For a state that is hell bent on "freedom" they sure do love to remove them.
We have no HSAs, no three or four layer tax systems, no governments trying to legislate really bizarre religious issues, no paranoid militarised police, no busy-body suburban sprawl of interfering no-bodies.
Here, the prices in our stores are what we pay; our taxex are handled for us; the "invasion" of the government, eg., in healthcare, is to unburden us from concern.
it seems "society and government" in the US is preoccupied with burdening people, and "micro-oppressions" of bureaucracy and interference
The New Testament is a surprisingly liberal document. It effectively says "as long as you TRY to be a good human being, all will be forgiven".
This cohort, however, prides itself on being awful humans.
We have no sep' in the UK and our most sophisticated atheists are the appointed bishops of the church of Englandm (selected by, iirc, our prime minister)
Though I don't think this entirely explains the difference. The same could be said for some EU countries:
- "Irish issues are deeply rooted in Christianity"
- "Italian issues are deeply rooted in Christianity"
- "Polish issues are deeply rooted in Christianity"
- "Hungarian issues are deeply rooted in Christianity"
It simply doesn't explain why the USA is so different from Ireland in terms of public policy.
-----------------------------------------------
I think a bigger issue is which countries people (even europeans!) mean to include when they say "Europe". Usually they mean either "Northern Europe" and/or "Western Europe", or sometimes even a small subset of those (just the richest ones -- even Spain/Italy/Portugal are preferentially excluded sometimes depending on the topic). Some people probably started to get uncomfortable seeing "Poland" and "Hungary" up above, and have already steeled themselves for any further analysis involving "those" European countries. Many certainly wouldn't generally want to have to include Moldova, North Macedonia, Albania, and Belarus in their most casual definitions of "Europe", at least when comparing how good they have things things compared to the USA.
-----------------------------------------------------
Breaking down "We have no HSAs, no three or four layer tax systems, no governments trying to legislate really bizarre religious issues, no paranoid militarised police, no busy-body suburban sprawl of interfering no-bodies.", I could look at two of these:
- no governments trying to legislate really bizarre religious issues
And counter with Poland and Hungary having some serious recent issues with abortion legislation/enforcement and LGBT freedoms. These are both "EU" nations, so it's hard to claim "Oh they're not part of Europe" but what is often implied is "Oh I wasn't talking about that Europe". But that's not a fair comparison because when we say "USA" we don't just mean California.
- no paranoid militarised police
I get what the commenter is saying. Yes, the overzealous policing situation is generally worse across the USA than the EU. But we can find regular abuse by police officers against Roma communities across Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Romania, and Slovakia (once again, people will often say "Oh when I say Europe I'm not talking about Bulgaria or Romania or Slovakia", as if the USA could ever just exclude the ten worst states when talking about "USA" things as well).
We also see increased militarization of police in Germany with the BFE+ anti-terror police units. And many protestors of the Gilets Jaune in France certainly saw the results of clashing with increasingly militarized police as well[0][1], including armored transport vehicles. To which some people will say "oh that's not the police, that's the Gendarmerie", which is a bit of an odd argument as that's specifically a domestic police force, and one that is explicitly militarized. What they mean by this is that the "average" police officer a citizen is likely to encounter will be less militarized, and that's true. But saying "we have no militarized police" is pretty off-the-mark.
0: https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/les-gilets-ja...
1: https://7enews.net/en/news-en/world-news-en/france-says-poli...
An “establishment of religion” refers to established churches, of which there were several in existence when the first amendment was ratified: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/established-churches.... What it’s saying is that Congress cannot establish a national church, or regulate the state established churches. The Constitution clearly doesn’t prohibit even state official churches. Massachusetts—one of the most important states at the time of the founding—had an established church until the 1820s!
What isn’t in the Constitution is French-style “separation of church and state,” where religion cannot be a motivation for laws Congress is otherwise entitled to pass. Congressmen/women can vote for laws based on Christian beliefs just as they could vote for laws based on neoliberal or socialist beliefs.
And there is no other amendment that created a “separation of church and state.” You won’t find anything like that phrase in the Constitution or its amendments.
> It didn’t create a “separation of church and state.”
