn't there a more extensive public housing program there?
VARA!
> Mike Schenk <M.R.S...@research.ptt.nl> wrote:
> >Why for instance is gambling illegal in most of the US?
>
> Isn't it illegal in most of Europe, too?
Nope.
> >...Why do I have to show a driver's license when I want to buy a beer?
>
> You don't have to do that in Europe?
Nope.
> >...Why do I get stopped
> >by the police when I drive 5 miles above the speed limit which is set
> >ridiculously low anyway?
>
> We don't satisfy their appetite for revenue with taxes, so they have to
> make up the difference with fines :-).
Or maybe they just like harrassing folks :-(
> >Likewise, in many jobs. During my stay in the USA I worked at a similar
> >company like my own company. What surprised me was how dependent the
> >employees at that company are. They are not authorized to take any
> >decisions, they always have to go to management. They can't decide for
> >themselves if they want to take a day off.
>
> First of all, what kind of company was that? What form of business
> organization?
>
> Secondly, they chose to work for that firm. They can choose to work for
> another with more flexible rules if they like (although they'll probably
> have to take a pay cut to do so), or they can start their own business.
Oh get real. In the current climate you're lucky if you have a job, any job.
> Thirdly, how're managers supposed to get their employees to do anything
> if they're taking days off all the time? Surprising as it may seem,
> paid days off is not the main function of a business. Customer satisfaction
> is.
Oh right, we'll just outlaw all vacation, that should solve all problems!
In the Netherlands, 25 days vacation per year is pretty common, and quite
a number of companies also have work-time-decrease programs that add another
couple of days. In my previous job I had 34 days per year vacation, so I
could say, take 4 weeks in the summer (using 20 vacation days) and still have
another 14 left for odd days off. Strangely enough, Dutch business is still
doing well, and has not suffered from this 'lowered productivity'.
--Ralph
VARA!
Starr) wrote:
> In article <vrtv-03019...@mac-6.knoware.nl>,
> VARA! <vr...@knoware.nl> wrote:
> >In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com (Tim
> >Starr) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <vrtv-30129...@mac-4.knoware.nl>,
> >> VARA! <vr...@knoware.nl> wrote:
> >> >1) No-one forces said person to accept the help that is offered.
> >>
> >> The State most certainly does, indirectly, by taxing a larger percentage of
> >> the average person's income than does the USA. The State says something
> >> like:
> >> "We're taking 65% of your income whether you like it or not to pay for a
> >> welfare system. If that bankrupts you, you still have the choice of not
> >> going
> >> on welfare, so you're actually freer than if we'd let you keep your money."
> >
> >Nope, untrue for several reasons. First, the average wage has been adjusted
> >up to compensate for the higher taxes.
>
> What?
Over time, average wage has been adjusted up to compensate for higher
tax levels and inflation.
> >...Second, you are groping for straws when you mention 65%. 35% is more like
> >it. And when you add up all your american state, local and whatever other
> >taxes you have, you will arrive at a very comparable figure.
>
> Is the Dutch tax level really only 35%? I find that hard to believe.
Dutch tax levels work in stages. The lowest stage, the one in which the
majority of people fall, is just under 35%. The next stage is just over
40% I believe.
> >...I'm sorry, but your arguments
> >are only very limited in value. They show that you have no idea of how the
> >Dutch system works, and that you are blind to certain grave errors in the
> >American system.
>
> Well, I wish someone would explain these things to me.
Well, the first big social problem in the USA as I see it is the tendency
of Americans to want to dictate their morals to others. I know this is so
everywhere, but it's just so exaggerated in the US. This means that I cannot
engage in certain consensual acts which harm no 3rd party without people
criticising me for my behaviour. Even if my behaviour is private.
(Example: anal/oral sex, which is still illegal in some states)
This tendency reflects in the legal system where people can be judged by
a panel of people, consisting of a sample of the population. It should be
clear that therefore the morals and tendencies of the general populace
are also those of the juries. This means that a jury in Tennessee could easily
have a different verdict than that of a California jury. In my opinion,
that means the US legal system is biased.
