Discussion:
In Which Country are the People Most Free?
(too old to reply)
Maria
2004-08-21 09:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Stephen Glynn
2004-08-21 10:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
How on earth would you go about calculating it? In most states in the
USA that section of the population that's under 21 is more regulated
than it is in many countries since it can't legaly buy alcohol in a bar
but on the other hand Americans can buy firearms with far less bother
than can people in many other countries. Does the one cancel the other
out?

Steve
Graham Wilson
2004-08-21 11:20:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:09:34 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
How on earth would you go about calculating it? In most states in the
USA that section of the population that's under 21 is more regulated
than it is in many countries since it can't legaly buy alcohol in a bar
but on the other hand Americans can buy firearms with far less bother
than can people in many other countries. Does the one cancel the other
out?
I think Michael Moore's film "bowling for columbine" summed up the
situation. He opened an account with a particular bank that was
offering free-bees. The deal was: open an account today and get a free
gun.

In the film, Michael Moore was standing in the bank as the bank
employee handed over the gun.

Graham
Michael Ross
2004-08-21 12:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Wilson
I think Michael Moore's film "bowling for columbine" summed up the
situation. He opened an account with a particular bank that was
offering free-bees. The deal was: open an account today and get a free
gun.
In the film, Michael Moore was standing in the bank as the bank
employee handed over the gun.
That alleged documentary was *very* misleading, to put it mildly -
suggest you digest the following:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

With particular reference to the 'bank' scene:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.htm

Moore is not to be trusted, IMHO.

Mike
(Brit in the USA, which is incredibly free in most respects,
desperately nannyed and wrapped in red tape in others)
http://www.corestore.org

'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Maria
2004-08-21 10:33:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:09:34 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
How on earth would you go about calculating it? In most states in the
USA that section of the population that's under 21 is more regulated
than it is in many countries since it can't legaly buy alcohol in a bar
but on the other hand Americans can buy firearms with far less bother
than can people in many other countries. Does the one cancel the other
out?
Perhaps best to stick to whatever is termed as the 'adult' population
then!

I'm most interested to know which country in the world regulates its
population the least.
Young people should do as they are told anyway or get a smack. :)

I suppose I might have to also exclude gun control as a factor, if in
every other way a country is more unregulated in other areas. Is there
a correlation between gun control and other freedoms? Not that I want
to turn this into yet another gun thread!


Grumpy old Maria.
Gaz
2004-08-21 14:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Wilson
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:09:34 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Perhaps best to stick to whatever is termed as the 'adult' population
then!
I'm most interested to know which country in the world regulates its
population the least.
Young people should do as they are told anyway or get a smack. :)
True. I get the feeling that Liberty (something which is yours as a human
being) has been usurped by Human Rights (something the State gives after it
has taken away your Liberty), general freedom is on the decline.

The US has constitutional safeguards which make this process long, slow and
difficult, allowing calmer heads (and new administrations) to provail.

Here, we have none, and we have a Government which has NO respect for
privacy, or the historical freedoms (in spirit rather then law) of freedom
of association, freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, as well as innocent
until proven otherwise.

The growth of the State in this country to every area of life is amazing.
Every area is under regulation, every area, public private and voluntary is
under the very large eye of the state.

gaz
Post by Graham Wilson
I suppose I might have to also exclude gun control as a factor, if in
every other way a country is more unregulated in other areas. Is there
a correlation between gun control and other freedoms? Not that I want
to turn this into yet another gun thread!
Grumpy old Maria.
Graham Wilson
2004-08-21 11:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
It is a very difficult question to answer.

I depends on your perspective and approach to the question. There is
no absolute answer.

In any case, it is all well and good having rights and freedoms but
what if the system itself oes not fully protect those rights and
freedoms?

For example, in America they have a constitution that is designed to
protect the liberty of the people. Yet, in a murder trial, where you
are facing the death penalty you might be represented by a lawyer who
has never before represented anyone in court.

As for the UK, there is the old joke:

British justice - it's the best money can buy

(:-)

Graham
Maria
2004-08-21 10:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Wilson
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
It is a very difficult question to answer.
I depends on your perspective and approach to the question. There is
no absolute answer.
In any case, it is all well and good having rights and freedoms but
what if the system itself oes not fully protect those rights and
freedoms?
It seems to me that whenever a system tries to protect peoples
freedoms, it limits those freedoms to people who have done nothing
wrong.
Example - why do I need a driving license? Why can I not just drive?
It feels like I only have a license in order for them to take it away
when I'm naughty, but not having one in the first place means I am
prohibited from driving.
So I suppose I'm interested in absolute freedoms.
Post by Graham Wilson
For example, in America they have a constitution that is designed to
protect the liberty of the people. Yet, in a murder trial, where you
are facing the death penalty you might be represented by a lawyer who
has never before represented anyone in court.
British justice - it's the best money can buy
(:-)
LOL
Andrew Fenton
2004-08-21 10:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Example - why do I need a driving license? Why can I not just drive?
Yes, it is a inhibition to you, but you benefit overall by being vastly less
likely to be killed/injured on the roads. There's also the economic benefit
of safer transport: lower insurance, cheaper goods transport > cheaper
prices in shops etc

You could also phrase it as a contract between you and other road users - ie
the use of this common property (the roads) is conditional on an adequate
level of ability, which is assessed by the licencing system.
Michael Ross
2004-08-21 12:51:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:56:38 +0100, "Andrew Fenton"
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Maria
Example - why do I need a driving license? Why can I not just drive?
<snip good points>
Post by Andrew Fenton
You could also phrase it as a contract between you and other road users - ie
the use of this common property (the roads) is conditional on an adequate
level of ability, which is assessed by the licencing system.
Yes... and no. If I judge correctly what the OP is driving at (no pun
intended), the appropriate response would be 'the level of ability is
assessed by the driving examiner - why can't I drive for life on my
test pass certificate?'

Then we move the debate onto licenses, points, driving bans etc.

FWIW, a very disturbing trend recently IMHO is using driving bans as
punishment for crimes that have nothing whatever to do with driving.
*That* is were it moves from 'we'll take your license if you drive
really badly' to 'we'll take your license if you do anything naughty'.

Control freakery. And utterly disproportionate in effect on those
living in rural areas - probably *should be* disallowed under ECHR for
that reason alone.

Mike

http://www.corestore.org

'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Maria
2004-08-21 13:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:56:38 +0100, "Andrew Fenton"
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Maria
Example - why do I need a driving license? Why can I not just drive?
Yes, it is a inhibition to you, but you benefit overall by being vastly less
likely to be killed/injured on the roads.
How does having a license make the roads safer?
Post by Andrew Fenton
There's also the economic benefit
of safer transport: lower insurance, cheaper goods transport > cheaper
prices in shops etc
If what you say is true, then yes naturally.
Post by Andrew Fenton
You could also phrase it as a contract between you and other road users - ie
the use of this common property (the roads) is conditional on an adequate
level of ability, which is assessed by the licencing system.
But it is not a contract between myself and other road users - nothing
has been decided by agreement or voluntarily. (I am not against people
introducing their own rules by agreement, voluntarily).
Andrew Fenton
2004-08-21 13:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
How does having a license make the roads safer?
Those with licenses have been tested to ensure a minimum ability of driving,
and knowledge of the highway code etc. If that requirement didn't exist
there would be hundreds of thousands of teenagers on the roads who never had
any driving lessons - no thanks.
Post by Maria
But it is not a contract between myself and other road users - nothing
has been decided by agreement or voluntarily. (I am not against people
introducing their own rules by agreement, voluntarily).
Well, it's been decided by the closest thing we have to collective
agreement - ie the government. If you don't want to agree to those
conditions, you don't have to use public roads.....
Maria
2004-08-21 16:44:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:21:50 +0100, "Andrew Fenton"
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Maria
How does having a license make the roads safer?
Those with licenses have been tested to ensure a minimum ability of driving,
I need a provisional license to even get on the road though - that
doesn't prove anything.
Also, a license is not a hard and fast way of ensuring that all good
drivers are on the road and all bad ones are off it - you only have to
be good at passing tests. If you are really nervous about taking
tests, even a good driver can fail, as many people do the first time.
Post by Andrew Fenton
and knowledge of the highway code etc. If that requirement didn't exist
there would be hundreds of thousands of teenagers on the roads who never had
any driving lessons - no thanks.
Point taken about the teenagers, but they also illustrate my point
that the driving license does not keep bad drivers off the roads.
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Maria
But it is not a contract between myself and other road users - nothing
has been decided by agreement or voluntarily. (I am not against people
introducing their own rules by agreement, voluntarily).
Well, it's been decided by the closest thing we have to collective
agreement - ie the government.
Which is barely recognisable as that anymore - how many people would
have voted for fines for people who park further than 18 inches from a
curb?
Post by Andrew Fenton
If you don't want to agree to those
conditions, you don't have to use public roads.....
There are no private ones, not around here anyway!
Roger Dewhurst
2004-08-22 05:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Fenton
Post by Maria
How does having a license make the roads safer?
Those with licenses have been tested to ensure a minimum ability of driving,
and knowledge of the highway code etc. If that requirement didn't exist
there would be hundreds of thousands of teenagers on the roads who never had
any driving lessons - no thanks.
If that is what they are for they would be issued for life or until such
time as the holder is required to pass another driving test, as in New
Zealand. No. The are mainly for the collection of revenue.

R
hummingbird
2004-08-21 10:43:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:44:06 GMT, ***@ntlworld.com (Maria)
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Check out the Economist website. They did a survey some time ago.
I have to say, Britain didn't come very close to the top.
Paul Nutteing
2004-08-21 16:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Check out the Economist website. They did a survey some time ago.
I have to say, Britain didn't come very close to the top.
I took your hint to The Economist and found
http://www.cato.org/new/01-00/01-10-00r.html
Quote
Cato Institute report rates economic freedom of the world
According to The Economist, study is "best attempt yet to define and measure
economic freedom"

Hong Kong and Singapore are the most economically free jurisdictions in the
world according to the Economic Freedom of the World: 2000 Annual Report,
released concurrently today in Washington, D.C., and in Hong Kong. The
report, published by the Cato Institute and Canada's Fraser Institute, in
conjunction with institutes from 53 other countries, ranks 123 countries on
their level of economic freedom.

This comprehensive index, constructed under the leadership of Nobel Laureate
in Economics, Milton Friedman, is the most objective and accurate measure of
economic freedom published by any organization. It is co-authored by James
Gwartney, Professor of Economics at Florida State University, and Robert
Lawson, Associate Professor of Economics at Capital University.

"This publication is important to developed and developing countries alike
because it shows the critical role that economic freedom plays in achieving
and maintaining prosperity," says Ian Vásquez, director of the Project on
Global Economic Liberty at the Cato Institute.

The United States remains fourth freest economy in the world

The economic freedom rating of the United States has remained remarkably
consistent over the last three decades, placing it fourth. The Unites States
continues to benefit from a sound monetary regime that has much improved
since 1980. Since 1995, however, the U.S. rating on international exchange
has fallen somewhat, reflecting protectionist sentiments in the country.

Hong Kong and Singapore currently share top position as the freest
jurisdictions in the world followed by New Zealand (3), the United States
(4), and the United Kingdom (5). Other countries ranking near the top of the
list include Ireland (6), Canada (7), Australia (7), Netherlands (9),
Luxembourg (9), and Switzerland (9). The least free economies include
Myanmar (123), Democratic Republic of Congo (122), Sierra Leone (121),
Rwanda (120), Madagascar (119), and Guinea-Bissau (118).

In the 1990s a number of Latin American countries achieved dramatic
improvements in both their ratings and rankings. Peru, Nicaragua, Argentina,
El Salvador, and Dominican Republic all improved their rankings by at least
2 places. Among Eastern nations, Russia, Hungary and Poland have improved
their levels of economic freedom. Countries that lost economic freedom in
the 1990s include Benin, Chad, Malaysia, Cameroon, and Senegal.

Economic freedom leads to greater prosperity

One of the most compelling results of the study is the relationship between
economic freedom and prosperity. Countries that score in the top quintile of
economic freedom had an average per capita GDP of US$18,108 and an average
growth rate of 1.6%. As freedom declined, so did the average per capita GDP,
as well as the average growth rate. The bottom 20 percent of economically
free countries had an average per capita GDP of US$1,669 and an average
growth rate of -1.32%. Also, life expectancy in the top quintile is twenty
years longer than that found in the bottom quintile.

Research based on the Economic Freedom of the World data confirms that
countries with consistently high levels of economic freedom perform far
better, both financially and non-financially, than those with low levels of
economic freedom. The research indicates that political leadership which
fosters more economic freedom creates a foundation for a higher standard of
living and increased economic growth.

Methodology

This edition of Economic Freedom of the World presents updated figures and
backdates the data to 1970 (where possible).

The addition of historical data makes this the most comprehensive measure of
economic freedom ever published. This wealth of data provides researchers
with an opportunity to further explore the relationships between economic
freedom and other important social indicators.

The seven major categories of variables included in the index are: (1) size
of government, (2) the structure of the economy and use of markets, (3)
monetary policy and price stability, (4) freedom to use alternative
currencies, (5) legal structure and security of private ownership, (6)
freedom of trade with foreigners, and (7) freedom of exchange in capital and
financial markets.

