Hacker News Reader

Comment by Illniyar | Hacker News Reader

"You're not free to expect your health to be taken care of no matter what your financial situation; you're not free from living in often astonishing debt just to to get a higher education; you're not free to feel any sort of real sense of job security when an employer can fire you at will with little protection;"

I think universal healthcare, affordable higher education and social security are basic necessities and it's insane that the US doesn't have them.

But that's not freedom, that's socialism. It's like saying that US citizens are not free to travel because airplane tickets are expensive.

Freedom means that you get a choice, even if that choice is going to screw yourself later in life - for instance not buying health insurance. All those things you mention are paid by your taxes - someone is literally taking money away from you to pay for something you might not need - thats hardly freedom.

In this sense the US is the freest country to live in, though not necessarily the best one.

View on HN

I think there is a tendency in the US to define "freedom" only in terms of what somebody is not prevented from doing, rather than what somebody is enabled to do. This is partly historical, as the Bill of Rights describes only restrictions of what the government may not do, and does not have any statements about things that the government must ensure.

Your use of freedom and socialism as opposing ideas, rather than as two separate axes, suggests that you might be making this assumption.

Many Americans consider their freedoms to be individual and inalienable - that they exist in spite of government, not thanks to it. Their coercive nature puts governments in opposition to freedom regardless of the intent behind the laws they enforce, or their benefit to society as a whole.

Socialism seems opposed to freedom because it requires a greater scope of government power, and therefore, a greater suppression of individual and collective liberty, than capitalism. Of course, not everyone agrees with even those broad definitions of socialism or capitalism (in the American libertarian sense of capitalism, anyway.)

In other words, in the US the view tends to be that "the government which governs best, governs least."

I wonder how this view is reconciled with data points like the EIU's Democracy Index, which rates "civil liberties" in the US below those of many of the EU countries. Is the Democracy Index not considered a reputable report, or does the US tend to define "civil liberties" as something outside of the data points[1] used to build the index? These points seem to focus largely on personal freedoms, free media, and government interference.

[1] http://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/Democracy_Index_2... - Factors used for "civil liberties" rating start on page 73.

Edit: Accidentally linked 2007 instead of 2017 PDF, fixed.

If we're honest with ourselves, most political beliefs aren't reconciled with data. We pick and choose what supports them.

Second, there's that temporary millionaire thing going on. If you're wealthy, the US is one of the best places in the world to be. You get to have your cake and eat it (healthcare, for example, is less of a concern). The legal system favors you, you can buy your way into media and politics. People see the freedom on the upper end and don't associate that with major limitations on the lower.

Literally no one would agree that is a definition of socialism.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asocialiasm

You're talking about the definition of socialism as accepted by people familiar with socialism versus the definition of socialism by people who consider it "Stalinism lite" because they have only ever encountered it as a pejorative to that effect.

Whether or not they're technically accurate is irrelevant - it's still what many Americans believe. Reasonable people can disagree with it but it's simply untrue that "literally no one" agrees with it.

I do believe he meant socialism as it's been advertised in the western world (see: Bernie Sanders, parts of Europe and Latin America) rather than socialism as "workers owning the means of production" (see: Marxist theory); since the latter has never lasted in a prosperous country/occurred at all (depending on who you ask and in which context).

I ran into a claim some years back that the original republican notion of freedom that the US system was based on was "freedom from coercion". With coercion defined as the threat of physical, economic, or other harm.

Thus the point of the government was to protect the citizens from coercion by being an entity that could step in on the side of the lesser party.

> I think universal healthcare, affordable higher education

> and social security are basic necessities and it's

> insane that the US doesn't have them.

> But that's not freedom, that's socialism.

You are confusing "freedom" with "anarchy", because freedoms tend to interfere with each other. I think we can agree that I do not lead a free life if I am in constant fear for my safety. So we create laws to restrict the freedom of the strong and police departments to enforce those laws. And you do not get a choice in the matter, not just not to adhere to those laws, but also to be protected by those laws.

And you might even be called on to participate, against your will (jury duty, the draft).

All this is not just compatible with "freedom", not in opposition to it, but arguably required for actual freedom. Actual freedom is not the same as "nobody can tell me what I can or cannot do [stomps feet]", and a bit more complicated.

Now liberal democracies differ on exactly where they draw the line, but I think the evidence is pretty strong that things like (a) worker's rights (b) universal healthcare (however delivered) and (c) at least sort-of free education enhance overall freedom. Whereas for example the right to bear arms, while sounding nice from the [stomp your feet] POV, is actually detrimental.

There are countries with lower taxes and fewer government services than the US (Somalia, say?). Even taxpayer funded healthcare places the US in the top 10 on a per-capita level. Trying to defend the US healthcare system on the basis of “you don’t want the government to take away your money” is basically a slogan invented by dishonest politicians in the pockets of the health insurance industry.