And this tendency actually extends to the US foreign politics, which also
tries to play GloboCop every once in a while....
--Ralph
Dvazan
them, i can say (from first hand experience) that they are extemely
lenient. technically it is against the law to sell alcohol to anyone
under 17 or 18. however, no one bothers to enforce the law nor obey it.
alcohol, and cigarettes for that matter, are quite accessible to anyone
who has money. why, you may ask. well, that goes back to the beginning
of this post (i think). in Europe it is culturally acceptable for "kids"
to smoke or drink=freedom. just how responsible are these minors with
such "adult" drugs though? my cousin lives in the czech republic. he
goes to parties with alcohol, cigarettes, etc. and to tell you the truth
he and many others are very responsible with the drug. they treat it with
more respect than american teens. i have therefore come to the conclusion
that when a person is exposed to a substance throughout child and
adulthood the mystic surrounding the drug; the curiosity it provokes, are
both destroyed. when it is culturally acceptable for a teen to drink,
smoke, etc. it dampens the desire to go out and rebelliously drink oneself
into a stooper. prohibition of "harder" drugs just entices people to go
out and experiment.
dave
Barbara Saunders
>In article <D1wLr...@sybase.com>,
>Barbara Saunders <saun...@sybase.com> wrote:
>>In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>>>In article <vrtv-30129...@mac-4.knoware.nl>,
>>>VARA! <vr...@knoware.nl> wrote:
>>>>1) No-one forces said person to accept the help that is offered.
>>>
>>>The State most certainly does, indirectly, by taxing a larger percentage of
>>>the average person's income than does the USA. The State says something like:
>>>"We're taking 65% of your income whether you like it or not to pay for a
>>>welfare system. If that bankrupts you, you still have the choice of not going
>>>on welfare, so you're actually freer than if we'd let you keep your money."
>>>
>>>
>>>>A safety net allows people to undertake a broader range of actions and
>>>>therefore increases freedom.
>>>
>>>The Welfare State isn't a "safety net," it's the way the modern State keeps
>>>the people under control.
>>>
>>Please explain this. How does a welfare state keep people under control.
>
>Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. Money always comes with strings
>attached. For some strange reason, people realize this when it comes to money
>from private businesses, but forget it when it comes to money from the State.
>If you don't comply with the State's rules, it cuts you off.
Then you are acknowledging that business does this also? Why is business,
then, a better piper than the state. Given a choice between the two
evils, I'll take the state,
>
>>If everyone in the state is taxed, lowering everyone's income by a similar
>>percentage, that does not increase the risk of failure.
>
>Sure it does. It increases it on a national scale!
But the risk of failure is no longer starving in the street or dying
from lack of medical care.
>
Barbara
Niek Holtzappel
>
is offered.
> > >>
> > >> The State most certainly does, indirectly, by taxing a larger percentage of
> > >> the average person's income than does the USA. The State says something
> > >> like:
> > >> "We're taking 65% of your income whether you like it or not to pay for a
> > >> welfare system. If that bankrupts you, you still have the choice of not
> > >> going
> > >> on welfare, so you're actually freer than if we'd let you keep your money."
> > >
> > >Nope, untrue for several reasons. First, the average wage has been adjusted
> > >up to compensate for the higher taxes.
> >
> > What?
>
> Over time, average wage has been adjusted up to compensate for higher
> tax levels and inflation.
>
> > >...Second, you are groping for straws when you mention 65%. 35% is more like
> > >it. And when you add up all your american state, local and whatever other
> > >taxes you have, you will arrive at a very comparable figure.
> >
> > Is the Dutch tax level really only 35%? I find that hard to believe.
>
> Dutch tax levels work in stages. The lowest stage, the one in which the
> majority of people fall, is just under 35%. The next stage is just over
> 40% I believe.
In the first place, everybody has a tax-free sum. For a loner it is about
6500 guilders for a family it is more than 10000 guilders.