Data on twenty-three variables was gathered for 123 countries in the most
recent year. These variables quantify the restrictions on economic freedom
imposed by governments in a variety of areas. A score from 0 to 10 (0 being
least free, 10 representing freest) was found for each variable for each
country. Principal component analysis (an advanced statistical technique)
was used to attach weights to the component data that were combined to
create a summary rating.


End Quote

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email ***@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
hummingbird
2004-08-21 17:06:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:16:45 +0100, "Paul Nutteing"
<***@quickfindit.com>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by Paul Nutteing
Post by hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Check out the Economist website. They did a survey some time ago.
I have to say, Britain didn't come very close to the top.
I took your hint to The Economist and found
http://www.cato.org/new/01-00/01-10-00r.html
Quote
Cato Institute report rates economic freedom of the world
According to The Economist, study is "best attempt yet to define and measure
economic freedom"
The significance of this is that it refers only to economic freedom.
Maria was after a much more broader analysis. However, that said...
Post by Paul Nutteing
Hong Kong and Singapore are the most economically free jurisdictions in the
world according to the Economic Freedom of the World: 2000 Annual Report,
Isn't it interesting how Singapore can rank joint top w/r/t economic
freedoms but would rank *much* lower down w/r/t social freedoms, being
a neo-police-state. Hong Kong too since China took back control.

This clearly shows the difference between measurement criteria.

The other important thing is that we shouldn't automatically assume
that a country which scores high on economic freedoms is therefore a
better country to live and work in. It can simply mean that employers
are much freer to high/fire staff, health/safety laws at work are
minimal and corporate liability is non-existent etc. A capitalist's
dream maybe. That's how the Asian Tigers have succeeded.
Post by Paul Nutteing
released concurrently today in Washington, D.C., and in Hong Kong. The
report, published by the Cato Institute and Canada's Fraser Institute, in
conjunction with institutes from 53 other countries, ranks 123 countries on
their level of economic freedom.
This comprehensive index, constructed under the leadership of Nobel Laureate
in Economics, Milton Friedman, is the most objective and accurate measure of
economic freedom published by any organization. It is co-authored by James
Gwartney, Professor of Economics at Florida State University, and Robert
Lawson, Associate Professor of Economics at Capital University.
"This publication is important to developed and developing countries alike
because it shows the critical role that economic freedom plays in achieving
and maintaining prosperity," says Ian Vásquez, director of the Project on
Global Economic Liberty at the Cato Institute.
The United States remains fourth freest economy in the world
Not surprising.
Post by Paul Nutteing
The economic freedom rating of the United States has remained remarkably
consistent over the last three decades, placing it fourth. The Unites States
continues to benefit from a sound monetary regime that has much improved
since 1980. Since 1995, however, the U.S. rating on international exchange
has fallen somewhat, reflecting protectionist sentiments in the country.
Hong Kong and Singapore currently share top position as the freest
jurisdictions in the world followed by New Zealand (3), the United States
(4), and the United Kingdom (5). Other countries ranking near the top of the
list include Ireland (6), Canada (7), Australia (7), Netherlands (9),
Luxembourg (9), and Switzerland (9). The least free economies include
Myanmar (123), Democratic Republic of Congo (122), Sierra Leone (121),
Rwanda (120), Madagascar (119), and Guinea-Bissau (118).
The UK position w/r/t social freedoms comes lower down the scale
IIRC, again, reflecting the Thatcherisation of Britain which Blair has
continued with relish. The very fact that Britain doesn't have a
written constitution pushes us down that scale, since there are no
laws to control the power of the Executive.

The African countries are not at all surprising.
Post by Paul Nutteing
In the 1990s a number of Latin American countries achieved dramatic
improvements in both their ratings and rankings. Peru, Nicaragua, Argentina,
El Salvador, and Dominican Republic all improved their rankings by at least
2 places. Among Eastern nations, Russia, Hungary and Poland have improved
their levels of economic freedom. Countries that lost economic freedom in
the 1990s include Benin, Chad, Malaysia, Cameroon, and Senegal.
Economic freedom leads to greater prosperity
Indeed but not to greater democratic freedoms.
Gaz
2004-08-21 18:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by hummingbird
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:16:45 +0100, "Paul Nutteing"
The UK position w/r/t social freedoms comes lower down the scale
IIRC, again, reflecting the Thatcherisation of Britain which Blair has
continued with relish.
You expose your prejudices, by any measure the UK has both a greater level
of social/economic freedom and mobility today then it did in the 1960 - 1979
era.
Post by hummingbird
The very fact that Britain doesn't have a
written constitution pushes us down that scale, since there are no
laws to control the power of the Executive.
Generally, past practise has kept the Executive in tow. But, an unprincipled
and corrupt elite are able to abuse this situation. Some would say they
already have/are.
Post by hummingbird
The African countries are not at all surprising.
Post by Paul Nutteing
In the 1990s a number of Latin American countries achieved dramatic
improvements in both their ratings and rankings. Peru, Nicaragua, Argentina,
El Salvador, and Dominican Republic all improved their rankings by at least
2 places. Among Eastern nations, Russia, Hungary and Poland have improved
their levels of economic freedom. Countries that lost economic freedom in
the 1990s include Benin, Chad, Malaysia, Cameroon, and Senegal.
Economic freedom leads to greater prosperity
Indeed but not to greater democratic freedoms.
It does. You cannot sustain repression in an economically free society. If a
Free State is oppressive, it is usually because that is how its inhabitants
want it. Governments of Capitalist Countries lack the aparatus to maintain
power if they become out of touch with the people.

Gaz
hummingbird
2004-08-21 20:19:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 19:15:20 +0100, "Gaz" <***@msn.com>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by Gaz
Post by hummingbird
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:16:45 +0100, "Paul Nutteing"
The UK position w/r/t social freedoms comes lower down the scale
IIRC, again, reflecting the Thatcherisation of Britain which Blair has
continued with relish.
You expose your prejudices, by any measure the UK has both a greater level
of social/economic freedom and mobility today then it did in the 1960 - 1979
era.
Stating a fact is not prejudice. And I suggest you rephrase your reply
since it is patently wrong. You seem to be confused between economic
freedom and social freedom.
Post by Gaz
Post by hummingbird
The very fact that Britain doesn't have a
written constitution pushes us down that scale, since there are no
laws to control the power of the Executive.
Generally, past practise has kept the Executive in tow. But, an unprincipled
and corrupt elite are able to abuse this situation. Some would say they
already have/are.
So you agree with me.
Post by Gaz
Post by hummingbird
The African countries are not at all surprising.
Post by Paul Nutteing
In the 1990s a number of Latin American countries achieved dramatic
improvements in both their ratings and rankings. Peru, Nicaragua, Argentina,
El Salvador, and Dominican Republic all improved their rankings by at least
2 places. Among Eastern nations, Russia, Hungary and Poland have improved
their levels of economic freedom. Countries that lost economic freedom in
the 1990s include Benin, Chad, Malaysia, Cameroon, and Senegal.
Economic freedom leads to greater prosperity
Indeed but not to greater democratic freedoms.
It does. You cannot sustain repression in an economically free society.
I'm not talking about blatant repression; that comes later.

I'm talking about the additional ~600 laws passed by NuLab since they
came into office. That means (almost by definition) that we have more
laws to control us and thus we are less free.
Add to that the absence of a written constitution.....

All of that has happened at the same time wealth has grown.
Post by Gaz
If a
Free State is oppressive, it is usually because that is how its inhabitants
want it.
We get the govt we deserve but it doesn't change the facts.
Post by Gaz
Governments of Capitalist Countries lack the aparatus to maintain
power if they become out of touch with the people.
They use spin. That fools enough people to get re-elected.
Energumen
2004-08-21 22:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaz
Post by hummingbird
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:16:45 +0100, "Paul Nutteing"
The UK position w/r/t social freedoms comes lower down the scale
IIRC, again, reflecting the Thatcherisation of Britain which Blair has
continued with relish.
You expose your prejudices, by any measure the UK has both a greater level
of social/economic freedom and mobility today then it did in the 1960 - 1979
era.
Post by hummingbird
The very fact that Britain doesn't have a
written constitution pushes us down that scale, since there are no
laws to control the power of the Executive.
Generally, past practise has kept the Executive in tow. But, an unprincipled
and corrupt elite are able to abuse this situation. Some would say they
already have/are.
Post by hummingbird
The African countries are not at all surprising.
Post by Paul Nutteing
In the 1990s a number of Latin American countries achieved dramatic
improvements in both their ratings and rankings. Peru, Nicaragua, Argentina,
El Salvador, and Dominican Republic all improved their rankings by at least
2 places. Among Eastern nations, Russia, Hungary and Poland have improved
their levels of economic freedom. Countries that lost economic freedom in
the 1990s include Benin, Chad, Malaysia, Cameroon, and Senegal.
Economic freedom leads to greater prosperity
Indeed but not to greater democratic freedoms.
It does. You cannot sustain repression in an economically free society. If a
Free State is oppressive, it is usually because that is how its inhabitants
want it. Governments of Capitalist Countries lack the aparatus to maintain
power if they become out of touch with the people.
Nonsense, the list cited disproves that. Though it would be interesting to
do Spearman's rank correlations between economic freedom, democracy, human
rights, freedom of the press etc. as in the other links. The lists seem to
show a much higher correlation between any two of democracy, human rights
and press freedom than would be a correlation between any of those three and
economic freedom.
Gaz
2004-08-21 18:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Nutteing
Post by hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Check out the Economist website. They did a survey some time ago.
I have to say, Britain didn't come very close to the top.
I took your hint to The Economist and found
http://www.cato.org/new/01-00/01-10-00r.html
Quote
Cato Institute report rates economic freedom of the world
According to The Economist, study is "best attempt yet to define and measure
economic freedom"
But, that was 2000, has four more years of Gordenomics, and Blunketarianism
in the home office, could the increase in state activity had an impact?

Gaz
Joanne
2004-08-21 10:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.

The biggest problem with the UK is that we seem to have an elected dictatorship
and we're such a nanny state

eg
- Weird laws for bar hours.
- CCTV everywhere
- Censorship of films & videos
- OTT planning regulations
- OTT health'n'safety regs
- authorities implementing laws noones bothered about, but ignoring what bothers
people
Stephen Glynn
2004-08-21 12:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
The biggest problem with the UK is that we seem to have an elected dictatorship
and we're such a nanny state
eg
- Weird laws for bar hours.
- CCTV everywhere
- Censorship of films & videos
- OTT planning regulations
- OTT health'n'safety regs
- authorities implementing laws noones bothered about, but ignoring what bothers
people
'Elected dictatorship' is, of course, one of those phrases that people
use as an alternative to thinking. It was coined, IIRC, by the late
Lord Hailsham who objected to the fact that HMG could do pretty much
what it wanted and, since HMG was run by Harold Wilson at the time, Lord
H took a dim view of this. This is somewhat ameliorated by the fact
that we are now signed up to the ECHR, thus giving people the
opportunity endlessly to complain about human rights lawyers (unless
it's their rights that are being abused, of course).

OTT planning and H&S regs. Hmm. By definition anything that's OTT is
probably a bad thing, but the problem is that everyone considers
regulations they don't like OTT (a case of authorities 'implementing
laws no one's bothered about'). A mobile phone company doubtless
considers the planning department in the area where my mother lives
'OTT' since they've stopped them erecting a mobile phone mast just down
the road from her. She and the other people on the street, on the
other hand, are delighted that their objections to its planning
permission were upheld since they wanted to continue to enjoy
unobstructed views from their gardens and didn't want the value of their
houses to go down.

Similarly, I very rarely hear people complain about H&S regs in general
and certainly not when they apply to them. It's doubtless a bore for
my MD to ensure that they're complied with but, on the other hand, I'm
sure he doesn't particularly want to risk anyone blowing up the welding
shop (or even having to advertise for new welders).

CCTV. Now, here's an interesting one. You may well find them
intrusive but in what way do they interfere with your personal freedom?

Steve
Cynic
2004-08-21 17:36:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:59:48 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
OTT planning and H&S regs. Hmm. By definition anything that's OTT is
probably a bad thing, but the problem is that everyone considers
regulations they don't like OTT (a case of authorities 'implementing
laws no one's bothered about'). A mobile phone company doubtless
considers the planning department in the area where my mother lives
'OTT' since they've stopped them erecting a mobile phone mast just down
the road from her. She and the other people on the street, on the
other hand, are delighted that their objections to its planning
permission were upheld since they wanted to continue to enjoy
unobstructed views from their gardens and didn't want the value of their
houses to go down.
My main example of how such regulations have affected our lives is
regarding public swimming pools. As a child, I often went swimming
with friends and we had a whale of a time, with no serious injuries
that I ever saw, maybe just the odd graze or bruise.