>But that's not freedom, that's socialism.

Who said that freedom is in conflict with socialism? Socialism takes care of some foundational requirements, so you have more freedom in your movement.

(Social democracy to be more correct, we're not talking about socialism in the Eastern European circa 1960s sense, but about something most of the civilized world enjoys, from Western and Nordic Europe to Japan and Australia).

It's like saying that US citizens are not free to travel because airplane tickets are expensive.

Well, there is a thing as things being "prohibitively expensive". And if some private interests take the public for suckers and keep tickets expensive, then, yeah, those people are not "free to fly" as much as other people are.

Even more so, if it's not tickets but something everybody should enjoy, like healthcare, but some huge interests, like big Pharma and insurance companies, artificially inflate costs using all the tricks of the "free market" and laugh all the way to the bank.

>Freedom means that you get a choice, even if that choice is going to screw yourself later in life - for instance not buying health insurance.

No, freedom means you have basic stuff like "healthcare covered, so you are free to pursue your interests -- not some rigged BS choice, between huge health conglomerates and people who can't afford bread every day.

Strangely, no one extends the "freedom" you described to other basics, like safety, rule of law, and so on. Because in that case, the free-er places would be Western Sahara, or some such country without an official government, where you're "free" to do whatever, as long as you can do it.

...someone is literally taking money away from you to pay for something you might not need – thats hardly freedom.

Every society beyond a certain size in the history of world has done this so making this statement is not relevant unless your point is that no society can be deemed free or that "freeness" is sliding scale dependent upon taxation rate. No one I've ever talked to has ever really thought this so I'm guessing you don't either.

Overall taxation levels in the U.S. are 40% – 50 % lower than in the Scandinavian countries. Generally people in those countries don't need to worry about food, shelter, healthcare. No matter what poor choices they make in life these things will be provided.

In the U.S. a single illness can bankrupt a family and leave them in penury. A person does have to worry about the what if scenarios. This burden of worry is precisely the way in which we are not free. It's the lack of real security.

There's a balance that the Scandinavian countries seemed to have found. They tax higher than we do. They invest in their people and in their society's well being. They tend to be happier. They tend to be healthier. They don't have to worry about being bankrupt because they got cancer. They are freer than we are as a result. Those countries, simply put, are much better places to live than the U.S.

America is one of the biggest (land-mass wise) and most diverse places in the world. There are tons of experiences to have. Treating America or the American experience as some cohesive whole or some shared experience is the most repeated fallacy in these types of conversations.

There are cities in America with public healthcare, and then there are cities that don't. There are cities that value greenways, public transportation, and diverse cultures, there are cities that value your freedom of transportation (i.e. a car) over everything. There are cities that have great public shelters and food kitchens and then there are cities where everyone opens their door and every place of worship tends to be a food kitchen, and then there are, of course, cities that don't do much of either. And while there isn't an explicit "free" education, there are hundreds of universities that will fully subsidize your cost of education (Harvard being one prominent example).

> Generally people in those countries don't need to worry about food, shelter, healthcare. No matter what poor choices they make in life these things will be provided.

This purported truthism is categorically false however, when your nation suffers an influx of new immigration, refugees, etc, such as what America has experienced most of it's existence. . Then all of a sudden, the money in the public coffers starts to run dry -- Greece is a great example -- the government almost went broke (well, I should say, went more broke) footing the bills for all the refugees streaming into the country. I am not saying that this is a bad thing -- good on them and bless them for that -- but at the end of the day, people's attitudes and perceptions on their perfect little "my government takes care of us" story gets changed when all of a sudden your government no longer has the means to take care of everyone. And since Europe is much closer to many of the conflicts happening in the world ATM, many countries in the Eurozone are seeing first hand the effect of this.

> There are cities in America with public healthcare, and then there are cities that don't.

Could you expand on this? I was unaware of any cities in the US with public healthcare.

I live in a small town north of Kansas City, MO that pays for ambulance rides if you can't. Not exactly NHS, but it's been a huge help to people I know.

There are also several free clinics in KC and STL.

In my area, there's two "tiers" of healthcare. Urgent Care for 99% of everything worth getting help for, and emergency rooms for a crisis. Most people I know in this town can't afford primary care physicians. I've never heard anyone talk about going to a free clinic, so I can't speak to their quality.

> I live in a small town north of Kansas City, MO that pays for ambulance rides if you can't.

Eh, as a EMS provider, there's a very different logic in play there. In my County's Medic One system, the transport is free, the rationale being that it's already been paid for by property taxes levied specifically to have these services available, and that people believed then being charged for use of the service would be "double-dipping".