If you buy your own house, you can cut the interest of the hypotheque
from your income. The same if you get a loan for consumer goods (limited)
In the 38.25% tax is insurance for unemployment and disability included. Also
a national pension is included. Most people have also a national health
insurance. Even bypass-operations and plastic surgeonery is included in
this insurance. Dental help has been cut.
Niek Holtzappel
>
is offered.
> > >>
> > >> The State most certainly does, indirectly, by taxing a larger percentage of
> > >> the average person's income than does the USA. The State says something
> > >> like:
> > >> "We're taking 65% of your income whether you like it or not to pay for a
> > >> welfare system. If that bankrupts you, you still have the choice of not
> > >> going
> > >> on welfare, so you're actually freer than if we'd let you keep your money."
> > >
> > >Nope, untrue for several reasons. First, the average wage has been adjusted
> > >up to compensate for the higher taxes.
> >
> > What?
>
> Over time, average wage has been adjusted up to compensate for higher
> tax levels and inflation.
>
> > >...Second, you are groping for straws when you mention 65%. 35% is more like
> > >it. And when you add up all your american state, local and whatever other
> > >taxes you have, you will arrive at a very comparable figure.
> >
> > Is the Dutch tax level really only 35%? I find that hard to believe.
>
> Dutch tax levels work in stages. The lowest stage, the one in which the
> majority of people fall, is just under 35%. The next stage is just over
> 40% I believe.
Eric M. Visser
All sorts of stuff, but it seems rather useless to reply to each of
the individual parts of it. Not that I don't respect your arguments
(or the conscientiousness with which you keep replying to everyone who
replies to you), but I really feel we're losing our focus. I also
can't shake the feeling that we're not talking about the same thing,
as you and Mike Schenk seem to have discovered in a parallel discussion.
I'd like to take a different tack here, starting from just 2 quotes
from your latest post.
>>Oh, so let me get this straight: you don't pay taxes, don't obey the
>>laws, and when they come and get you you will defend yourself with all
>>means available? Well, good luck to you, Don Quixote.
>
>I didn't say that was my course of action. I'm trying to establish a
>principle here. Action strategies come afterwards, and take lots more
>into consideration.
Are we arguing abstract principles here? Are you saying that you're
happy if you have more freedom in abstract principle, even though that
freedom will be heavily restricted by practical considerations?
Take personal safety, as an example. In the US, you pay less taxes,
but on the other hand (if you live in an urban area) you have to deal
with a lot more crime. So you have to take safety measures, which cost
money too as well as time, and you have to be constantly aware of your
own safety. Do you feel that that still makes you more free, because
at least you're the one spending the money and the state isn't doing
it for you? Personally, I would rather say that the state taking care
of certain things for you frees you up to concentrate on the things
that really matter, so that in the final analysis you're more free.
If you don't agree with that, then discussing relative freedom of the
Netherlands as compared to the US is not likely to get us anywhere.
In parallel discussions, a lot of people have given practical examples
of areas where life in the USA is more restricted -- less free -- than
life in the Netherlands. All I see from you is abstract reasoning. Do
you really think that's good enough?
Relatedly, distinctions keep popping up between "political freedom",
"social freedom", "economic freedom". Making these distinctions is all
very nice, but what matters to a person living in a country is the
overall picture. I gather that you don't have any experience living in
foreign countries, is that right? If so, have you considered that a
lack of practical experience might just be colouring your views in
favour of abstract principles? (Likewise, an overdose of practical
experience might be colouring mine in favour of practical
considerations :-)
Another comment:
> The serious point is that I don't think it's possible to take things from
> people without their consent and enhance their freedom with the proceeds.
> Not only don't the ends justify the means, but the means determine the ends.
"Without their consent"? I submit this is where your analogy goes
wrong. Although there's a lot of grumbling (maybe not quite as much as
in the USA), when asked and reasoned with, most people in the
Netherlands will surely agree that paying taxes is necessary to keep
the state running, and that the alternative (anarchy) is not
desirable. If you call that "choosing serfdom", then you're just
displaying a lack of respect for the choices other people make of
their own free will.