Nowadays, there are so many regulations in swimming pools that it has
seriously encroached on the fun. No running. No diving. No
"bombing". No snorkels. No tires or other floating devices. No ball
games. Diving boards are no longer seen. There are "flumes" at many
pools, but these must be used under an almost military proceedure.
--
Cynic
Maria
2004-08-21 17:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:59:48 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
OTT planning and H&S regs. Hmm. By definition anything that's OTT is
probably a bad thing, but the problem is that everyone considers
regulations they don't like OTT (a case of authorities 'implementing
laws no one's bothered about'). A mobile phone company doubtless
considers the planning department in the area where my mother lives
'OTT' since they've stopped them erecting a mobile phone mast just down
the road from her. She and the other people on the street, on the
other hand, are delighted that their objections to its planning
permission were upheld since they wanted to continue to enjoy
unobstructed views from their gardens and didn't want the value of their
houses to go down.
My main example of how such regulations have affected our lives is
regarding public swimming pools. As a child, I often went swimming
with friends and we had a whale of a time, with no serious injuries
that I ever saw, maybe just the odd graze or bruise.
Nowadays, there are so many regulations in swimming pools that it has
seriously encroached on the fun. No running. No diving. No
"bombing". No snorkels. No tires or other floating devices. No ball
games. Diving boards are no longer seen. There are "flumes" at many
pools, but these must be used under an almost military proceedure.
My four year old son has just learned (with a neighbour) how to mix
cement, from how many buckets of sand to how many buckets of cement,
and has spent all afternoon shovelling the mixture into a cement
mixer.
Not only would the HSE throw a pink fit if they saw it, but also the
anti-paedo squad would have been around wondering what our neighbour
(a single man of 3 -ish) was doing taking such an interest in a four
year old child.
Thank goodness for privacy. I wonder how long we will have it?

The
Gaz
2004-08-21 17:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:59:48 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
OTT planning and H&S regs. Hmm. By definition anything that's OTT is
probably a bad thing, but the problem is that everyone considers
regulations they don't like OTT (a case of authorities 'implementing
laws no one's bothered about'). A mobile phone company doubtless
considers the planning department in the area where my mother lives
'OTT' since they've stopped them erecting a mobile phone mast just down
the road from her. She and the other people on the street, on the
other hand, are delighted that their objections to its planning
permission were upheld since they wanted to continue to enjoy
unobstructed views from their gardens and didn't want the value of their
houses to go down.
My main example of how such regulations have affected our lives is
regarding public swimming pools. As a child, I often went swimming
with friends and we had a whale of a time, with no serious injuries
that I ever saw, maybe just the odd graze or bruise.
Nowadays, there are so many regulations in swimming pools that it has
seriously encroached on the fun. No running. No diving. No
"bombing". No snorkels. No tires or other floating devices. No ball
games. Diving boards are no longer seen. There are "flumes" at many
pools, but these must be used under an almost military proceedure.
I heard one place had 'No Backstroke'.

Gaz
Post by Cynic
--
Cynic
Maria
2004-08-21 17:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaz
Post by Cynic
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:59:48 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
OTT planning and H&S regs. Hmm. By definition anything that's OTT is
probably a bad thing, but the problem is that everyone considers
regulations they don't like OTT (a case of authorities 'implementing
laws no one's bothered about'). A mobile phone company doubtless
considers the planning department in the area where my mother lives
'OTT' since they've stopped them erecting a mobile phone mast just down
the road from her. She and the other people on the street, on the
other hand, are delighted that their objections to its planning
permission were upheld since they wanted to continue to enjoy
unobstructed views from their gardens and didn't want the value of their
houses to go down.
My main example of how such regulations have affected our lives is
regarding public swimming pools. As a child, I often went swimming
with friends and we had a whale of a time, with no serious injuries
that I ever saw, maybe just the odd graze or bruise.
Nowadays, there are so many regulations in swimming pools that it has
seriously encroached on the fun. No running. No diving. No
"bombing". No snorkels. No tires or other floating devices. No ball
games. Diving boards are no longer seen. There are "flumes" at many
pools, but these must be used under an almost military proceedure.
I heard one place had 'No Backstroke'.
I just came back from a holiday park where there was no splashing
allowed in the pool! People were being chucked out right left and
centre. Dunno what that was all about.
Joanne
2004-08-21 17:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:59:48 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
OTT planning and H&S regs. Hmm. By definition anything that's OTT is
probably a bad thing, but the problem is that everyone considers
regulations they don't like OTT (a case of authorities 'implementing
laws no one's bothered about'). A mobile phone company doubtless
considers the planning department in the area where my mother lives
'OTT' since they've stopped them erecting a mobile phone mast just down
the road from her. She and the other people on the street, on the
other hand, are delighted that their objections to its planning
permission were upheld since they wanted to continue to enjoy
unobstructed views from their gardens and didn't want the value of their
houses to go down.
My main example of how such regulations have affected our lives is
regarding public swimming pools. As a child, I often went swimming
with friends and we had a whale of a time, with no serious injuries
that I ever saw, maybe just the odd graze or bruise.
Nowadays, there are so many regulations in swimming pools that it has
seriously encroached on the fun. No running. No diving. No
"bombing". No snorkels. No tires or other floating devices. No ball
games. Diving boards are no longer seen. There are "flumes" at many
pools, but these must be used under an almost military proceedure.
Don't forget no back stroke swimming either
Stephen Glynn
2004-08-21 22:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joanne
Post by Cynic
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:59:48 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
OTT planning and H&S regs. Hmm. By definition anything that's OTT is
probably a bad thing, but the problem is that everyone considers
regulations they don't like OTT (a case of authorities 'implementing
laws no one's bothered about'). A mobile phone company doubtless
considers the planning department in the area where my mother lives
'OTT' since they've stopped them erecting a mobile phone mast just down
the road from her. She and the other people on the street, on the
other hand, are delighted that their objections to its planning
permission were upheld since they wanted to continue to enjoy
unobstructed views from their gardens and didn't want the value of their
houses to go down.
My main example of how such regulations have affected our lives is
regarding public swimming pools. As a child, I often went swimming
with friends and we had a whale of a time, with no serious injuries
that I ever saw, maybe just the odd graze or bruise.
Nowadays, there are so many regulations in swimming pools that it has
seriously encroached on the fun. No running. No diving. No
"bombing". No snorkels. No tires or other floating devices. No ball
games. Diving boards are no longer seen. There are "flumes" at many
pools, but these must be used under an almost military proceedure.
Don't forget no back stroke swimming either
How much of that, I wonder, is in case you swim into the end of the pool
and how much is it in case you plough into some kiddy who's looking the
wrong way, thus getting his parents very upset?

Steve
Cynic
2004-08-21 22:51:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:04:21 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Joanne
Don't forget no back stroke swimming either
How much of that, I wonder, is in case you swim into the end of the pool
and how much is it in case you plough into some kiddy who's looking the
wrong way, thus getting his parents very upset?
It is almost certainly a CYA reason. As I have said, in the many
times I have been at swimming pools that have none of those
regulations, I have not seen any non-superficial injury. Parents would
however look out for their kids, and there were times when a parent
would step in and curb the activities of older kids who were going a
bit OTT with the horseplay.

I have no doubt that their *were* serious injuries on the odd
occasion, but well within the ratio that I would consider acceptable
for freedom vs regulation.
--
Cynic
Stephen Glynn
2004-08-21 22:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:59:48 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
OTT planning and H&S regs. Hmm. By definition anything that's OTT is
probably a bad thing, but the problem is that everyone considers
regulations they don't like OTT (a case of authorities 'implementing
laws no one's bothered about'). A mobile phone company doubtless
considers the planning department in the area where my mother lives
'OTT' since they've stopped them erecting a mobile phone mast just down
the road from her. She and the other people on the street, on the
other hand, are delighted that their objections to its planning
permission were upheld since they wanted to continue to enjoy
unobstructed views from their gardens and didn't want the value of their
houses to go down.
My main example of how such regulations have affected our lives is
regarding public swimming pools. As a child, I often went swimming
with friends and we had a whale of a time, with no serious injuries
that I ever saw, maybe just the odd graze or bruise.
Nowadays, there are so many regulations in swimming pools that it has
seriously encroached on the fun. No running. No diving. No
"bombing". No snorkels. No tires or other floating devices. No ball
games. Diving boards are no longer seen. There are "flumes" at many
pools, but these must be used under an almost military proceedure.
I think 'bombing', snorkelling, and running were frowned on, as was
'petting' IIRC, when I was learning to swim at the public baths 40 years
ago. More seriously I think the problem is one of public liability.
It's not to do with 'compensation culture', that media favourite.
particularly. Rather it's to do with the risk that the swimming pool
or whatever might find itself on the wrong end of a completely justified
and very expensive claim for damages because of its negligence. And
even if the injured party doesn't particularly want to make a claim
against the swimming pool, you can bet that he'll make a claim against
his insurance company if he's insured against such accidents and that
they'll do their best to pass on the bill to someone else's insurers if
they can.

Consequently, the pool or leisure centre's insurers either decline to
cover them against various risks or quote them very high premiums. They
can't do much else because the underwriters don't want to take on the
risk. This doesn't leave the leisure centre with a great deal of
choice in the matter.

I don't know what to do about it, either.

Steve
Cynic
2004-08-21 23:00:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:00:40 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
I think 'bombing', snorkelling, and running were frowned on, as was
'petting' IIRC, when I was learning to swim at the public baths 40 years
ago.
Maybe, All my experience was in Africa - maybe it has been different
in the UK for a long time.
Post by Stephen Glynn
More seriously I think the problem is one of public liability.
It's not to do with 'compensation culture', that media favourite.
particularly. Rather it's to do with the risk that the swimming pool
or whatever might find itself on the wrong end of a completely justified
and very expensive claim for damages because of its negligence. And
even if the injured party doesn't particularly want to make a claim
against the swimming pool, you can bet that he'll make a claim against
his insurance company if he's insured against such accidents and that
they'll do their best to pass on the bill to someone else's insurers if
they can.
I'm sure you are correct.
Post by Stephen Glynn
Consequently, the pool or leisure centre's insurers either decline to
cover them against various risks or quote them very high premiums. They
can't do much else because the underwriters don't want to take on the
risk. This doesn't leave the leisure centre with a great deal of
choice in the matter.
I don't know what to do about it, either.
How about a prominent sign that says, "All use of these facillities is
at your own risk" - and allow that to absolve the owners of any
injury, howsoever caused? I certainly would have no problem with
taking responsibility for assessing the risk on behalf of myself & my
family. I do not necessarily want to *be* assured of my safety in
everything I do, especially if that involves decreasing the pleasure
of the experience. I have done plenty of things that carried a
significant risk of death - and for the most part am glad that I did
so. I don't want to *be* wrapped in cotton-wool.
--
Cynic
Stephen Glynn
2004-08-22 10:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:00:40 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
I think 'bombing', snorkelling, and running were frowned on, as was
'petting' IIRC, when I was learning to swim at the public baths 40 years
ago.
Maybe, All my experience was in Africa - maybe it has been different
in the UK for a long time.
Post by Stephen Glynn
More seriously I think the problem is one of public liability.
It's not to do with 'compensation culture', that media favourite.
particularly. Rather it's to do with the risk that the swimming pool
or whatever might find itself on the wrong end of a completely justified
and very expensive claim for damages because of its negligence. And
even if the injured party doesn't particularly want to make a claim
against the swimming pool, you can bet that he'll make a claim against
his insurance company if he's insured against such accidents and that
they'll do their best to pass on the bill to someone else's insurers if
they can.
I'm sure you are correct.
Post by Stephen Glynn
Consequently, the pool or leisure centre's insurers either decline to
cover them against various risks or quote them very high premiums. They
can't do much else because the underwriters don't want to take on the
risk. This doesn't leave the leisure centre with a great deal of
choice in the matter.
I don't know what to do about it, either.
How about a prominent sign that says, "All use of these facillities is
at your own risk" - and allow that to absolve the owners of any
injury, howsoever caused? I certainly would have no problem with
taking responsibility for assessing the risk on behalf of myself & my
family. I do not necessarily want to *be* assured of my safety in
everything I do, especially if that involves decreasing the pleasure
of the experience. I have done plenty of things that carried a
significant risk of death - and for the most part am glad that I did
so. I don't want to *be* wrapped in cotton-wool.
I don't think that solves the problem, though.

You're confusing the idea that something should be 'risk free' with the
idea that someone organising something potentially risky has a duty of
care to the participants and that he certainly shouldn't be negligent.
No one would expect the sport of skydiving to be risk-free but you
certainly have the right to expect the instructor and pilot are
competent and that the parachute the club provides is properly packed
and you (and your estate) have a justifiable claim against the skydiving
club if this turns out not to be the case. So, come to that, does the
person whose roof you crash through at the end of this misadventure.

ISTM that the problem is insurance companies quite understandably want
to minimise their exposure to risk. If someone goes swimming and meets
with an accident through no fault of his own, he's quite likely to make
a claim on BUPA, his mortgage protection insurance and so forth, and if
the accident's fatal his estate will make a claim on his life insurance.
The insurance companies involved will want to recover the loss if
they can and they'll look to the leisure centre's insurance company.
The leisure centre's insurers, meanwhile, look at an unstructured
environment with plenty of accidents waiting to happen and adjust their
premiums accordingly and I don't see how it really helps anyone to say
that the normal law of liability shouldn't apply to swimming pools. It
applies to everything else.

The obvious solution would be to increase the entrance price for pools
to take into account the cost of insurance, but that's not going to be
very popular.