While I wouldn't discount the importance of said service, I would dispute that it forms any meaningful form of "public healthcare" (even the private ambulances in the county charge $600+$16/mile, not cheap, but dwarfed the minute you cross the threshold into that ER).

America is one of the biggest (land-mass wise) and most diverse places in the world. There are tons of experiences to have.

There are no places in the U.S. that provide universal healthcare. There are no places in the U.S. in which public universities don't charge a lot in comparison to the OECD countries. There are no places in the U.S. that guarantee adequate food, or shelter. There are private organizations that do provide food and shelter but relying on the kindness of others is not a guarantee.

The per capita GDP level in the U.S. is sufficiently high to provide universal healthcare, free higher education, basic shelter, and food needs. This is indisputable. Mentioning immigration is a red herring since the influx of immigrants to the U.S. has not brought down the per capita GDP enough to claim that these things are unaffordable.

The issue of immigration is not just about whether there is enough money, it is also about how willing people are to pay. The states with the best public welfare systems, usually considered to be those in Scandinavia, have historically had very homogenous societies. Often a strong connection is drawn between the homogeneity of a society and the willingness to pay tax ( * ). Note that by homogeneity we do not only speak about peoples origin and looks, but perhaps more importantly about what values they hold. If you have a constant large influx of immigrants from diverse cultures, such as the US has had throughout its history, you also have a greater difference of values.

( * )Although I grant that those that argue for this usually lean to the conservative side of the political spectrum, for example David Goodhart: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/feb/24/race.eu)

I was responding to jimmy1's post. In there jimmy1 specifically mentions cost of providing for immigrants.

... story gets changed when all of a sudden your government no longer has the means to take care of everyone.

Since the per capita GDP of the U.S. is not declining so much to immigration then mentioning immigration is not relevant. It's a red herring. I can only guess as to the reason why jimmy1 made such an irrelevant point but I can't prove that my guess is correct. Thus I'll settle for just pointing out that it's a red herring and an argumentative fallacy.

Right, jimmy1 comment about immigration breaking the Greece economy seems factually incorrect. While handling the immigration flow was pretty expensive (sources say a few percentage points of GDP) that bill has largely been footed by U.N and various donor organizations and countries.

But also your argument here is flawed (U.S immigration doesn't affect U.S GDP negatively, so that should apply everywhere), because it doesn't take into account that the immigrants arriving to southern Europe and the ones coming to the U.S. are vastly different groups of people. I would assume that immigration to the U.S to a large extent consists of people wishing to work towards the "American Dream". Many of them have had to secure a job in advance to get a entry permit and so on. While the people arriving in Southern Europe are a random bunch of people, typically from economically unadvanced regions - refugees fleeing wars, economical immigrants etc.

The discussion was about the U.S. and it's lack care for it's citizens. Since immigration in the U.S. is not the cause of this then bringing up immigration is a red herring. If the discussion were about the effects of immigration in Europe then it would be relevant. I've never said, implied, insinuated, or hinted that immigration doesn't adversely effect per capita GDP in any nation since it isn't currently having such an effect in the U.S.

> jimmy1 comment about immigration breaking the Greece economy seems factually incorrect.

My 50+ relatives that are there right now experiencing it would say otherwise, but who knows they could all be wrong.

Populism and anti-globalist sentiment is on the rise in Europe on a whole due to immigration concerns.

The downfall of the Greek economy occurred in 2008/2009. The immigration problem came later after the economy tanked. The immigration problem made things worse but the economy had already been wrecked by the time the refugees arrived.

Wrong on so many levels. Give an example of one city where healthcare is completely free or public transportation is 5 stars (train, bus, subway function and are free to ride) or a city with universal basic income or a city where higher education is 100% free.

> public transportation is 5 stars (train, bus, subway function and are free to ride)

Portland had an area inside the city where this was the case, but it looks like it was canceled. :(

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

> a city where higher education is 100% free.

GA has been offering almost free to completely free college with lottery money for a long time to residents.

http://www.gpb.org/blogs/georgia-at-work/2017/05/22/want-fre...

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

Before I answer, can we at least level set that your your criteria / standards are pretty extreme? Unless you mean each individually and not the sum of them together -- but if you did mean the sum -- I want to live in this utopia you have in mind that has 100% this and 5 star that! I don't think that place exists, even in Scandinavia.

Washington D.C. meets your criteria on most but education. My brother and his wife all had their children at no expense. The Metro is one of the cleanest public transportation systems in America. It's one of the most walkable and beautiful cities I have ever been to.

New York state has free college. My South Park funny bone gets tickled every time I hear the name - the "Excelsior" scholarship.

