You are both correct.
Incidentally, the "border" for legal purposes extends 100 miles into the interior.
Incidentally, the "border" for legal purposes extends 100 miles into the interior.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/218...
Edit: would appreciate feedback if my comment is not constructive or could be improved in some way.
From my cultural upbringing having regulation in place to steer society does not stand at odds with freedom. And that's also by my cultural background not "convoluted".
If my freedom to text and drive impacts the right to life and freedom of those around me, it’s imperative to restrict that one freedom so the freedom of the society remains.
That’s not freedom.
On the US side, remember what happened when some states left the Union ?
* In the USA, if you're a health insurer, you are free to reject customers you don't like. In Europe, you're not. (Those rejected customers, in turn, are free to cover their own health expenses or die - their free choice).
* In the USA, you're free to buy guns. In Europe, you're not.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=no+way+to+prevent+this+site%3Atheo...
* In the US, you're free to drink a beer at the age of 20. In Europe, you're not. Ah, no, just kidding, it's the other way around.
* In California, you can have a beer after 2 am. Ah, who am I kidding, of course you can't.
In US you are free of people drinking a cold beer in sunny days in parks or in the beaches
I can say pretty much anything and not have the gov’t come after me for it.
Say something distasteful about a minority group in the UK and you’ll be punished for it.
I can own a radio or television capable of receiving broadcasts without having to pay a license and register it with the government.
See how much nothing this adds to the discussion? You may as well say "your definition of freedom is wrong and mine is right".
I get where americans come from, and its still great place for many reasons, but for any western-european these statements are pretty weird. I guess if you are told since childhood you live in greatest country in the world, hollywood and politicians keeps playing the same tune over and over, it might feel like its true.
What we see is repressive police state outside anybody's control, sometimes properly evil government which is openly xenophobic (if you are not US citizen you mean nothing), being one serious illness away from utter bankrupcy, huge class divides that are getting bigger, biggest (private) prison state in the world, being caught with some weed in many places can still effectively ruin your professional life forever etc.
> repressive police state outside anybody's control
Nah, mostly individual cops
> properly evil government which is openly xenophobic
No, we expect people to immigrate legally, and have less obligation to non-citizens. However, this can be countermanded with the sheer amount of military aid we provide for everyone.
>one serious illness away from utter bankrupcy
Yeah, that's the story, but it never seems to work out that way. In reality, people have safety nets, considerate bosses, savings, families, or any combination.
> huge class divides that are getting bigger
I guess? Nobody really pays attention to what the 1% are doing. Many of us are just enjoying the good job market and low taxes right now.
> biggest (private) prison state in the world
This is a serious problem, I agree
> being caught with some weed in many places can still effectively ruin your professional life forever etc
Yes, and? Being caught with a gun in Europe could also give you a criminal record. This is why we have different states. Someone wants to smoke before everyone makes it legal? Move!
Yeah its great have one's saving wiped out by something that we in Europe just have our shared pool of resources covers for. So you only have to deal with (sometimes lifelong) consequences of some hard illness / accident, and you can continue your life unaffected financially and not compound misery and life getting significantly tougher.
THAT, my friend, is also freedom. We can call it freedom to be ill/have an accident. But don't expect any US politician / hollywood star to ever frame it that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
There’s so many of these exceptions to “freedoms” in the US, namely that if you can’t afford to fight for your freedom, can you really be considered to have it?
I do appreciate for the most part, however, the US’s stance on free speech.
No law or case has successfully argued 100 miles from an international airport. That is just false information.
The best known measure to lower violent crime is lowering inequality (e.g. progressive taxation paying for free education etc.): https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/07/the-star...
I call it freedom because I see people exercising it. What is the point of a "freedom" if you can't afford to exercise it?
Are you free to send your children to play in sports if you're afraid that your child getting injured will financially ruin you? Are you free to participate in activities yourself if you're teetering on the edge and one unexpected expense will result in having to move out of a good school district, and result in significantly altering your child's chances of future success?
Are you free to participate in your community after you spend 90 min per day commuting after working an 8 to 10 hour day, resulting in nothing else than eating, saying hello-good night to the family, and going to bed?