ISTM a genuine problem. At the pool where I used to swim a lot as a
child they had a very high diving board -- it probably wasn't the couple
of miles high that it seemed but it certainly was competition standard.
Obviously most people had the sense to stick to the lower boards and
not to swim near the high board but people don't always have sense and,
after a couple of very nasty accidents (one involving someone landing on
top of another swimmer with nearly fatal results for both of them) the
council took the high board and several other boards down.

I'm not sure what I'd have done had I been a councillor. On the one
hand you want people to have the abilities to enjoy the facility and
thousands of people a year were clearly using the pool without mishap.
On the other you obviously have to be careful with the local
authority's money and, quite apart from anything else, you don't want
people getting badly hurt using your facilities.

Steve
Cynic
2004-08-22 10:59:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 11:15:21 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Cynic
How about a prominent sign that says, "All use of these facillities is
at your own risk" - and allow that to absolve the owners of any
injury, howsoever caused? I certainly would have no problem with
taking responsibility for assessing the risk on behalf of myself & my
family. I do not necessarily want to *be* assured of my safety in
everything I do, especially if that involves decreasing the pleasure
of the experience. I have done plenty of things that carried a
significant risk of death - and for the most part am glad that I did
so. I don't want to *be* wrapped in cotton-wool.
I don't think that solves the problem, though.
You're confusing the idea that something should be 'risk free' with the
idea that someone organising something potentially risky has a duty of
care to the participants and that he certainly shouldn't be negligent.
No one would expect the sport of skydiving to be risk-free but you
certainly have the right to expect the instructor and pilot are
competent and that the parachute the club provides is properly packed
and you (and your estate) have a justifiable claim against the skydiving
club if this turns out not to be the case. So, come to that, does the
person whose roof you crash through at the end of this misadventure.
Yes, I understand how the situation has arisen. It ends up being a
downward spiral though. People get used to the idea that all public
facillities will be carefully organised so as to present almost zero
risk. Therefore there is no need for them to think about risk
themselves, or to take any special care - because every possible risk
scenario has been thought through for them, and has been prevented
from happening. So as long as they follow the rules and do not do
anything totally unusual, they expect close to zero risk.

That mentality of course increases the chances of an accident, meaning
that the owners of the facillity must introduce more and more strict
control and limitations. When an accident happens, it is
automatically considered to be a flaw in the facillities, and new
regulations or working practices are introduced in order to try to
prevent a one-in-a-million chance of an accident.

Your example of the diving accident illustrates this mechanism. In
most of the pools I used to swim as a child, there were some very high
diving boards. I was told by my parents *and* my friends about the
danger of swimming in the area of the diving-well, and also the
importance of ensuring that the area was clear of swimmers before
using a diving board. It was impressed upon me by my parents and
other adults that these things were *my* responsibility. If someone
hung around in the diving well area, or if it was apparent that a
diver was not being very careful in looking out for swimmers, either
the lifeguard on duty (yes, they had those), or, quite frequently
another swimmer would have words with the miscreant and explain how
dangerous the behaviour was.

IOW, not only did we look out for our *own* safety, but everyone also
saw a collective responsibility to be on the lookout for dangerous
behaviour in others and prevent it. I do not see that attitude in the
UK today.

ISTM that the courts, when deciding culpability, consider that people
using a public facillity are very dumb and should not be expected to
take responsibility for their own actions. In the diving accident you
mention, I would place the blame onto the diver and the swimmer, with
the exact circumstance determining what percentage of blame they
shared. The fact that the swimming pool may not strictly control
diving activity, or does not have a large sign warning of the dangers
of diving on top of someone should not IMO be considered.

If the courts were less ready to find against the owners of the
facillities rather than the individuals whose actions were the real
cause of the accident, the situation you decribe would not have
arisen.
--
Cynic
Maria
2004-08-21 13:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
The biggest problem with the UK is that we seem to have an elected dictatorship
and we're such a nanny state
eg
- Weird laws for bar hours.
- CCTV everywhere
- Censorship of films & videos
- OTT planning regulations
- OTT health'n'safety regs
- authorities implementing laws noones bothered about, but ignoring what bothers
people
That's true, but I was thinking about even more basic freedoms than
that - see the driving license example, and for really extreme ones,
having to get planning permission to alter your own property, or being
forced to trade in designated areas and meet certain criteria before
you can trade.
Stephen Glynn
2004-08-21 13:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
The biggest problem with the UK is that we seem to have an elected dictatorship
and we're such a nanny state
eg
- Weird laws for bar hours.
- CCTV everywhere
- Censorship of films & videos
- OTT planning regulations
- OTT health'n'safety regs
- authorities implementing laws noones bothered about, but ignoring what bothers
people
That's true, but I was thinking about even more basic freedoms than
that - see the driving license example, and for really extreme ones,
having to get planning permission to alter your own property, or being
forced to trade in designated areas and meet certain criteria before
you can trade.
But Maria, I bet if I lived next door to you and decided either to build
a huge extension at the back of my house, thus overlooking and blocking
out light from your back garden, and/or to convert my property into a
residential nursing home, thus greatly increasing traffic just next door
to your house and buggering up the on-street parking as people come to
visit their elderly relatives and needed to park their cars, you'd bang
in an objection to my application for planning permission pretty quickly.

Steve
Anon.
2004-08-21 15:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
The biggest problem with the UK is that we seem to have an elected dictatorship
and we're such a nanny state
eg
- Weird laws for bar hours.
- CCTV everywhere
- Censorship of films & videos
- OTT planning regulations
- OTT health'n'safety regs
- authorities implementing laws noones bothered about, but ignoring what bothers
people
That's true, but I was thinking about even more basic freedoms than
that - see the driving license example, and for really extreme ones,
having to get planning permission to alter your own property, or being
forced to trade in designated areas and meet certain criteria before
you can trade.
But Maria, I bet if I lived next door to you and decided either to build
a huge extension at the back of my house, thus overlooking and blocking
out light from your back garden, and/or to convert my property into a
residential nursing home, thus greatly increasing traffic just next door
to your house and buggering up the on-street parking as people come to
visit their elderly relatives and needed to park their cars, you'd bang
in an objection to my application for planning permission pretty quickly.
Maybe, but you're still missing the point. That may be an argument for
planning permission, but at the end of the day, it's still a fairly huge
infringement on personal liberty and the right to own property.
Gaz
2004-08-21 17:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joanne
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
The biggest problem with the UK is that we seem to have an elected
dictatorship
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
and we're such a nanny state
eg
- Weird laws for bar hours.
- CCTV everywhere
- Censorship of films & videos
- OTT planning regulations
- OTT health'n'safety regs
- authorities implementing laws noones bothered about, but ignoring
what
bothers
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
people
That's true, but I was thinking about even more basic freedoms than
that - see the driving license example, and for really extreme ones,
having to get planning permission to alter your own property, or being
forced to trade in designated areas and meet certain criteria before
you can trade.
But Maria, I bet if I lived next door to you and decided either to build
a huge extension at the back of my house, thus overlooking and blocking
out light from your back garden, and/or to convert my property into a
residential nursing home, thus greatly increasing traffic just next door
to your house and buggering up the on-street parking as people come to
visit their elderly relatives and needed to park their cars, you'd bang
in an objection to my application for planning permission pretty quickly.
Maybe, but you're still missing the point. That may be an argument for
planning permission, but at the end of the day, it's still a fairly huge
infringement on personal liberty and the right to own property.
It has been said that our Planning Regulations are behind the general high
cost of land and the lack of supply of new houses.

Gaz
Steve Smith
2004-08-22 06:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaz
Post by Joanne
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
The biggest problem with the UK is that we seem to have an elected
dictatorship
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
and we're such a nanny state
eg
- Weird laws for bar hours.
- CCTV everywhere
- Censorship of films & videos
- OTT planning regulations
- OTT health'n'safety regs
- authorities implementing laws noones bothered about, but ignoring
what
bothers
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
people
That's true, but I was thinking about even more basic freedoms than
that - see the driving license example, and for really extreme ones,
having to get planning permission to alter your own property, or being
forced to trade in designated areas and meet certain criteria before
you can trade.
But Maria, I bet if I lived next door to you and decided either to build
a huge extension at the back of my house, thus overlooking and blocking
out light from your back garden, and/or to convert my property into a
residential nursing home, thus greatly increasing traffic just next door
to your house and buggering up the on-street parking as people come to
visit their elderly relatives and needed to park their cars, you'd bang
in an objection to my application for planning permission pretty quickly.
Maybe, but you're still missing the point. That may be an argument for
planning permission, but at the end of the day, it's still a fairly huge
infringement on personal liberty and the right to own property.
It has been said that our Planning Regulations are behind the general high
cost of land and the lack of supply of new houses.
Gaz
Why do they have a local plan which arbirarily decides what percentage you
can extend your house? To compare the living accom recquirements in 1948
with 2004 is plain stupid. Our plan here is 30%, and as our house had
already reached that point when we bought it we will have to pull bits down
to cannibalise space to use more effectively in trying to sort out the mess
of it all.

Steve
Alan G
2004-08-21 15:57:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:06:25 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
The biggest problem with the UK is that we seem to have an elected dictatorship
and we're such a nanny state
eg
- Weird laws for bar hours.
- CCTV everywhere
- Censorship of films & videos
- OTT planning regulations
- OTT health'n'safety regs
- authorities implementing laws noones bothered about, but ignoring what bothers
people
That's true, but I was thinking about even more basic freedoms than
that - see the driving license example, and for really extreme ones,
having to get planning permission to alter your own property, or being
forced to trade in designated areas and meet certain criteria before
you can trade.
But Maria, I bet if I lived next door to you and decided either to build
a huge extension at the back of my house, thus overlooking and blocking
out light from your back garden, and/or to convert my property into a
residential nursing home, thus greatly increasing traffic just next door
to your house and buggering up the on-street parking as people come to
Put double yellows down. Roads are for moving along not for storing
heaps of metal.
Post by Stephen Glynn
visit their elderly relatives and needed to park their cars, you'd bang
in an objection to my application for planning permission pretty quickly.
That's only cos the law allows her to do so.
Maria
2004-08-21 16:40:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:06:25 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
The biggest problem with the UK is that we seem to have an elected dictatorship
and we're such a nanny state
eg
- Weird laws for bar hours.
- CCTV everywhere
- Censorship of films & videos
- OTT planning regulations
- OTT health'n'safety regs
- authorities implementing laws noones bothered about, but ignoring what bothers
people
That's true, but I was thinking about even more basic freedoms than
that - see the driving license example, and for really extreme ones,
having to get planning permission to alter your own property, or being
forced to trade in designated areas and meet certain criteria before
you can trade.
But Maria, I bet if I lived next door to you and decided either to build
a huge extension at the back of my house, thus overlooking and blocking
out light from your back garden, and/or to convert my property into a
residential nursing home, thus greatly increasing traffic just next door
to your house and buggering up the on-street parking as people come to
visit their elderly relatives and needed to park their cars, you'd bang
in an objection to my application for planning permission pretty quickly.
If you didn't need any, I couldn't, and if you didn't need any, I
could do the same to you! I gather this used to lead to a kind of
mutual respect thingy where people wouldn't do x to n in case n did y
back to you. Now we don't need mutual respect because we've got
lor'norder.

I can take the point about close neighbours annoying another because
of something they do to their houses, but I'm sure we are all familiar
with cases where this law has been used to cause people to pull down
buildings in no close proximity to anywhere that were doing nobody any
harm, and what does it have to do with anybody else if I want to
convert my loft to a living space?
We even had a case locally where a gypsy site which was built on land
owned by the gypsies was threatened with removal, and even their
neighbours were fighting the council to get the action overturned
because they were happy to have the gypsies as neighbours.

Now we are reading cases where people are being prosecuted at a cost
of thousands of pounds for stealing a banana or splashing a policeman
by accident. This cannot be reasonable, but then legal precedent
doesn't allow for reasonableness in the wrong hands.
Stephen Glynn
2004-08-21 22:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan G
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:06:25 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
The biggest problem with the UK is that we seem to have an elected dictatorship
and we're such a nanny state
eg
- Weird laws for bar hours.
- CCTV everywhere
- Censorship of films & videos
- OTT planning regulations
- OTT health'n'safety regs
- authorities implementing laws noones bothered about, but ignoring what bothers
people
That's true, but I was thinking about even more basic freedoms than
that - see the driving license example, and for really extreme ones,
having to get planning permission to alter your own property, or being
forced to trade in designated areas and meet certain criteria before
you can trade.
But Maria, I bet if I lived next door to you and decided either to build
a huge extension at the back of my house, thus overlooking and blocking
out light from your back garden, and/or to convert my property into a
residential nursing home, thus greatly increasing traffic just next door
to your house and buggering up the on-street parking as people come to
visit their elderly relatives and needed to park their cars, you'd bang
in an objection to my application for planning permission pretty quickly.
If you didn't need any, I couldn't, and if you didn't need any, I
could do the same to you! I gather this used to lead to a kind of
mutual respect thingy where people wouldn't do x to n in case n did y
back to you. Now we don't need mutual respect because we've got
lor'norder.
I can take the point about close neighbours annoying another because
of something they do to their houses, but I'm sure we are all familiar
with cases where this law has been used to cause people to pull down
buildings in no close proximity to anywhere that were doing nobody any
harm, and what does it have to do with anybody else if I want to
convert my loft to a living space?
We even had a case locally where a gypsy site which was built on land
owned by the gypsies was threatened with removal, and even their
neighbours were fighting the council to get the action overturned
because they were happy to have the gypsies as neighbours.
Now we are reading cases where people are being prosecuted at a cost
of thousands of pounds for stealing a banana or splashing a policeman
by accident. This cannot be reasonable, but then legal precedent
doesn't allow for reasonableness in the wrong hands.
Do you need planning permission for a loft conversion? I ask because
I'm not sure but I don't think you do (unless you live in a listed
building).