That said, even if we were still under only the original Constitution plus the first 10 amendments, this statement would still be incorrect because State in this case refers to the Federal government which is a state in political philosophy terms which is what this phrase is using, but counterintuitively it’s not a State under US law. The Federal state is the operating one here, because the Constitution plus the first 10 amendments are laws for running the Federal government. On the subject of the States themselves, it says very very little, not nothing, just almost nothing. At least until you get to the doctrine of incorporation I mentioned above.
Most States also have their own form of separation of church and State under their own constitutions. They don’t tend to put it in terms of “separation of church and State” but that is what they do.
The concept of “separation of church and state” is much broader, and comes from the writings of Thomas Jefferson—who admired revolutionary France and its secularism. But it has nothing to do with either the Constitution or the First Amendment. If we are picking random quotes from founding fathers, you could reach the exact opposite conclusion by quoting Adams instead: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
It so happens that, because the Establishment Clause is a specific limit on the federal government’s ability to interfere with the state established churches that it makes no sense to incorporate the establishment clause into the states via the 14th amendment. (Just as it makes no sense to incorporate the tenth amendment against the states.)
But my point remains even if you’re just talking about the federal government. The Establishment Clause is just not getting at the “separation of church and state” concept.
Quoting the relevant part here:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
So reinterpreting that in modern words: Congress shall not establish a Church of the United States and Congress shall not govern religion. The phrasing comes from Jefferson, and you are right that it is ex post facto the Constitution, but the idea is very Puritan and Jefferson himself was referencing Roger Williams (who established the first Baptist Church in America over 150 years prior) and his idealistic "Wall of Separation"[1]. Even restating the establishment clause with terminology, I can't read it any other way but as a conceptual separation of Church and State. The language does not need to be literal to have this effect.
Your quote from Adams doesn't contradict this either because it reads like an assumption that the Constitution does not need to do more than this to address religion because the American people are already moral and religious, therefore to the extent that it does so, it is adequate, but it would not necessarily work well for a different people.
[1] https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Roger-Williams---ORIGIN-...
But that was a long time ago. Uncharitably, US southern states got up in arms (quite literally) about the federal government forcing them to end slavery and then later forcing them to integrate schools and serve blacks and whites at the same businesses. Charitably, there is a fair amount of legitimately bad stuff the federal government has done, i.e. Ruby Ridge, Waco, assassinating Fred Hampton, the red scare, interning of the Japanese, everything that was ever done to natives, trampling all over Hawaii.
I don't think you can just say universally one way or the other works better. The US system is designed for it to be damn near impossible to ever have true tyranny, at the cost of an ineffective government. European governments tend to take the opposite approach. Right now, that is arguably working largely in Europe's favor. In the past, well, Europe had fascism and started multiple world wars and colonized over half the world. The US has certainly done some bad stuff, but not really anything quite like that, so the "avoid descent into outright autocracy" has largely worked out so far.
There is, of course, no guarantee this will continue to work out in the future, either. Up until now, the basic idea has been the only organizations out there with the power to do things like fascism and world wars are states. As multinational private corporations become increasingly large and powerful, that may not remain the case, and the US does very little to tame them compared to what it does to tame the government.
That is a slogan, to justify doing more bad things. The ends justify the means, and making up a reason. "Of course the government is corrupt, hence I'm justified in also being corrupt."
If there is actual corruption and proof, it should be brought forward.
Strangely enough, this is done, and Republican/Right have a much higher percentage of being the corrupt party. Even though this is their rally cry.
I thought you were talking about actual corruption, like giving your cousin the local contract to build a bridge and getting a kick back.
It is hard to discuss these things when one side is just chanting a simple slogan.
Democrats do try to invest in society more, and sometimes that takes on more debt to do that, but that isn't the definition of the word 'corruption'.
Republicans do tend to give loans to 'friends' and get kickbacks. That is real 'corruption' and is documented in criminal cases.
Well, what is it? Do Enlighten. This seems like just angry ranting.
Half of your complaints are just free-market. Republican's love free-markets until prices go up, boo-hoo.
Republican's and Defense industry love wars.
High Speed rail, without looking, I'd say geography and real-estate prices.