Cheers,
Joris Zwart
tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) wrote:
>>...I'm sorry, but your arguments
>>are only very limited in value. They show that you have no idea of how the
>>Dutch system works, and that you are blind to certain grave errors in the
>>American system.
>Well, I wish someone would explain these things to me.
The difference between the Netherlands and America is that
1) in America, the people are there for the economy, here the economy is
there for the people
2) we don't value dogmatic theoretical issues as much as Americans do.
Having read a lot of your posts, I see that you're blinded by the American
system, fail to see the disadvantages of it, and are too dogmatic to
accept a better solution. The Netherlands aren't perfect, but it's a lot
better than the USA.
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Joris
--
----------------------------------It is a sin to believe evil of others, but
Joris S. Zwart it is seldom a mistake - HL Mencken
jo...@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl OS/2 WARP: The Next Generation
*** Member of Team-OS/2 ***---(finger for PGP key)---#include <disclaimer.h>
Wim Degroot
Pieter Coenraads <STN...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>>Joris writes:
>>
>><snip>
>>The difference between the Netherlands and America is that
>>
>issues! Have you ever spent time (like over 10 years) in the US?
Does 15 yrs in the US count?
>
>I can make it very simple for you...... In Holland the biggest part of
>the nation's GNP is controlled by the government, in the US the consumer
>controls most of the GNP...... I happen to be for the second scenario.
>Government is a service, not a way of life.
>
I would like to make a simple change to your scenario. You would like to
believe exactly what many merkins like to believe. However, the US economy
is controlled not by the consumer but by a select group of interests, among
which the Federal Reserve and some powerfull Congressmen. Not the comsumer
created the economy here in the US as it is now, but Reagans' policies of
borrowing and spending in the 80's, for which we have to pay now and for
many more years to come. However, a small group of wealthy individuals did
profit from the roaring 80's, as statistics on the distribution of wealth
will show you. Just open your eyes and look.
I have to admit that for some people (not the country as a whole) the 80's
were good. Maybe you are among them, and that is why you like it. Why don't
we come back in 30 years and see what you think then about the hole we
created for ourselves. You might be retired then though, and let
your children pick up the pieces you left behind!
>Pieter in CT
>
Wim in OH
Adam Wasserman
(since you guys brought it up) I'll stick in my two sense as well. This is
what I think:
The United States is a very unique place. Here, I believe we have the greatest
freedom of any people on this earth. This is not necessarily political freedom
(in Europe, they seem to have just as much) but rather social freedom. The
citizens of the United States are not born into a stratified social structure
as European citizens are. I believe that in certain countries (like France)
schoolchildren are asked at a very young age to make choices about
what sort of education they will receive - ie, how far along the secondary
route they will follow, and thus what careers will be available to them.
Case and point: in the United States, it is not uncommon for teenagers to be
seen cruising the streets in the summer with their tops down and the music
blaring, with no shirts on and some beer in the back. In the United States,
friends hang out in people's houses more than they do in Europe. You may ask
what difference this makes, but it is a very big difference: when there
aren't so many rules of etiquette it's more difficult to break them. When
there aren't so many rules telling you what you can't or shouldn't do, your
personal freedoms are improved.
If Americans have a culture it is most definitely tied into their rugged
sense of individualism. It is my opinion that Americans tend to be the most
individualistic of people in the West (closely followed by the Australians, of
course). Such characteristic individualism is yet another asset, although
there are those (mostly my European friends) who will say that individualism
is no good thing when it is to the detriment of family and personal
relationships. I have found that this is sometimes true about Americans:
Americans tend not to establish long term relationships with anyone except
their mates. But if that is the price of individualism on such a grand scale
then most of us gladly pay it, because the more freedom and individualism a
people possess the more they will produce, the more they will innovate.