Are you free to take care of your loved ones in case something should happen to them if you can't afford to go without a paycheck because there is no safety net?
But yes, I guess it is nice to take advantage of the minuscule chance that I'd be in a situation to have to shoot a thief.
You are far more likely to not have to worry about things like healthcare in european countries than you are in the US for example. You are far less likely to have to work multiple jobs to sustain your life. 'Class'mobility is far is better in most other western countries as well.
So if your definition is "free to do whatever", this also means other people and corporations are free to screw you over. And you would be right that in that regard the USA is freer than other western countries, but it infringes upon personal freedom, and in my opinion, that is the kind of freedom the USA gneerally says they're all about.
> Compared with many European countries, for example, few Americans end up with an income or educational level that is substantially different than their parents.
> Now, new research suggests that social mobility in America may be even more limited than researchers have realized.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/06/strik...
> US social mobility gap continues to widen
https://www.ft.com/content/7de9165e-c3d2-11e6-9bca-2b93a6856... (Paywall!)
EDIT to add:
> You're twice as likely to live the American Dream in Canada
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-american-dream-of-social...
This is for 2012: https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobi...
This OECD chart shows how your financial outcome is practically inherited in the US and Germany: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/moving-up-the-income-...
This isn't very surprising. For decades, the strongest predictor for a country having high social mobility is a strong welfare program including child care and health care, financed by progressive taxation of income and wealth.
In the US, the rags to riches story has been a myth for at least 50 years.
I guess that does not apply at all to developing countries like China.
EDIT: looking at your link:
> An elasticity of zero would mean there is no relationship, and thus complete intergenerational mobility,
No, an elasticity of zero would rather mean that people are overly taxed and therefore there is no transfer of wealth between generations, which is probably not what you want (what is already taxed belongs to you and whoever you decide to give it to).
Of course, elasticity of zero would mean that there is no whatsoever transfer of skills or intelligence between generations, which is genetically patently false.
Have you looked at the second link?
> No, an elasticity of zero would rather mean that people are overly taxed and therefore there is no transfer of wealth between generations, which is probably not what you want (what is already taxed belongs to you and whoever you decide to give it to).
Low elasticity means high social mobility. It's the desciption of the same thing, only from the other direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility
If your design goal is high social mobility (e.g. because you want a meritocratic society or simply argued from an ethical position) and high economic growth, you want to limit inheritance as much as possible. This is pretty much what Piketty et. al. have shown a few years ago.
> Of course, elasticity of zero would mean that there is no whatsoever transfer of skills or intelligence between generations, which is genetically patently false.
And yet elasticity is close to zero (0.15) in Denmark while being over three times higher in the US.
The reason is obvious: Genetics predict potential, societal context predicts outcome.
Citation needed.
> financed by progressive taxation of income and wealth.
Only 4 OECD countries still have a wealth tax. “Taxing wealth” hasn’t worked out very well.
I already posted a bunch? Nevertheless, here, straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.oecd.org/social/soc/Social-mobility-2018-Overvie...
Scientifically this is pretty much consensus for decades now BTW.
> Only 4 OECD countries still have a wealth tax.
True, but I meant not only the tax literally called wealth tax, but all taxes targeting wealth. Almost all OECD countries have inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, real estate transfer taxes and so on.
The U.S. is dealing with the after effects of major social ills. Children in intact families are still very likely to have economic mobility.
That really is all I meant by my comment, and I hoped to make it clear that I don't think this is a worthwhile positive metric. I guess I didn't communicate that well enough because a few other people seemed to follow this line of reasoning as well...
depends on the paper.
I've long had the impression that people tend to define it in a way that values things they get in their home country, and devalues the things they don't. For example, an American is going to define "freedom of speech" in a way that ensures the government itself has almost no ability to limit things like political lobbying, because political lobbying, being a way to advance an opinion, is sacrosanct. A Canadian is more likely to want to define it in a way that allows for limiting the ability of people with lots and lots of money to drown out the voices of people of more modest financial means.
If it’s not 100% white, then it must be black. No other alternatives.