I'm not defending any particular planning decisions, and I'm sure there
are stupid and arbitrary ones just as there are stupid and arbitrary
decisions to prosecute people for splashing policemen. That, btw, isn't
a question of legal precedent -- precedent only applies after
something's come to court -- but a question of the CPS being stupid.
AIUI, though, one reason why councils do sometimes appear to get
bloody-minded about the change of land use is that they are trying to
implement local plans for the use of land. Consequently, if they're
trying to restrict residential development in an area because they and
the locals don't want the place to grow too big or too fast, they
sometimes apparently need to stop any building on greenfield sites
because if they allow some then it weakens their case against allowing
other development.

I used to live in a place where this was a big issue. A lot of local
farmers very much wanted to be able to sell unwanted land with
residential planning permission and the local council was trying very
hard to stop it, not out of bloody-mindedness but because the local
roads through the village just weren't up to the existing traffic every
rush-hour, let alone that generated by yet another housing development.

Steve
Cynic
2004-08-21 23:02:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:20:05 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Do you need planning permission for a loft conversion? I ask because
I'm not sure but I don't think you do (unless you live in a listed
building).
Yes, you most certainly do need planning permission for a loft
conversion (if it is to be used as living space).
--
Cynic
Steve Smith
2004-08-22 07:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:20:05 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Do you need planning permission for a loft conversion? I ask because
I'm not sure but I don't think you do (unless you live in a listed
building).
Yes, you most certainly do need planning permission for a loft
conversion (if it is to be used as living space).
--
Cynic
You need building control approval which is sensible. As to the PP this
depends on the % increase in living space that you will derive over and
above the original size in 1948. This % is set by your local friendly
council! You will have to get PP if you plan to change the roof profile too.
I know a case in London where the family had to pull down their LC because
they had not got PP and were scuppered by their garage being too close to
the property (< 5m) and thus counting in their extension allowance, which
they did not realise. They were not allowed to get rid of the garage
instead! Poor family was a taxpaying couple with two small kids. Two fingers
to Croydon council from me!

Maria, you are right, the planning laws are extremely oppressive in this
country.

Steve
Stephen Glynn
2004-08-22 10:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:20:05 +0100, Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Do you need planning permission for a loft conversion? I ask because
I'm not sure but I don't think you do (unless you live in a listed
building).
Yes, you most certainly do need planning permission for a loft
conversion (if it is to be used as living space).
Thanks. What's the rationale? Is it ensure the conversion complies
with (e.g.) fire regulations?

Steve
Alan G
2004-08-21 15:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
The biggest problem with the UK is that we seem to have an elected dictatorship
and we're such a nanny state
eg
- Weird laws for bar hours.
- CCTV everywhere
- Censorship of films & videos
- OTT planning regulations
- OTT health'n'safety regs
- authorities implementing laws noones bothered about, but ignoring what bothers
people
That's true, but I was thinking about even more basic freedoms than
that - see the driving license example,
A driving license isn't really an attack on freedom. It just proves
you can handle a vehicle safely. Taking the license away because you
can't get your 16 yr old son to go to school is an attack on freedom.
Post by Maria
and for really extreme ones,
having to get planning permission to alter your own property,
Not so bad if it entails a public safety aspect but a definite attack
on freedom when planners have control over the aesthetic parts of the
project. A few years ago local planners bankrupted a business when
they ordered the owner to change the roof tiles on a new roof for
traditional slate. This in spite of the fact similar buildings had
clay tiles. They were done before the planning laws though.
Post by Maria
or being
forced to trade in designated areas and meet certain criteria before
you can trade.
I remember Thatcher and Tebbit telling everyone to get on their bikes.
I remember two unemployed youths who borrowed to buy a barrow and
produce only to see it confiscated cos they didn't have a street
traders permit which the local authority had a policy of not issuing
anyway :(

Look at the latest scam. Forget to return a statutory off road notice
and get a fine. Someone clones your number plates and you get his
fines. Change your boiler and fail to tell the local authority you get
a fine. Put a new window in and fail to tell the local authority and
get a fine. So it goes on.

Freedom is being able to go to hell if you want to. It's being able to
own what you want and to do what you want as long as it isn't causing
harm to others or putting others in danger. You may want to own a
rifle or pistol. I have no objection to that but I would have every
objection to you blasting it off in the street. You may own a car
capable of 180mph. Again I have no objection to you owning it but I
would have every objection to you doing more than 70mph on the same
road as me. Why? cos we have a set of protocols designed to make road
travel safer and ignoring those protocols puts me in danger. You want
to own a super duper hifi? Fine. Just don't play it so everyone in the
street can hear it especially after 10 at night.

You want to ignore the seat belt laws, the helmet laws, the drug laws?
Fine by me just as long as you don't expect me to pick up the pieces.
Maria
2004-08-21 16:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan G
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
The biggest problem with the UK is that we seem to have an elected dictatorship
and we're such a nanny state
eg
- Weird laws for bar hours.
- CCTV everywhere
- Censorship of films & videos
- OTT planning regulations
- OTT health'n'safety regs
- authorities implementing laws noones bothered about, but ignoring what bothers
people
That's true, but I was thinking about even more basic freedoms than
that - see the driving license example,
A driving license isn't really an attack on freedom. It just proves
you can handle a vehicle safely.
A provisional one doesn't though, and you have to have one of those
before even attempting to learn on the road.
Post by Alan G
Taking the license away because you
can't get your 16 yr old son to go to school is an attack on freedom.
Indeed.
Post by Alan G
Post by Maria
and for really extreme ones,
having to get planning permission to alter your own property,
Not so bad if it entails a public safety aspect but a definite attack
on freedom when planners have control over the aesthetic parts of the
project. A few years ago local planners bankrupted a business when
they ordered the owner to change the roof tiles on a new roof for
traditional slate. This in spite of the fact similar buildings had
clay tiles. They were done before the planning laws though.
Post by Maria
or being
forced to trade in designated areas and meet certain criteria before
you can trade.
I remember Thatcher and Tebbit telling everyone to get on their bikes.
I remember two unemployed youths who borrowed to buy a barrow and
produce only to see it confiscated cos they didn't have a street
traders permit which the local authority had a policy of not issuing
anyway :(
It is nigh on impossible to trade if you can't get a designated pitch
on a market (most good ones are already full and they limit the number
of people per trade).
Hence the popularity of car boots! Interesting article yesterday
(can't remember where, sorry) saying that the black economy is now
vital to the wellbeing of Britons, and rather then cracking down on
it, the government should try to encourage those in it to progress to
a level where they want to join the legitimate market.
Post by Alan G
Look at the latest scam. Forget to return a statutory off road notice
and get a fine. Someone clones your number plates and you get his
fines. Change your boiler and fail to tell the local authority you get
a fine.
! What?
Post by Alan G
Put a new window in and fail to tell the local authority and
get a fine. So it goes on.
Freedom is being able to go to hell if you want to. It's being able to
own what you want and to do what you want as long as it isn't causing
harm to others or putting others in danger. You may want to own a
rifle or pistol. I have no objection to that but I would have every
objection to you blasting it off in the street. You may own a car
capable of 180mph. Again I have no objection to you owning it but I
would have every objection to you doing more than 70mph on the same
road as me. Why? cos we have a set of protocols designed to make road
travel safer and ignoring those protocols puts me in danger. You want
to own a super duper hifi? Fine. Just don't play it so everyone in the
street can hear it especially after 10 at night.
You want to ignore the seat belt laws, the helmet laws, the drug laws?
Fine by me just as long as you don't expect me to pick up the pieces.
I'm happy to go along with all of that.
Alan G
2004-08-21 18:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Alan G
Post by Maria
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
The biggest problem with the UK is that we seem to have an elected dictatorship
and we're such a nanny state
eg
- Weird laws for bar hours.
- CCTV everywhere
- Censorship of films & videos
- OTT planning regulations
- OTT health'n'safety regs
- authorities implementing laws noones bothered about, but ignoring what bothers
people
That's true, but I was thinking about even more basic freedoms than
that - see the driving license example,
A driving license isn't really an attack on freedom. It just proves
you can handle a vehicle safely.
A provisional one doesn't though, and you have to have one of those
before even attempting to learn on the road.
ISTR the need for pre road training now. Definitely for bikers anyway
Post by Maria
Post by Alan G
Taking the license away because you
can't get your 16 yr old son to go to school is an attack on freedom.
Indeed.
snip>
Post by Maria
Post by Alan G
I remember Thatcher and Tebbit telling everyone to get on their bikes.
I remember two unemployed youths who borrowed to buy a barrow and
produce only to see it confiscated cos they didn't have a street
traders permit which the local authority had a policy of not issuing
anyway :(
It is nigh on impossible to trade if you can't get a designated pitch
on a market (most good ones are already full and they limit the number
of people per trade).
Plenty of pitches on our market. My brother used to pay 17 quid a day
and have insurance.
Post by Maria
Hence the popularity of car boots! Interesting article yesterday
(can't remember where, sorry) saying that the black economy is now
vital to the wellbeing of Britons, and rather then cracking down on
it, the government should try to encourage those in it to progress to
a level where they want to join the legitimate market.
The police don't like car boot sales. Neither do our local council.
They've banned them.
Post by Maria
Post by Alan G
Look at the latest scam. Forget to return a statutory off road notice
and get a fine. Someone clones your number plates and you get his
fines. Change your boiler and fail to tell the local authority you get
a fine.
! What?
You heard. Change your boiler and fail to tell the local authority you
get a fine. Something Prescott slipped through. Notified in the local
authority propaganda magazine they post through every door once a
month. If you get it done by a registered installer they send a
certificate to the council and give you a copy. Do it yourself and you
have to pay for an inspection. Fail to notify them and they can fine
you if they find out. I think it was in the same package as the
windows thing.
IanAl
2004-08-21 21:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan G
A driving license isn't really an attack on freedom. It just proves
you can handle a vehicle safely.
Doesn't explain why it was introduced in the first place - before
about 1935 you didn't have to pass a test to get one.
Roger Dewhurst
2004-08-22 05:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
In New Zealand you can start any business that does not require licencing of
the individual, i.e. medicine. In general you can trade your services or
goods without a licence or registration. There are exceptions but they are
now a minority. I believe that in Holland, as is the case in much of the
world, any business must be licenced.

In New Zealand you can change your address without notifying anybody except
you may wish to do so if you want to vote or get your mail forwarded! Can
you do that in Holland?

In New Zealand you can get a firearms licence provided that you do not have
a criminal record and you can demonstrate a knowledge of the relevant law
and wildlife regulations. Can you do that in either Canada or Holland?

In New Zealand we do not have weird bar laws. I am not even sure if there
are any regulations controlling shop or bar hours at all now.

I have not seen a CCTV camera other than speed cameras.

We do have the Resource Management Act and Occupational Safety and Health
regulations, but then one cannot have, or not have in this instance,
everything.

We can be very rude about our politicians without having to fear for a knock
on the door in the small hours.

R
Joanne
2004-08-22 10:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Joanne
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
I'd put my money on either Canada or the Netherlands for being the most
democratic and free countries.
In New Zealand you can start any business that does not require licencing of
the individual, i.e. medicine. In general you can trade your services or
goods without a licence or registration. There are exceptions but they are
now a minority. I believe that in Holland, as is the case in much of the
world, any business must be licenced.
Perhaps so, but some of businesses you could open in Holland you couldn't open
in New Zealand
Post by Roger Dewhurst
In New Zealand you can change your address without notifying anybody except
you may wish to do so if you want to vote or get your mail forwarded! Can
you do that in Holland?
In New Zealand you can get a firearms licence provided that you do not have
a criminal record and you can demonstrate a knowledge of the relevant law
and wildlife regulations. Can you do that in either Canada or Holland?
IIRC you can in Canada
Post by Roger Dewhurst
In New Zealand we do not have weird bar laws. I am not even sure if there
are any regulations controlling shop or bar hours at all now.
I have not seen a CCTV camera other than speed cameras.
In Canada, or at least in British Columbia, they've ripped out their speed
cameras (with no effect on the accident rate)
Post by Roger Dewhurst
We do have the Resource Management Act and Occupational Safety and Health
regulations, but then one cannot have, or not have in this instance,
everything.
We can be very rude about our politicians without having to fear for a knock
on the door in the small hours.
R
Doesn't NZ have tight censorship.eg there's a computer game that's sold widely
throughout the world but is banned in NZ.
Paul Nutteing
2004-08-21 11:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
The least policed country is probably Pitcairn Island - any serious crime on
the island and a PC has to be seconded from Kent Constabulary, England
eg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2
F2001%2F03%2F31%2Fwpit31.xml&site=5
or
http://tinyurl.com/5ogoj
Part Quote

It would be the first major court action of modern times - the only other
recorded Pitcairn trial was a murder case in 1897, when Harry Albert
Christian was found guilty of killing his wife and child. He was transported
to Fiji and hanged.