America is very akin to Rome: it's lack of culture, its corruption and greed,
its tendency to want to cure things by regulation (which is a Western thing,
I think). Like Rome, it is burning itself out quickly. But the best
time to be alive is in a place that is lavishly decadent; I'd rather have
lived in late Babylon than in Jerusalem. I'd rather have grown up in the United
States now than one hundred years ago. I don't get that sense from Europe: it
might be one huge, exposed graveyard (as John Irving put it), but it is not
decaying as fast as the U.S. Which is too bad, because although it's great
fun to live here one doesn't take well to the sense that things are
unravelling towards another City of God.
As for the crime, I tend to find that Europeans who have never been here
before have an extremely exaggerated impression of the problem. Many people
were surprised when I told them no, I had never seen a dead body before.
Yes, there is a problem. I live right in the middle of it (for those of
you who don't know, sunny Baltimore is no mid-summer retreat). But it
doesn't bother me and I don't feel threatened. We don't live our lives in
fear here. To the contrary, we've got a thriving civilization that produces
a fair amount of art and technology. I'm not saying that Europeans don't,
I'm just stressing the fact that we do.
I am certainly glad that I have grown up an American, but to be truthful
I don't see myself living here much longer. As soon as I am done with my
education here I plan on returning to Flanders for a while. It is not
because Europe is better (because it's not), but because it is different.
And I haven't gotten it out of my system yet. Also, I believe to be
truly a man of the the world you've got to have gotten around, you see.
But as for which is better, I think the point is moot. I'm baised because
I love my country (and there's nothing wrong with that; most criticism of
American patriotism (although it is sometimes a bit too far, bordering
sometimes on that frenzied characteristic of Fascism) I have found arises
out of jealousy and nothing more - especially the British, who have the
most to be sore about). Europeans love Europe. Fine. But I think we
should also realize that we're really part of the same culture that
reached its maturity in the Renaissance.
Tot ziens.
Alza Corporation
>vr...@knoware.nl (VARA!) wrote:
>>
>> > >...Second, you are groping for straws when you mention 65%. 35% is more like
>> > >it. And when you add up all your american state, local and whatever other
>> > >taxes you have, you will arrive at a very comparable figure.
>> >
>> > Is the Dutch tax level really only 35%? I find that hard to believe.
>>
>> Dutch tax levels work in stages. The lowest stage, the one in which the
>> majority of people fall, is just under 35%. The next stage is just over
>> 40% I believe.
>In real, many people pay less than 38.25%.
>In the first place, everybody has a tax-free sum. For a loner it is about
> 6500 guilders for a family it is more than 10000 guilders.
>If you buy your own house, you can cut the interest of the hypotheque
> from your income. The same if you get a loan for consumer goods (limited)
>In the 38.25% tax is insurance for unemployment and disability included. Also
> a national pension is included. Most people have also a national health
>insurance. Even bypass-operations and plastic surgeonery is included in
> this insurance. Dental help has been cut.
>
In the recent debate in the US over the use of value added taxes (VATs)
it was stated that they are used extenively in Europe. It was long
enough ago that I forget if any particular countries were mentioned.
Does the Netherlands use VATS, and if so, how much is paid by the average
Dutch citizen?
One of the biggest arguments here against VATs is that the consumer never
realizes thay are paying a tax. Because producers are taxed at low rates
but at every stage of production the result is higher prices for goods.
This is unlike a sales tax where the additional tax is calculated at the
cash register, so to speak.
Steve
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Barbara Saunders
>I happened to be passing through this newsgroup when I noticed this thread, so
>(since you guys brought it up) I'll stick in my two sense as well. This is
>what I think:
>
>The United States is a very unique place. Here, I believe we have the greatest
>freedom of any people on this earth. This is not necessarily political freedom
>(in Europe, they seem to have just as much) but rather social freedom. The
Good Lord. You must live in a different US (and must have seen a different
Europe) than is my experience!
>citizens of the United States are not born into a stratified social structure
>as European citizens are.
No?! Apparently you missed the last 30 years of affirmative action debates.
I believe that in certain countries (like France)
>schoolchildren are asked at a very young age to make choices about
>what sort of education they will receive - ie, how far along the secondary
>route they will follow, and thus what careers will be available to them.