1M for traffic lights? Maybe high, is 500K ok? It might be high, but it isn't 100X high.
CEO's get golden parachutes way bigger than the lowly civil servant driving a used car making 50K.
Sorry. I tend to agree with this sentiment. But it is so hard to tell what people really believe these days.
Maybe you'd be surprised, maybe not, but a large number of people expressing this exact view, will also say that the only one that can save us is Trump, he is the only one that can break this cycle. Then they will still just vote for Republicans and consent to be lead along and fall in line with the same things you are pointing out. Lambs to the slaughter in their loyalty.
What to do? Third parties never take off.
My claim is that these are related: the more that people make petty their government, the more that they hate them
Health savings accounts?
> no three or four layer tax systems
Many European countries, like Spain, have multi-level tax systems, but have a single tax return. In the US, you have two tax returns.
> no governments trying to legislate really bizarre religious issues
Many European countries still have official churches! The UK is constantly trying to ban porn. Italy enacted a law similar to Texas’s last year: https://cne.news/article/3884-italy-blocks-porn-access-for-m...
> no paranoid militarised police
Let’s see if that remains true after a century of immigration from the Middle East.
* an average american, in some states, can expect a tax rate at >50%
* the UK's official church only appoints atheist; it would be impolite to appoint someone who actually believed in god
* the UK hasnt banned porn; and despite some attempts, such extreme levels of intrusion would provoke a massive political backlash
They have these in France and I'm sure lots of other european countries: https://www.droit-immo.com/french-property-owners-associatio....
> * an average american, in some states, can expect a tax rate at >50%
The average american is taxed nowhere near 50%. The average U.S. tax wedge--the effective tax rate--is about 30%, very similar to the U.K. https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-brochure.pd....
> the UK's official church only appoints atheist; it would be impolite to appoint someone who actually believed in god
The Anglican Church doesn't believe in God? That's quite an argument. The U.K. still has legally required prayer in schools! https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/schools-could-be-i.... Many schools follow that law, even if it's not usually enforced.
> the UK hasnt banned porn; and despite some attempts, such extreme levels of intrusion would provoke a massive political backlash
Texas hasn't banned porn either. What Texas did is require age verification for access to pornography. The U.K.'s OfCom is doing the exact same thing: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2023/implementing-the-o.... Italy did the same thing last year: https://cne.news/article/3884-italy-blocks-porn-access-for-m.... Many EU countries are planning on doing the same thing: https://www.veriff.com/fraud/learn/age-verification-legaliza....
As far as I can tell, Europe just has better marketing.
Median US household income is ~$75k. For married households with that income and a ~$30k standard deduction, they will pay an overall federal tax rate of around 7%. For single households with that income and a standard deduction of ~$15k, they'll pay federal tax of around 12%.
10-12% is a high state tax rate, so add that on. (Most high tax states graduate tax by income and wouldn't apply these top rates to $75k income households, but nevermind that.)
1% is a high city tax rate.
10% sales tax isn't unheard of, but sales tax also does not apply to all income -- only spending, and only non-exempt spending. (And usually you also don't see 10% sales tax rates in high income tax states; it's one or the other.)
The end result is south of 30% for the median household, even in high tax states. Nowhere near 50%.
The UK was in the process of requiring age verification for online pornography in 2018. One of the reasons the law fell through is because MindGeek’s age verification system (which news reports claimed to already be in use in Germany) was going to end up becoming a de facto monopoly, with all the privacy concerns that implies.
What is it that "Europeans" love that Americans "hate"?
Well it seems, just like Americans, Europeans love age verification laws:
https://apnews.com/article/porn-websites-age-verification-di...
It's nice to see these comprehensive categorizations, where I can prompt myself to ask "How much do I care about this particular freedom vs. that one?"
"Libertarian think tank says Texas sucks for personal freedom" has very different vibe than "Conservative think tank says Texas sucks for personal freedom"
but also, never trust Cato - https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/never-trust-the-cato-...
Also, the majority of American disagree with you: https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornograph.... Not just the majority of republicans, but also for example the strong majority of women, both younger women and older women.
A big chunk of my fellow countrymen also think trump is worth re-electing so I really don’t value their opinions at all. Huge swath of this nation is insane.