Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

Freedom isn't Free

Filed under: Russia

News was released last week that the United States has more people in prison than any other country in the world, including places like China that have far more people in them. Statistics showed that one out of every 100 Americans was in prison, according to one study.

This news should surprise nobody, and far from being evidence of weakness on America's part, it should simply be seen as conclusive proof that America is living out its creed: "Live free or die."

It's been noted that there may be a correlation between crime and involuntary hospitalization. Specifically, one can argue that Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, should have been locked up in the booby hatch long before the shooting occurred, preventing it from happening and saving lives. One might suppose that places like China have committed far more citizens to mental "hospitals" than has the United States, where elaborate protections on civil liberties make doing so more difficult. Moreover, one can suppose that America's jails could be even more packed than they are, if some of those protections were abandoned and all those who were likely guilty of crimes were actually incarcerated. And then there's the fact that anyone who relies on data of this kind as produced by countries like China may need his own form of mental treatment, and the fact that, for instance, even though Russia is presided over by a KGB authoritarian, its murder rate is far higher than America's.

The left-wing freaks, of course, will tell us about how we aren't doing enough to "understand" the "root causes" of crime, how we need to "cure" and "heal" the "disease" that is afflicting America. Barack Obama spews out rhetoric of this kind from time to time.

But let's be clear: The "disease" they are referring to is liberty. Americans are the freest people in the world, they have the fewest legal and social restrictions on their conduct (no class system like Britain, no caste system like India, no police-state regimentation like China or Russia). Therefore, it's entirely predictable that America will have the most crime and the most incarcerated criminals.

And let's not forget what else America will have: It will have an economy that bestrides the globe like a colossus. It will have, by far, the most stable political system, the oldest, of any constitutional democracy on the planet. It will have literally hoards of foreigners begging for entry to the golden door, and it will stand for the dreams of oppressed people all around the globe.

When people are free, they are free to do all, good and bad. The free society reaps the benefit of the good and pays the cost of the bad. But, more important, even if you think the balance is unfavorable, the free society recognizes the ultimate sovereignty of man as an individual, the rights we were born with, for good or ill.

You may say you'd prefer to live in a totalitarian country where people's minds are "adjusted" so that crime does not occur. If you do, you're free to live in one, the world offers many such choices. But if you are a true left-winger, then you embrace diversity as a fundamental precept, and you don't want to see the American choice taken off the table.

And if you're a right-winger, terrified by the prospect of being enslaved by totalitarian overlords like those who destroyed the USSR, you're even more sanguine about American criminality -- because you know the alternative to fearing the crimes of your neighbor is fearing the crimes of a far more powerful and dangerous governmental entity.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


what? says:

What's next Kim, an editorial arguing that, thanks to American exceptionalism, up is down, black is white, war, in Iraq, is peace, and incarceration is freedom?


Mr. Grammar says:

Someone should jail the editor of this site for awful Ms. Zigfeld's awful grammar. Or perhaps jail Ms. Zigfeld for mental issues. Can anyone make sense of that psychotic last sentence?

Let me try. Right-wingers should be "sanguine about American criminality" (sanguine? please, put down the Thesaurus, right-wingers should never be "cheered," if that's what you mean, by American "criminality," by which you mean crime statistics and not criminality, another malapropism, but they "may take heart in knowing that...") because as much as right-wingers fear "totalitarian overlords" (again, bad English, not the sort of ungrammatical phrase right-wingers use to describe American power) they should fear a more "dangerous governmental entity" (again Kim's bureaucratic Soviet-like language, why not just write "form of government" the way real Americans do?) more than the crimes of their neighbors?

Can anyone make sense of that? I'm trying again: right-wingers who fear the fact that America imprisons more people than totalitarian countries should take heart in the fact that their fear of street crimes is not as big as their fear of a totalitarian government.

Um, yeah. Watch out for Kim "Cho" Zigfeld, she's coming unhinged.


Vova says:

Kim, I read Mr. Grammar's snide remark and then re-read your post. I don't see any problem with it.
I would have said it differently, being an editor and professional translator, but it's the thought that matters. Substance over form


kim, you worry me says:

"This news should surprise nobody, and far from being evidence of weakness on America's party, it should simply be seen as conclusive proof that America is living out its creed: "Live free or die.""

Um Kim, "Live free or die" is the creed of one tiny half-assed rural state (New Hampshire) and not of the United States of America. Our creed is "E Pluribus Unum" or did they not test you on this when you were taking your citizenship exam?

And if you've ever actually read about the conditions inside American prisons (all-pervasive violence, gang-rape, drug traficking, racial gangs etc.) you would be horrified that over 1% of our population is incarcerated in such a manner.

I can only hope your increasingly unhinged rants (what should we celebrate next Kim? The number of Americans without health insurance, coesn't that show that we're not socialists? What about the number of murders, that surely shows we're a lot 'tougher' than those wimpy Europeans right?) will succeed in destroying what little legitimacy this website has left.