And in the US, some are routed to college, some to trade/vocational
school; girls to English and boys to math; many black kids to "remidial
classes; some states are debating English-only vs. bilingual education and
so on.
>Case and point: in the United States, it is not uncommon for teenagers to be
>seen cruising the streets in the summer with their tops down and the music
>blaring, with no shirts on and some beer in the back.
And as a patriotic American, I can say that this symbolizes one of our
key problems. We equate "freedom" with how well we do living up to
the peer pressure of driving the right convertible and drinking the right
beer in the right amounts -- in all of which cases, "the right" shifts
with the wind.
In the United States,
>friends hang out in people's houses more than they do in Europe. You may ask
>what difference this makes, but it is a very big difference: when there
>aren't so many rules of etiquette it's more difficult to break them. When
>there aren't so many rules telling you what you can't or shouldn't do, your
>personal freedoms are improved.
What?! Depends on the particular country in Europe you hang out in. And,
believe me, I'm eating these same words about France -- these days, I'd
love to be in a place where I could sit in a cafe, surrounded by the
sight and sound of people, yet be left completely alone. And your description
simply doesn't fit, say, Berlin.
>If Americans have a culture it is most definitely tied into their rugged
>sense of individualism.
And moral puritanism, and an embrace of the low-brow over the sophisticated.
It is my opinion that Americans tend to be the most
>individualistic of people in the West (closely followed by the Australians, of
>course). Such characteristic individualism is yet another asset, although
We are conformists in displaying our so-called individualism, though.
We are supposed to "ruggedly and individually" claw our way to "the top":
the top being having the right amount of money for the right car, the right
house, the right beer, etc.
>there are those (mostly my European friends) who will say that individualism
>is no good thing when it is to the detriment of family and personal
>relationships. I have found that this is sometimes true about Americans:
>Americans tend not to establish long term relationships with anyone except
>their mates.
If even their mates (and you left out kids). I agree that this is a
difference here.
But if that is the price of individualism on such a grand scale
>then most of us gladly pay it, because the more freedom and individualism a
>people possess the more they will produce, the more they will innovate.
Ah-ha! You got to the real deal. It's not about individualism or "freedom"
at all; it's about removing all obligations to anything but economic
production. Then, it's about transforming that last stubborn obligation to
oneself into a consumer who justifies all the endless production.
>
>As for the crime, I tend to find that Europeans who have never been here
>before have an extremely exaggerated impression of the problem. Many people
>were surprised when I told them no, I had never seen a dead body before.
>Yes, there is a problem. I live right in the middle of it (for those of
>you who don't know, sunny Baltimore is no mid-summer retreat). But it
>doesn't bother me and I don't feel threatened. We don't live our lives in
>fear here. To the contrary, we've got a thriving civilization that produces
>a fair amount of art and technology. I'm not saying that Europeans don't,
>I'm just stressing the fact that we do.
Hah! Speaking as a female, I felt safer walking through red light districts
in several European cities (alone) than I feel in my own relatively safe
neighborhood. I haven't seen a dead body, but I know more than one person
who's been murdered.
>
Barbara
Gustaaf Van Moorsel
> I happened to be passing through this newsgroup when I noticed this thread, so
> (since you guys brought it up) I'll stick in my two sense as well. This is
> what I think:
>
> The United States is a very unique place. Here, I believe we have the greatest
> freedom of any people on this earth.
Ouch. There we go again ....
> This is not necessarily political freedom
> (in Europe, they seem to have just as much) but rather social freedom. The
> citizens of the United States are not born into a stratified social structure
> as European citizens are.
Nice to hear that children of 200K+ parents mix so well with the inner city
proletariat.
> I believe that in certain countries (like France)
> schoolchildren are asked at a very young age to make choices about
> what sort of education they will receive - ie, how far along the secondary
> route they will follow, and thus what careers will be available to them.
So the availability of choices means *less* freedom? In the US there is no such
choice. Until age 18 or so one has to follow the moronic high school system.