Because of Pitcairn's position halfway between New Zealand and Peru - making
it one of the most isolated places on earth - a trial there would be a
hugely costly exercise involving shipping lawyers, judges and jurors to the
island. Other options would include holding the hearing in either New
Zealand or Britain.

Mrs Wolstenholme, who made her annual visit to the island earlier this
month, said the Pitcairners were distressed by the allegations and the
publicity the investigation had attracted. She said: "Obviously the
community is concerned for this to be cleared up as soon as possible. They
are very keen to look towards the future."

End Quote

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email ***@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
Maria
2004-08-21 12:56:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:35:23 +0100, "Paul Nutteing"
Post by Paul Nutteing
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
The least policed country is probably Pitcairn Island - any serious crime on
the island and a PC has to be seconded from Kent Constabulary, England
<snip>
Thanks Paul, that's an interesting angle, and one which underlines
that laws and rules are useless unless there is someone to enforce
them.
Brave New Britain
2004-08-21 15:26:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:35:23 +0100, "Paul Nutteing"
Post by Paul Nutteing
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
The least policed country is probably Pitcairn Island - any serious crime on
the island and a PC has to be seconded from Kent Constabulary, England
eg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2
F2001%2F03%2F31%2Fwpit31.xml&site=5
or
http://tinyurl.com/5ogoj
Part Quote
It would be the first major court action of modern times - the only other
recorded Pitcairn trial was a murder case in 1897, when Harry Albert
Christian was found guilty of killing his wife and child. He was transported
to Fiji and hanged.
Because of Pitcairn's position halfway between New Zealand and Peru - making
it one of the most isolated places on earth - a trial there would be a
hugely costly exercise involving shipping lawyers, judges and jurors to the
island. Other options would include holding the hearing in either New
Zealand or Britain.
Mrs Wolstenholme, who made her annual visit to the island earlier this
month, said the Pitcairners were distressed by the allegations and the
publicity the investigation had attracted. She said: "Obviously the
community is concerned for this to be cleared up as soon as possible. They
are very keen to look towards the future."
End Quote
I assume you've followed up on the developments in this case?
http://news.google.com/news?q=pitcairn

It might be better to describe it as a "former free country". They
have been prevented from enforcing their own laws using their own
judicial system, and recently everyone has been forced to hand in
their guns.

A good indication that a country without an effective army can't
really be called an independent nation at all.

It's like these 'satanic' abuse scandals where one kid makes an
accusation which snowballs until it envelops the whole community,
except that in this case the whole island community, having existed
for 200 years, looks like it is going to be destroyed.
--
Brave New Britain
Paul Nutteing
2004-08-21 15:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:35:23 +0100, "Paul Nutteing"
Post by Paul Nutteing
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
The least policed country is probably Pitcairn Island - any serious crime on
the island and a PC has to be seconded from Kent Constabulary, England
eg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%
2
Post by Maria
Post by Paul Nutteing
F2001%2F03%2F31%2Fwpit31.xml&site=5
or
http://tinyurl.com/5ogoj
Part Quote
It would be the first major court action of modern times - the only other
recorded Pitcairn trial was a murder case in 1897, when Harry Albert
Christian was found guilty of killing his wife and child. He was transported
to Fiji and hanged.
Because of Pitcairn's position halfway between New Zealand and Peru - making
it one of the most isolated places on earth - a trial there would be a
hugely costly exercise involving shipping lawyers, judges and jurors to the
island. Other options would include holding the hearing in either New
Zealand or Britain.
Mrs Wolstenholme, who made her annual visit to the island earlier this
month, said the Pitcairners were distressed by the allegations and the
publicity the investigation had attracted. She said: "Obviously the
community is concerned for this to be cleared up as soon as possible. They
are very keen to look towards the future."
End Quote
I assume you've followed up on the developments in this case?
http://news.google.com/news?q=pitcairn
It might be better to describe it as a "former free country". They
have been prevented from enforcing their own laws using their own
judicial system, and recently everyone has been forced to hand in
their guns.
A good indication that a country without an effective army can't
really be called an independent nation at all.
It's like these 'satanic' abuse scandals where one kid makes an
accusation which snowballs until it envelops the whole community,
except that in this case the whole island community, having existed
for 200 years, looks like it is going to be destroyed.
--
Brave New Britain
I wasn't aware of recent developements.
What is it about islands and child abuse
ral or imagined.
Orkney and Lewis off Scotland and Pitcairn in
the middle of nowhere.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email ***@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
Paul Nutteing
2004-08-22 08:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:35:23 +0100, "Paul Nutteing"
Post by Paul Nutteing
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
The least policed country is probably Pitcairn Island - any serious crime on
the island and a PC has to be seconded from Kent Constabulary, England
eg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%
2
Post by Maria
Post by Paul Nutteing
F2001%2F03%2F31%2Fwpit31.xml&site=5
or
http://tinyurl.com/5ogoj
Part Quote
It would be the first major court action of modern times - the only other
recorded Pitcairn trial was a murder case in 1897, when Harry Albert
Christian was found guilty of killing his wife and child. He was transported
to Fiji and hanged.
Because of Pitcairn's position halfway between New Zealand and Peru - making
it one of the most isolated places on earth - a trial there would be a
hugely costly exercise involving shipping lawyers, judges and jurors to the
island. Other options would include holding the hearing in either New
Zealand or Britain.
Mrs Wolstenholme, who made her annual visit to the island earlier this
month, said the Pitcairners were distressed by the allegations and the
publicity the investigation had attracted. She said: "Obviously the
community is concerned for this to be cleared up as soon as possible. They
are very keen to look towards the future."
End Quote
I assume you've followed up on the developments in this case?
http://news.google.com/news?q=pitcairn
It might be better to describe it as a "former free country". They
have been prevented from enforcing their own laws using their own
judicial system, and recently everyone has been forced to hand in
their guns.
A good indication that a country without an effective army can't
really be called an independent nation at all.
It's like these 'satanic' abuse scandals where one kid makes an
accusation which snowballs until it envelops the whole community,
except that in this case the whole island community, having existed
for 200 years, looks like it is going to be destroyed.
--
Brave New Britain
Pitcairners seem to have a sort of Droite de Segneure
(http://www.fact-index.com/d/dr/droit_de_seigneur.html )
some freedom.
"Pitcairn islanders say they have a tradition dating back to Fletcher
Christian and his mutineers, who had numerous Tahitian wives, whereby they
had consensual sex with island girls"

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email ***@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
hummingbird
2004-08-21 11:34:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:44:06 GMT, ***@ntlworld.com (Maria)
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
On this subject...I believe Britain has more laws and regulations than
most other democratic countries. We have become the proverbial nanny
state with quangos and apparatchiks everywhere. However, the way in
which the ruling elite prevent the population from rising up against
all this statism is simply by not enforcing all the laws available.
Hence the police have a huge amount of discretion (wrongly IMV),
then the CPS have some and the courts have another load.

Looking at it the other way, if all the laws we have were actually
enforced, aka zero-tolerance, there would be a revolution.

The politicians have a nice phrase for this arrangement called
'policing by consent' but it's really to protect the elite from attack
by Middle-England.

The serious downside of all this is that it has created a national
mindset whereby most people believe that all the new authoritarian
laws we see pouring out of the Home Office are aimed at 'other people'
but not ourselves. So, they allow the govt to get away with them.

It would only take a despotic govt to turn Britain into a police state
overnight - all the laws are there already. People don't realise this.
Alan G
2004-08-21 16:01:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:34:45 +0100, hummingbird
Post by hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
On this subject...I believe Britain has more laws and regulations than
most other democratic countries. We have become the proverbial nanny
state with quangos and apparatchiks everywhere. However, the way in
which the ruling elite prevent the population from rising up against
all this statism is simply by not enforcing all the laws available.
Hence the police have a huge amount of discretion (wrongly IMV),
then the CPS have some and the courts have another load.
It's why we see so much corruption in the policing and law enforcement
generally. If they had no discretion they would be forced into
enforcing those bad laws. Watch out fot he screams then.
Post by hummingbird
Looking at it the other way, if all the laws we have were actually
enforced, aka zero-tolerance, there would be a revolution.
The politicians have a nice phrase for this arrangement called
'policing by consent' but it's really to protect the elite from attack
by Middle-England.
The serious downside of all this is that it has created a national
mindset whereby most people believe that all the new authoritarian
laws we see pouring out of the Home Office are aimed at 'other people'
but not ourselves. So, they allow the govt to get away with them.
It would only take a despotic govt to turn Britain into a police state
overnight - all the laws are there already. People don't realise this.
A drum I've been banging for years
hummingbird
2004-08-21 17:11:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:01:30 +0100, Alan G <***@privacy.net>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by Alan G
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:34:45 +0100, hummingbird
Post by hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
On this subject...I believe Britain has more laws and regulations than
most other democratic countries. We have become the proverbial nanny
state with quangos and apparatchiks everywhere. However, the way in
which the ruling elite prevent the population from rising up against
all this statism is simply by not enforcing all the laws available.
Hence the police have a huge amount of discretion (wrongly IMV),
then the CPS have some and the courts have another load.
It's why we see so much corruption in the policing and law enforcement
generally. If they had no discretion they would be forced into
enforcing those bad laws. Watch out fot he screams then.
Absolutely and that would make people sit up and take notice.
Post by Alan G
Post by hummingbird
Looking at it the other way, if all the laws we have were actually
enforced, aka zero-tolerance, there would be a revolution.
The politicians have a nice phrase for this arrangement called
'policing by consent' but it's really to protect the elite from attack
by Middle-England.
The serious downside of all this is that it has created a national
mindset whereby most people believe that all the new authoritarian
laws we see pouring out of the Home Office are aimed at 'other people'
but not ourselves. So, they allow the govt to get away with them.
It would only take a despotic govt to turn Britain into a police state
overnight - all the laws are there already. People don't realise this.
A drum I've been banging for years
And quite rightly so. One day, people will wake up.

What Britain needs is - yes - a written constitution - to control the
power of govt. Without it, we are doomed to become a police state,
probably sooner rather than later.
Cynic
2004-08-21 20:25:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:11:21 +0100, hummingbird
Post by hummingbird
Post by Alan G
Post by hummingbird
It would only take a despotic govt to turn Britain into a police state
overnight - all the laws are there already. People don't realise this.
A drum I've been banging for years
And quite rightly so. One day, people will wake up.
Many of us have been awake for decades. What I would really like to
know is a practical way to do something about it.
--
Cynic
hummingbird
2004-08-21 23:16:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 21:25:48 +0100, Cynic <***@yahoo.co.uk>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by Cynic
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:11:21 +0100, hummingbird
Post by hummingbird
Post by Alan G
Post by hummingbird
It would only take a despotic govt to turn Britain into a police state
overnight - all the laws are there already. People don't realise this.
A drum I've been banging for years
And quite rightly so. One day, people will wake up.
Many of us have been awake for decades.
Pleased to hear it. There aren't many of us about yet.
Post by Cynic
What I would really like to
know is a practical way to do something about it.
Therein lies the problem. Any effort outside of the existing structure
would be met with arrest and imprisonment. Any effort inside would
be inneffective. I think the solution is to wait for the rest of the
population to wake up and do the job with big numbers. I'm sure
that's how it will eventually happen. What's tricky is predicting what
the tipping point will be. Maybe oil prices.....
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
2004-08-21 11:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
There's a few elements:

Corruption; the usual suspects - UK, Switzerland, other north European
countries
http://www.globalcorruptionreport.org/download/gcr2004/04_Political_finance.pdf

Economic freedom - Hong Kong always wins, followed by NZ, UK, US
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-28-04.html

Civil liberties
Loading Image...
And other stuff from privacy international

If I had to give my own opinion, I'd say
1) Holland (drugs, economy, freedom of information etc)
2) Sweden (you can read the PM's mail!)
3) US (free information, lots of civil rights laws, free economy)

I think that the top ten would be pretty easy to work out and agree on

Canada
US
UK
NZ
Australia
Scandianavian countries
Holland

Few if any other countries come close
--
cheers

www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Dave {Reply Address in.sig}
2004-08-21 13:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
[snip]
Post by libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
I think that the top ten would be pretty easy to work out and agree on
Canada
US
UK
NZ
Australia
Scandianavian countries
Holland
Few if any other countries come close
I wouldn't actually put the UK or the US very high on the list. US citizens
are prohibited by US law from travelling to certain parts of the world as
one example. Look at all the police-state laws that both the UK and US are
introducing, such as ID cards in the UK, the apparent abolition of habeus
corpus in the US, etc.