La Russophobe says:

MR. GRAMMAR:

Hmmm, let's see. So you, who have no blog at all, much less one paid attention to by anyone, have decided (apparently, for the whole world) that I'm a bad writer -- me, who has a major presence on three major blogs (thousands of daily visitors, hundreds of comments, etc).

OK, I follow you. But if I am, what exactly does that say about YOU? I mean after all, you are not only READING what I write but COMMENTING on it. So wouldn't that make you . . . well, what would be the word? I'll defer to an expert like you.

Ape?

Buffoon?


La Russophobe says:

E pluribus unum is actually the opposite of what Americans believe. It's nothing more than a slogan, not the words Americans live by. If they believed that, they'd be socialists and have a whole different set of problems. They didn't rise up against the British to become one, but to become free individuals. Americans rejected the idea of union for many years after winning their independence, and created a system of federalism that gives individual states broad powers with no parallel in any other nation on the face of the Earth.

And, what you don't seem to realize is that it's my mission to "worry" scumbag filth like you. If you were happy, I'd be suicidal.

May I ask where you got your brain? K-mart? Blue light special?


oh Kim says:

"E pluribus unum is actually the opposite of what Americans believe. It's nothing more than a slogan, not the words Americans live by. If they believed that, they'd be socialists and have a whole different set of problems."

Of all the attempts I've seen made by various bloggers to understand what America stands for, this is surely the worst. You are right that, today, Americans don't always live by this wonderful motto, but that is because of the rejection of the 'melting pot' that served the country so well for so long and the subsequent glorification of "diversity." Actually, in comparison with the EU's idiotic motto of "unity through diversity" I think that "E Pluribus Unum" holds up rather well.

You should also know, Kim, that "E Pluribus Unum," was first adopted as a motto in 1782 when socialism wasn't yet a proper political doctrine. It doesn't have anything in the least to do with socialism or collectivism but rather the desire for unity among 13 newly united colonies (you know, the colonies that became one country?) that were highly diverse in terms of economics, governance, and political outlook. Later, the motto came to describe efforts to forge a distinctly "American" identity from immigrants hailing from scores of different countries that had different languages, religions, etc. Actually the achievement of taking Brits, Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians, Russians, Ukrainians, and about 50 other different countries and giving them them all, more or less, the same "American" civic identity is a pretty impressive achievement. Would you have preferred that these groups stay ethnically and linguistically fragmented?

The "unum" does not and has never referred to the totalitarian effort to create a unitary bloc of citizenry united in its pursuit of progress and perfection. If "E Pluribus Unum" did have something to do with socialism, Kim, you would have to think that the founding fathers weren't the most able founders of democracy in human history, but closet pinkos secretly driving for a yet-to-be-invented political system. This is, to say the least, a bit of a strange position.


"Americans rejected the idea of union for many years after winning their independence, and created a system of federalism that gives individual states broad powers with no parallel in any other nation on the face of the Earth"

Well, yes, they INITIALLY rejected the idea of Union for about a decade and then they realized that the Articles of Confederation were an outstandingly poor framework of government. Since the current framework with a strong federal government has lasted for over 200 years, I think we can for the most part ignore the "rejection" of a Union, no?

Also, would you care to elucidate these "broad powers" enjoyed by American states that have "no parallel in any other nation on the face of the Earth?" Hailing from America and having studied political science, I really fail to see what makes American state governments totally unique institutions. I'm not saying American federalism isn't good, or effective, merely that it's not entirely unique (it's been emulated many times, though this reflects positively on it)

I would very much like to see the reactions from various governors and state legislators if you tried to convince them that their power position vis-a-vi the Federal government was much different that that of (to return to a favorite topic of yours) the new guy in the cell block and his new 'friends' come shower time (since you don't understand English very well, I'm alluding to the fact that the Feds can force states to 'bend over' pretty much at will)



Vova says:

Kim, please don't delete the offensive posts. I need some comic relief today


Mr. Grammar says:

Ms. "Zigfeld",

Ouch! You called me an "ape"? And a "buffoon"? You're really too cruel. I'm going to tell the principal on you, you big meanie!

Clearly they didn't teach you about contemporary American put-downs in your TOEFL classes. "Ape" and "buffoon" are right up there with your other nukes like "nitwit" and "blockhead."

It's a sad day in America when it gives citizenship to someone whose grammar isn't as good as an "ape" like me.

Yours,
Ape Blockheadsky


Mr. Grammar says:

Ms. "Zigfeld",

Ouch! You called me an "ape"? And a "buffoon"? You're really too cruel. I'm going to tell the principal on you, you big meanie!

Clearly they didn't teach you about contemporary American put-downs in your TOEFL classes. "Ape" and "buffoon" are right up there with your other nukes like "nitwit" and "blockhead."

It's a sad day in America when it gives citizenship to someone whose grammar isn't as good as an "ape" like me.

Yours,
Ape Blockheadsky


Vova says:

OK, so Kim's grammah leaves to be desired, but that's not a good way to treat a lady. Cut her some slack





Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/678