In Europe, the choices are usually made at age 12 - 14 (not really *very* young),
and there are lots of possibilities to switch to a higher - or lower - level
way thereafter.
> Case and point: in the United States, it is not uncommon for teenagers to be
> seen cruising the streets in the summer with their tops down and the music
> blaring, with no shirts on and some beer in the back.
Poor me - who did not understand that the above epitomizes freedom. Of course
drinking beer by teenagers is heartily encouraged by the freedom loving
authorities ...
> In the United States,
> friends hang out in people's houses more than they do in Europe. You may ask
> what difference this makes, but it is a very big difference: when there
> aren't so many rules of etiquette it's more difficult to break them. When
> there aren't so many rules telling you what you can't or shouldn't do, your
> personal freedoms are improved.
You obviously are hinting at the unique opportunity to be around after curfew,
and enjoy the freedom of spending the night on taxpayers' money?
>
> If Americans have a culture it is most definitely tied into their rugged
> sense of individualism. It is my opinion that Americans tend to be the most
> individualistic of people in the West (closely followed by the Australians, of
> course).
They are the most slavish followers of rules I have ever seen. If you ask a European
why something is not allowed, they'll start explaining. If you ask an American, the
answer is: because it's the law. Case closed. Great individualists.
> As for the crime, I tend to find that Europeans who have never been here
> before have an extremely exaggerated impression of the problem.
Sure. And after having being here for a while one realizes that most of it is
true. THe number of people killed is around 5 times that in Europe. And with
the ever recurrent drive-by shootings it can hit anyone, anytime. It gives a
great feeling of security and freedom to drive around the streets knowing that
in at least half of the cars around me there is a loaded gun. Somebody has to
see red ... wham.
Gustaaf
VARA!
> I happened to be passing through this newsgroup when I noticed this thread, so
> (since you guys brought it up) I'll stick in my two sense as well. This is
> what I think:
>
> The United States is a very unique place. Here, I believe we have the
> greatest
> freedom of any people on this earth. This is not necessarily political
> freedom
> (in Europe, they seem to have just as much) but rather social freedom.
Well, social freedom is a rare commodity in the US, if I am to believe
the things I see/hear. Tell me honestly, can I include on my resume that
I support the legalisation of Cannabis, and expect to get the job? That's
just what I did applying for my current job. As you see, I got it, although
the legalisation issue had nothing to do with my job-requirements. I just
included it to see if they'd pick up on it. They did. They complimented me
on my honesty.
Social freedom also includes the freedom to practice certain kinds of
sexual behaviour. How can you say the US is freeer than Europe when
some states have outlawed anal, oral and homosexual sex? Why can I be
arrested if I pay a woman to have sex with me in the US? Why can't I join
the military if I'm gay? Why can't I have my life ended if I'm in deadly
pain, knowing I'll be dead soon anyway?
These freedoms, though not granted in every country in Europe are the kind
of freedoms that mean a lot to me. It means I gain a certain control over
my own life, and if I fuck up, I have no-one else to blame but me.
Now take a look at the US (And read Time Magazine essay on blame-deprevation)
and try to see how everyone is trying to cover his/her ass. Not accepting
blame is the same as not wanting true freedom. Yet some accuse Europeans
for choosing serfdom.
> Case and point: in the United States, it is not uncommon for teenagers to be
> seen cruising the streets in the summer with their tops down and the music
> blaring, with no shirts on and some beer in the back.
We too have the freedom to waste our time.
> In the United States,
> friends hang out in people's houses more than they do in Europe. You may ask
> what difference this makes, but it is a very big difference: when there
> aren't so many rules of etiquette it's more difficult to break them. When
> there aren't so many rules telling you what you can't or shouldn't do, your
> personal freedoms are improved.
I don't think Americans hang out more at their friends places than Europeans.
And I also think that that has very little to do with social and personal
freedom.
_____________________________________________________________________
Ralph Moonen
VARA Radio TV
The Netherlands
_____________________________________________________________________