Freedom means having the choice not to buy and have health insurance? Cause who needs it? But you have mandatory car insurance in most states. However much time I spend in the USA, I just can't wrap around my head around these ”freedoms”. What I conclude, after having also lived in Germany, is that one really needs to live and experience this socialism to have a feeling how "free" that actually feels. Most US folks are boxed into their own idea of freedom from having basic necessities from a theoretical perspective knowing no other better way to live so much so that they would actively dismantle whatever protections they enjoy now.

By that method of thinking only the rich are free.

Everyone in poverty who do not have enough money to pay for healthcare or have any type of social services or pay for education .. ..theyre free to do what then?

Eu has more "freedom" in that everyone has access to these things.

> By that method of thinking only the rich are free.

"Money is coined freedom" -- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

> Eu has more "freedom" in that everyone has access to these things.

Agreed. Which is why I think that Europeans area also "richer" (the above works both ways, IMHO).

The "freedom" in the US is very much a freedom of the rich and powerful to do whatever they want unhindered. Which looks a lot like tyranny to everyone affected. Certainly employees are much more free in Europe, because they can't be fired on a whim. For example, had James Damore been a Google Employee in Munich, he'd almost certainly still have his job, or a very fat compensation payment.

I feel like high income Americans might be addicted to living above their means (tons of cars, everyone owns a big house, etc.). Im pretty cheap (and dont have kids/mortgage yet) and I got laid off my job. Basically unemployment covered all my expenses with a decent chunk left over to save and I just kept my work insurance with COBRA. Since I just saved a lot of money working I could theoretically be job hunting for almost 2 years before my emergency fund was empty assuming no unemployment income. But im also an entry level tech employee so its not hard to find a new job at a high salary relative to most people.

The issue here is a point of view: Freedom technically means free of constraints, which is the US view. However, many people (me included, BTW) interprete freedom as in "freedom of choice", that is, a society that enables more, not less choices of going about your life. Sadly, total freedom (in its most literal definition) is ultimately equal to anarchy...

I think the requisite reference here is to the notions of positive and negative liberties, a distinction famously formulated by Isaiah Berlin. See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative...

Interesting.

> But that's not freedom, that's socialism.

It's different, but I'd still say it's a form of freedom - the government frees you from having to take care of certain things, even if you are unable to do so yourself. There are more axes to freedom that just freedom FROM the government IMO.

> universal healthcare, affordable higher education and social security

It seems insane to me that people would want government to do healthcare. Every interaction I have with US government is terrible. IRS, SEC, DMV, ... Might as well get comcast to do it.

Health is a global issue. There should be global solutions.

> It seems insane to me that people would want government to do healthcare

It's not government DOING healthcare, it's still private doctors doing it, just it being free at the point of delivery via a government administered single-payer system.

The reason many government services in the U.S. don't work is because they get defunded to curtail their effectiveness and then scapegoated.

To someone from the EU, it seems barbaric to want to profit off of someone getting sick. You wouldn't want private armies, would you?

You seem to forget the power of the purse. Providers would not be free to provide Healthcare in their terms. They would be forced to provide it in methods approved by the government.

> Providers would not be free to provide Healthcare in their terms. They would be forced to provide it in methods approved by the government.

I know the "free market" argument is that the providers would innovate etc. but in reality they would just jack up prices where possible. Healthcare shouldn't be for profit, just like prisons, it only encourages bad incentives.

> It seems insane to me that people would want government to do healthcare.

Like many systems, the Canadian system is a single-payer system. Each province (read state) decides what procedures will/will not be covered (essentially "the policy"). A doctor submits claims and gets paid (roughly... some provinces have caps). Doctors do not call the gov't to get pre-approval/approval for any course of treatment. Your doctor decides you need an MRI... it's covered. Need that appendix out... it's covered. Need a blood test... it's covered. Need to pop a baby out... its covered.

Think of it as an insurance system that just works the vast majority of the time.

Note that there are treatments/procedures that aren't covered and you'd have to pay out of pocket for them (the only one I've ever been made aware of was a special drug/thingy that improved the odds of a spinal fusion working... $5K a pop and you'd likely need 2). There are even some less common blood tests that aren't covered (no clue what... just something I heard). So... it's not all sunshine and rainbows.

BUT... it's way way better than the US system.

Also... it keeps people out of court. No one gets sued to cover someone's medical expenses (you broke my kids arm). And it keeps malpractice costs down (no need for the malpractice insurance to cover future medical expenses).

In general it just makes Canadians nicer people :)

> Freedom means that you get a choice, even if that choice is going to screw yourself later in life - for instance not buying health insurance.

America is less free than "socialist" in your example. As an American you're free not to buy health insurance. However, if you don't purchase health insurance you have to pay a tax penalty to the government for the same amount as a health insurance premium. On top of that, the $400 a month "health insurance" you are required to purchase only covers health care costs after the first $8,000 you spend out of pocket.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com