Dave
--
mail: da ***@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org/
So many gadgets, so little time...
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
2004-08-21 23:44:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:07:03 +0000, "Dave {Reply Address in.sig}"
Post by Dave {Reply Address in.sig}
Post by libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
[snip]
Post by libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
I think that the top ten would be pretty easy to work out and agree on
Canada
US
UK
NZ
Australia
Scandianavian countries
Holland
Few if any other countries come close
I wouldn't actually put the UK or the US very high on the list. US citizens
are prohibited by US law from travelling to certain parts of the world as
one example.
Agreed. But then weigh against the right to elect pretty much any
official, huge freedom of movement internally, some of the best
freedom of information etc
Post by Dave {Reply Address in.sig}
Look at all the police-state laws that both the UK and US are
introducing, such as ID cards in the UK, the apparent abolition of habeus
corpus in the US, etc.
This is much more serious, both here and there. Here PTAs passim are
the biggest problem
--
cheers

www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Alan G
2004-08-21 16:06:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:57:48 +0000 (UTC),
Post by libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Corruption; the usual suspects - UK, Switzerland, other north European
countries
http://www.globalcorruptionreport.org/download/gcr2004/04_Political_finance.pdf
Economic freedom - Hong Kong always wins, followed by NZ, UK, US
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-28-04.html
Civil liberties
http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/foia/foia-laws.jpg
And other stuff from privacy international
If I had to give my own opinion, I'd say
1) Holland (drugs, economy, freedom of information etc)
Holland has some very strict gun laws and even stricter planning
regulations. It's also in the EU so business regulation is very tight
too.
Post by libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
2) Sweden (you can read the PM's mail!)
3) US (free information, lots of civil rights laws, free economy)
I think that the top ten would be pretty easy to work out and agree on
Canada
US
UK
US and UK are not free countries except in an economic sense
Post by libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
NZ
Australia
Scandianavian countries
The scandinavian countries vary in their freedom status. You could
possibly nay probably put Finland above the USA.
Post by libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
Holland
Few if any other countries come close
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
2004-08-21 23:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan G
Post by libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
If I had to give my own opinion, I'd say
1) Holland (drugs, economy, freedom of information etc)
Holland has some very strict gun laws and even stricter planning
regulations. It's also in the EU so business regulation is very tight
too.
Post by libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
2) Sweden (you can read the PM's mail!)
3) US (free information, lots of civil rights laws, free economy)
I think that the top ten would be pretty easy to work out and agree on
Canada
US
UK
US and UK are not free countries except in an economic sense
Post by libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
NZ
Australia
Scandianavian countries
The scandinavian countries vary in their freedom status. You could
possibly nay probably put Finland above the USA.
Post by libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
Holland
Few if any other countries come close
All this is true, but which countries offer more freedom?
--
cheers

www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
m1cky
2004-08-21 12:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
THE FREEDOM WE OURSELVES WILL HAVE UNDER FUTURE BNP GOVERNMENT WILL
PUT ALL OTHER COUNTRIES TO SHAME!!!!!!!

HAIL GRIFFIN!!!!!!

14/88



"This is OUR place! No more running.
WE STOP THEM HERE!"

http://www.bnp.org.uk/
Maria
2004-08-21 12:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by m1cky
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
THE FREEDOM WE OURSELVES WILL HAVE UNDER FUTURE BNP GOVERNMENT WILL
PUT ALL OTHER COUNTRIES TO SHAME!!!!!!!
HAIL GRIFFIN!!!!!!
14/88
Sorry Mickey, I don't believe that. Surely for a state to be truly
nationalist, there will have to be many rules in place to prevent
people from doing un-nationalistic things.
Michael Ross
2004-08-21 13:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by m1cky
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
THE FREEDOM WE OURSELVES WILL HAVE UNDER FUTURE BNP GOVERNMENT WILL
PUT ALL OTHER COUNTRIES TO SHAME!!!!!!!
Well the first thing that would happen is that we Scots would vote en
bloc for the SNP, and get independence - might not be a bad thing!

Then the BNP can become the ENP, and do its own thing as proud
independent Englishmen.
Post by m1cky
HAIL GRIFFIN!!!!!!
You make him sound like a taxi.

Mike
http://www.corestore.org

'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
abelard
2004-08-21 14:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Ross
Post by m1cky
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
THE FREEDOM WE OURSELVES WILL HAVE UNDER FUTURE BNP GOVERNMENT WILL
PUT ALL OTHER COUNTRIES TO SHAME!!!!!!!
Well the first thing that would happen is that we Scots would vote en
bloc for the SNP, and get independence - might not be a bad thing!
Then the BNP can become the ENP, and do its own thing as proud
independent Englishmen.
Post by m1cky
HAIL GRIFFIN!!!!!!
You make him sound like a taxi.
he just carnt spell....he meant heil....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc >800,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan G
2004-08-21 16:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Michael Ross
Post by m1cky
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
THE FREEDOM WE OURSELVES WILL HAVE UNDER FUTURE BNP GOVERNMENT WILL
PUT ALL OTHER COUNTRIES TO SHAME!!!!!!!
Well the first thing that would happen is that we Scots would vote en
bloc for the SNP, and get independence - might not be a bad thing!
Then the BNP can become the ENP, and do its own thing as proud
independent Englishmen.
Post by m1cky
HAIL GRIFFIN!!!!!!
You make him sound like a taxi.
he just carnt spell....he meant heil....
Nah. He wants him to fall out of the sky in little *white* pieces
abelard
2004-08-21 16:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan G
Post by abelard
Post by Michael Ross
Post by m1cky
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
THE FREEDOM WE OURSELVES WILL HAVE UNDER FUTURE BNP GOVERNMENT WILL
PUT ALL OTHER COUNTRIES TO SHAME!!!!!!!
Well the first thing that would happen is that we Scots would vote en
bloc for the SNP, and get independence - might not be a bad thing!
Then the BNP can become the ENP, and do its own thing as proud
independent Englishmen.
Post by m1cky
HAIL GRIFFIN!!!!!!
You make him sound like a taxi.
he just carnt spell....he meant heil....
Nah. He wants him to fall out of the sky in little *white* pieces
then the correct term would be hosannah....or manna or some such....
he's just yearning for a leader...he won't care wot it's like as long
as he's allowed to go on bleating....

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc >800,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Hennessy
2004-08-21 15:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Ross
Post by m1cky
HAIL GRIFFIN!!!!!!
You make him sound like a taxi.
ROTFL

That would be a clear improvement.
--
Es ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
m1cky
2004-08-21 16:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Hennessy
Post by Michael Ross
Post by m1cky
HAIL GRIFFIN!!!!!!
You make him sound like a taxi.
ROTFL
That would be a clear improvement.
AND SO WOULD SMEG ---- AS A LAMPSHADE!!!!!!!


"This is OUR place! No more running.
WE STOP THEM HERE!"

http://www.bnp.org.uk/
abelard
2004-08-21 16:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by m1cky
Post by Greg Hennessy
Post by Michael Ross
Post by m1cky
HAIL GRIFFIN!!!!!!
You make him sound like a taxi.
ROTFL
That would be a clear improvement.
AND SO WOULD SMEG ---- AS A LAMPSHADE!!!!!!!
"This is OUR place! No more running.
WE STOP THEM HERE!"
are they coming to get you...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc >800,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Hennessy
2004-08-21 17:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by m1cky
Post by Greg Hennessy
That would be a clear improvement.
AND SO WOULD SMEG ---- AS A LAMPSHADE!!!!!!!
"This is OUR place! No more running.
WE STOP THEM HERE!"
are they coming to get you...
No wonder, 'micky's been keeping all his neighbours awake at night by goose
stepping round his sheltered accomodation to that funky Horst Wessel beat.

Poor dear from social services had a right old fright last week when he
started screaming 'Juden Raus' out the letter box at her.

It's for his own good, one can only pity such an incontinent, incoherent
wretch.
--
Es ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
hummingbird
2004-08-21 19:31:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:41:38 +0200, abelard <***@abelard.org>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by abelard
Post by m1cky
Post by Greg Hennessy
Post by Michael Ross
Post by m1cky
HAIL GRIFFIN!!!!!!
You make him sound like a taxi.
ROTFL
That would be a clear improvement.
AND SO WOULD SMEG ---- AS A LAMPSHADE!!!!!!!
"This is OUR place! No more running.
WE STOP THEM HERE!"
are they coming to get you...
Nice to see you've finally found someone to debate with lardy...
--
Read about the murky history of Iraq's new US installed PM Iyad Allawi:
www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer29jun29,1,1030497.column
abelard
2004-08-21 22:21:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:31:25 +0100, hummingbird
Post by hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by abelard
Post by m1cky
Post by Greg Hennessy
Post by Michael Ross
Post by m1cky
HAIL GRIFFIN!!!!!!
You make him sound like a taxi.
ROTFL
That would be a clear improvement.
AND SO WOULD SMEG ---- AS A LAMPSHADE!!!!!!!
"This is OUR place! No more running.
WE STOP THEM HERE!"
are they coming to get you...
Nice to see you've finally found someone to debate with lardy...
they're coming to get you as well....keep your tinfoil hat polished.
you never know....you might meet a spammer just anywhere....
even one of those joooooish spammers you fear so greatly....
wouldn't want to lose you...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc >800,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hummingbird
2004-08-21 23:19:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:21:46 +0200, abelard <***@abelard.org>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by abelard
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:31:25 +0100, hummingbird
Post by hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by abelard
Post by m1cky
Post by Greg Hennessy
Post by Michael Ross
Post by m1cky
HAIL GRIFFIN!!!!!!
You make him sound like a taxi.
ROTFL
That would be a clear improvement.
AND SO WOULD SMEG ---- AS A LAMPSHADE!!!!!!!
"This is OUR place! No more running.
WE STOP THEM HERE!"
are they coming to get you...
Nice to see you've finally found someone to debate with lardy...
they're coming to get you as well....keep your tinfoil hat polished.
you never know....you might meet a spammer just anywhere....
even one of those joooooish spammers you fear so greatly....
So you are Jewish. I thought so. I always knew haemorrhoids is a Jew
but I wasn't totally sure about you.
Post by abelard
wouldn't want to lose you...
I know you wouldn't, but lose me you will and quite soon.
abelard
2004-08-22 03:02:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:19:45 +0100, hummingbird
Post by hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by abelard
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:31:25 +0100, hummingbird
Post by hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by abelard
Post by m1cky
Post by Greg Hennessy
Post by Michael Ross
Post by m1cky
HAIL GRIFFIN!!!!!!
You make him sound like a taxi.
ROTFL
That would be a clear improvement.
AND SO WOULD SMEG ---- AS A LAMPSHADE!!!!!!!
"This is OUR place! No more running.
WE STOP THEM HERE!"
are they coming to get you...
Nice to see you've finally found someone to debate with lardy...
they're coming to get you as well....keep your tinfoil hat polished.
you never know....you might meet a spammer just anywhere....
even one of those joooooish spammers you fear so greatly....
So you are Jewish. I thought so.
must be....
Post by hummingbird
I always knew haemorrhoids is a Jew
must be....
Post by hummingbird
but I wasn't totally sure about you.
you're not even sure about yourself....
you are so dishonest you've forgotten who you were....if you ever knew....
Post by hummingbird
Post by abelard
wouldn't want to lose you...
I know you wouldn't, but lose me you will and quite soon.
promises....promises....
going home to iran? or is it n. korea?
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc >800,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Hennessy
2004-08-22 08:11:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:19:45 +0100, hummingbird
Post by hummingbird
I always knew haemorrhoids is a Jew
LMAO! You've obviously been swapping notes with biddy, panhandler et al.
Why am I not surprised Julius.



greg
--
Es ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Energumen
2004-08-21 13:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Afghanistan?
Sudan (or some other areas deeper in the Sahara like Niger and Mali)?
Iraq?
The Brazilian rain forests?
The Kalahari desert in Botswana?

:-)
Andrew Fenton
2004-08-21 13:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Energumen
Sudan (or some other areas deeper in the Sahara like Niger and Mali)?
Iraq?
Somalia is probably the best example - the state there has collapsed
completely. Even in the above there is some degree of settled government.
Maria
2004-08-21 13:46:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:14:58 +0100, "Energumen"
Post by Energumen
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Afghanistan?
Sudan (or some other areas deeper in the Sahara like Niger and Mali)?
They have very prohibitive laws.
Post by Energumen
Iraq?
The Brazilian rain forests?
The Kalahari desert in Botswana?
:-)
Sounds nice..I might go there!
Energumen
2004-08-21 14:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:14:58 +0100, "Energumen"
Post by Energumen
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Afghanistan?
Sudan (or some other areas deeper in the Sahara like Niger and Mali)?
They have very prohibitive laws.
Though much of those countries have virtually no governmental rule of law at
all. I guess it depends on what you define as a government too. When does a
gang of people with AK47s telling people what to do become a government? Do
Kalahari Bushmen have a legal system and rule of law?

I guess the point I'm making is that the ideal of freedom is an illusion.
Any society consisting of more than one person necessarily has restrictions
on the actions of individuals. This is because homo sapiens is a
co-operative group animal.
Post by Maria
Post by Energumen
Iraq?
The Brazilian rain forests?
The Kalahari desert in Botswana?
:-)
Sounds nice..I might go there!
Energumen
2004-08-21 19:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Energumen
Post by Maria
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:14:58 +0100, "Energumen"
Post by Energumen
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Afghanistan?
Sudan (or some other areas deeper in the Sahara like Niger and Mali)?
They have very prohibitive laws.
Though much of those countries have virtually no governmental rule of law at
all.
Of course I was also being deliberately provocative. :-)
Post by Energumen
I guess it depends on what you define as a government too. When does a
gang of people with AK47s telling people what to do become a government? Do
Kalahari Bushmen have a legal system and rule of law?
I guess the point I'm making is that the ideal of freedom is an illusion.
Any society consisting of more than one person necessarily has
restrictions
Post by Energumen
on the actions of individuals. This is because homo sapiens is a
co-operative group animal.
Post by Maria
Post by Energumen
Iraq?
The Brazilian rain forests?
The Kalahari desert in Botswana?
:-)
Sounds nice..I might go there!
Alan G
2004-08-21 13:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
That is something I have been trying to find out for years.
Definitely no EU country or USA
Moral Conscience
2004-08-21 15:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan G
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
That is something I have been trying to find out for years.
Definitely no EU country or USA
Try Asia... lots of freedoms and lots of regulation as well, but if you
got the cash you are 100% free!
Chris X
2004-08-21 16:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moral Conscience
Post by Alan G
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
That is something I have been trying to find out for years.
Definitely no EU country or USA
Try Asia... lots of freedoms and lots of regulation as well, but if you
got the cash you are 100% free!
You're a real bright spark, aren't you, Immoral Con-Trick ? Maria asks what
people believe to be the freest country and you respond by naming a whole
continent and stating the bloody obvious about money (surprise, surprise !).
Moral Conscience
2004-08-21 21:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris X
Post by Moral Conscience
Post by Alan G
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
That is something I have been trying to find out for years.
Definitely no EU country or USA
Try Asia... lots of freedoms and lots of regulation as well, but if you
got the cash you are 100% free!
You're a real bright spark, aren't you, Immoral Con-Trick ? Maria asks what
people believe to be the freest country and you respond by naming a whole
continent and stating the bloody obvious about money (surprise, surprise !).
Coming from the guy who does not post a single post without it being
99.99% written by another source that is a bit of a rich comment. Well,
if you want a country start with India. The money bit is not obvious as
in some countries even money can not get you out, without connections
etc. Also, I was talking about money not on a level where one has bucket
loads!
Richard White
2004-08-21 13:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Your question omits "responsibilities".

As another poster said, in the US (in say Texas) children can buy guns. Indeed, even a baby may
legitimately own and hold/use a gun legally there.

However, rights must be restrained by responsibilities. Too little regulation leads to anarchy.
For example, take away laws prohibiting gun ownership and murder/wounding, and you have at a stroke
reduced the extent to which people are "regulated" and have given people the freedom to kill each
other.

Or how about something less drastic: remove the need to conduct MOT tests on cars, remove the need
for vehicle insurance, remove vehicle registration and remove the need to pass a driving test.
These measures would certainly increase Freedom, but at the cost of Responsibility. How happy would
you then be driving on the roads?

So each regulation must be judged against its benefits/detriments.

Somewhere a while back, I came across a site that tabulated an index of various categories of human
rights for all countries in the world. Needless to say I can't find it now!
Maria
2004-08-21 13:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard White
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Your question omits "responsibilities".
Indeed. I am not expressing an opinion regarding the natural
limitations of freedom, though I can see that was implied in my
question. I am going right back to basics at the moment in my
thinking, and trying to think about a society which is totally
unrestricted by any governing body which enforces rules of its own
volition.
Post by Richard White
As another poster said, in the US (in say Texas) children can buy guns. Indeed, even a baby may
legitimately own and hold/use a gun legally there.
Is that a problem? (I know it is in practice, at least in the US, but
surely it would be natural to teach your children how to handle and be
responsible for a gun. Even the royal children in Britain are allowed
to shoot.
Post by Richard White
However, rights must be restrained by responsibilities. Too little regulation leads to anarchy.
This is what I want to know - does it? And what is anarchy anyway?
The impression I get is that if a society had no rules, it would soon
find a way to make some (if left alone to get on with it, that is).
Post by Richard White
For example, take away laws prohibiting gun ownership and murder/wounding, and you have at a stroke
reduced the extent to which people are "regulated" and have given people the freedom to kill each
other.
So the assumption is that given no rules, people will commit currently
unlawful acts, and yet we currently have a situation where even in a
country where you can be killed for killing, the murder rate is very
high.
Post by Richard White
Or how about something less drastic: remove the need to conduct MOT tests on cars, remove the need
for vehicle insurance, remove vehicle registration and remove the need to pass a driving test.
These measures would certainly increase Freedom, but at the cost of Responsibility. How happy would
you then be driving on the roads?
I possible woulnd't be any less happy - in fact I would possibly be
more happy since I would not have to pass a test, mot tax or insure my
own car!
Does anyone know which countries if any, have unregulated motoring?
Post by Richard White
So each regulation must be judged against its benefits/detriments.
I appreciate that. It simply struck me as I was driving this morning,
why do I need a license, even to be able to get on the road at all?
Something I have taken for granted for 25 years...
I'm not talking about passing skill tests...just about having to have
a license. Or a passport.
Post by Richard White
Somewhere a while back, I came across a site that tabulated an index of various categories of human
rights for all countries in the world. Needless to say I can't find it now!
Of course. That's always the way!
Richard White
2004-08-21 19:48:18 UTC
Permalink
"Maria" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...
[...snipped...]
Post by Maria
Post by Richard White
As another poster said, in the US (in say Texas) children can buy guns. Indeed, even a baby may
legitimately own and hold/use a gun legally there.
Is that a problem? (I know it is in practice, at least in the US,
...then it's a problem!

[...snipped...] Even the royal children in Britain are allowed
Post by Maria
to shoot.
No more so than any others. They don't get access to handguns (eg. revolvers) anymore than any
other citizen is entitled to..

[...snipped...]
Post by Maria
So the assumption is that given no rules, people will commit currently
unlawful acts, and yet we currently have a situation where even in a
country where you can be killed for killing, the murder rate is very
high.
You will have even more killing if it is no longer a crime. 'A' don't like the way 'B' looks at
him, so he pulls out his legal gun and legally shoot 'B' dead. His father thinks someone ('C') else
did it, so takes his gun and shoots 'C' dead. 'C's' brother then goes and buys a gun ...... etc..
Post by Maria
Post by Richard White
Or how about something less drastic: remove the need to conduct MOT tests on cars, remove the
need
Post by Maria
Post by Richard White
for vehicle insurance, remove vehicle registration and remove the need to pass a driving test.
These measures would certainly increase Freedom, but at the cost of Responsibility. How happy
would
Post by Maria
Post by Richard White
you then be driving on the roads?
I possible woulnd't be any less happy - in fact I would possibly be
more happy since I would not have to pass a test, mot tax or insure my
own car!
Then you are really stupid. You won't be so happy if you or your child is badly hurt in an accident
involving a car with defective brakes, driven by someone who never had a driving lession and who was
uninsured will you?

[...snipped...]
Post by Maria
Post by Richard White
So each regulation must be judged against its benefits/detriments.
I appreciate that. It simply struck me as I was driving this morning,
why do I need a license, even to be able to get on the road at all?
If you're really that stupid, then I suggest you get yourself a brain transplant.
Post by Maria
Something I have taken for granted for 25 years...
I'm not talking about passing skill tests...just about having to have
a license. Or a passport.
The licence is the certificate of having passed your your driving - that's why. Or should everyone
else just take your word for it?
Roger Dewhurst
2004-08-22 05:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Does anyone know which countries if any, have unregulated motoring?
Dubai does not have car registration though driving licences are required.

R
Energumen
2004-08-21 13:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard White
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Your question omits "responsibilities".
As another poster said, in the US (in say Texas) children can buy guns.
Indeed, even a baby may
Post by Richard White
legitimately own and hold/use a gun legally there.
However, rights must be restrained by responsibilities. Too little
regulation leads to anarchy.
Post by Richard White
For example, take away laws prohibiting gun ownership and murder/wounding,
and you have at a stroke
Post by Richard White
reduced the extent to which people are "regulated" and have given people
the freedom to kill each
Post by Richard White
other.
Or how about something less drastic: remove the need to conduct MOT tests
on cars, remove the need
Post by Richard White
for vehicle insurance, remove vehicle registration and remove the need to
pass a driving test.
Post by Richard White
These measures would certainly increase Freedom, but at the cost of
Responsibility. How happy would
Post by Richard White
you then be driving on the roads?
So each regulation must be judged against its benefits/detriments.
Somewhere a while back, I came across a site that tabulated an index of
various categories of human
Post by Richard White
rights for all countries in the world. Needless to say I can't find it now!
Either of these?
http://www.freedomhouse.org/
http://www.worldaudit.org/
Alan G
2004-08-21 16:18:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:48:41 +0100, "Energumen"
Post by Richard White
Post by Richard White
Somewhere a while back, I came across a site that tabulated an index of
various categories of human
Post by Richard White
rights for all countries in the world. Needless to say I can't find it
now!
Either of these?
http://www.freedomhouse.org/
http://www.worldaudit.org/
Interesting to see Finland and NewZealand joint first.
J&KCopeland
2004-08-21 14:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard White
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Your question omits "responsibilities".
As another poster said, in the US (in say Texas) children can buy guns.
Indeed, even a baby may
legitimately own and hold/use a gun legally there.
I don't know who the poster was, but that paints a somewhat inaccurate
picture. Children cannot legally buy any kind of firearm, nor even the
ammunition. There is a murky area in the federal regs, where the
possibility of a "private" sale between individuals exists, and children
can inherent firearms as part of an estate.

In other words, it is possible for a minor to legally own a firearm, but the
idea of going to the local gun shop and just purchasing a gun is not
accurate.

Hunting. In most states, a child can acquire a legal hunting license when
they can pass a hunter/safety course. Reasonably speaking, that's usually
somewhere between ten and twelve, but it's possible for a precocious eight
or nine year old to pass the course. Most fathers probably start teaching
firearm usage at seven or eight, using air rifles, and quickly moving to
.22's. So, while a youngster cannot buy a gun, they can legally carry a gun
for hunting purposes. BTW, hunting (or fishing) without a valid license is
a great way to have your firearm (fishing gear) seized and paying a hefty
fine (possible) and a jail term for "poaching".

It should be noted that in regional and national level "junior" shooting
matches, the young girls acquit themselves quite well.

Environment plays a big role. In a large city, one set of rules apply,
while it's entirely possible to see a youngster, in some rural areas, headed
out hunting game, with an impressive rifle and a pistol strapped to his
hip. Especially in "snake" country. (They make a small pistol round,
loaded with shot, specifically for shooting snakes.) Basically, if they're
old enough to go hunting/camping, alone, they're old enough to carry a
firearm.

Aside: I am not a hunter, other than the occasional clay pigeon. (Tough to
hit. Hard to cook <Grin>) However, when I take my grandsons fishing at a
remote river, nearby, I always carry a pistol with snake shot alternating
with solid bullets. Locally, we have rattlesnakes, water moccasins and
copperheads, and while I'm not particularly fond of killing animals, I have
absolutely no qualms about killing poisonous snakes. In addition,
dummy/assholes have a bad habit of taking unwanted dogs out to rural areas
and "setting them free". Feral dogs are dangerous, since they have no fear
of humans. And a hungry feral dog pack is no joke.

It's increditably difficult, for anyone, to legally own, (much less carry)
a gun in New York City. Seeing someone walk into a convenience store with
large pistol strapped around their waist in a small town in Arizona, is no
big deal. BTW, first time American travelers returning from South and
Central America, almost invariable comment on how jarring it is to see
heavily armed soldiers (with fully automatic weapons) standing around on
street corners, and strolling down the sidewalks.

Environment counts.
$Scott
2004-08-22 00:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard White
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
Your question omits "responsibilities".
There is absolutely no connection between rights and responsibilities. It is
a fiction invented by politicians to restrict the freedoms of the
individual. I despair of people who trot out a few trite examples as 'proof'
of some connection, it's bullshit of the first order. The only obligation I
have is not to restrict the freedom of thought, word or deed of anyone else
[providing only, that as a result of such inaction, no third party's freedom
is restricted].
Cynic
2004-08-22 11:07:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:15:04 +0100, "$Scott"
Post by $Scott
There is absolutely no connection between rights and responsibilities.
For very fundamental "rights", perhaps. For most "rights" that we
wish to enjoy, there is very definitely a connection.
--
Cynic
Robin T Cox
2004-08-21 18:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Can anyone tell me, in which country in the world, people have the
most freedoms? Which country is the least regulated and prohibitive?
See:
Doing Business in 2004: Understanding Regulation is the first in a series
of annual reports presenting new quantitative indicators on the performance
of business regulations which can be compared across more than 130
countries, and over time. The indicators are used to analyze economic
outcomes and identify what reforms have worked, where, and why.

Doing Business in 2004 offers answers to these critical questions:

* Which countries regulate the most?
* Is regulation an outcome of efficient social choice, or has it
persisted because of inertia and a lack of capacity for reform?
* What are the main obstacles to regulatory reform?
* What are the best regulatory models?

http://rru.worldbank.org/DoingBusiness/Main/DoingBusiness2004.aspx
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...