Whenever I say nice things about Canada, some people get annoyed. After all, they have socialized medicine and are more inclined to regulate certain kinds of speech. But these are anecdotes. If looks for anecdotes on the lack of freedom in the U.S., one becomes buried in them. If I look at actual indices that attempt, however imperfectly, to measure various freedoms, the U.S. and Canada come out pretty much identical on a classical liberal conception of freedom. And Canada comes out ahead on contemporary capabilities conceptions of positve liberty. To my mind, the evidence pretty strongly supports the conclusion that Canada is at least as free as the United States. Why is this a problem for some Americans?

It’s true that the U.S. has in many ways a more libertarian culture and political tradition than does Canada. But then isn’t it all the more interesting to note that, despite America’s unique “land of the free” self-conception, we’re no more free than Canadians? I feel strongly that American culture is more varied, alive, weirder, synthetic, and creative than probably any other. This is in part because of, and not despite, the odd conservative and religions strands in American culture. And it is a culture especially amenable to all sorts of entrepreneurial experiments, which gives American culture a level of innovation and vitality (including countless varieties of religious weirdness) that I think partly explains why it is the world’s dominant exporter of culture. And I think the U.S.’s wealth relative to other countries is actually underestimated. We are astoundingly rich (recession or no recession) and this is a place of crazy opportunity. So I think the U.S. does better in positive liberty terms than it sometimes gets credit for.

But that doesn’t begin to mean that we live up to our reputation for the kind of liberty classical liberals tend to care about. My sense is that some American libertarians have a vague sense that if Canada really was more free, then they should want to move there. But they emphatically don’t want to move to Canada. My diagnosis is that many libertarians prefer to live in a place where it easy to find others who share their individualistic and libertarian values over living in a place where they would actually be more free, but would feel more culturally alienated.

To be honest, I think part of the problem is that America's high-flying freedom rhetoric is so hopelessly unrealistic in terms of national policy (to take one example, many Americans think that freedom of speech is an absolute right with no restrictions whatsoever) that the government has to become accustomed to doublespeak, and the citizens become accustomed to it too.

I personally think free speech should be a completely unrestricted right.

Could you clarify your own position in regards to free speech, Mike? I hesistate to suggest you think free speech should be restricted in any way unless you actually say so...but this particular part of your post seems to imply so?

I personally think free speech should be a completely unrestricted right.

You see, there's a problem. It goes like this: somebody lies, another man dies.

It's more serious than you can think it is. But lies are free speech, right, no matter how damaging they might be. Of course, you can subscribe to the Randian position that anyone stupid enough to believe a lie has brought his death or suffering upon himself. But tell me, how much of humanity is actually competent enough to judge? Are they universal knowledge-bots, easily discerning any lie in favour of the truth? Rather far from it, I would believe.

If you can see the problem with someone deceptively shouting FIRE! in a crowded club or theater, or with slander and libel, or with incitement, then I suspect you can see the problem with absolute freedom of expression.

God hates the world. Looks like NZ is still a work in progress (I'm dissapointed by that.)

But anyway, if this guy pulled his usual shit in many of the countries around the world (including Canada if I'm not mistaking) he could be charged with a crime. I don't really have a huge problem with this.

Anyone who suggests free speech should not be a unrestricted right is basically saying "I'm willing to be locked up/punished if someone doesn't like what I have to say."

To me, that is a very dark path to start walking down.

What has lying got to do with free speech? That's a moral issue, not a legal one.

But here's a potential example you might be referring to: Say I ask someone if it's safe to walk out on a frozen lake. They lie and say yes. I walk out onto the ice, fall through, and suffer hypothermia.

Who's fault is it?

I'd strongly argue it's mine; I chose to walk out on the ice. The person who lied to me simply proved themselves a liar/idiot.

See above. What happend to the mentality "mockery of stupid people"?

We need to teach people to think rationally, not gag them out of fear they'll corrupt the guillible and stupid masses with words.

No, I don't see a problem with free speech there; I see a problem with the existence of stupid people and those who take hearsay as factual evidence.

I'm sure you wouldn't, until people locked you up for saying something the majority of others or those in power don't agree with.

I on the other hand subscribe to the notion "Even if I hate what you're saying, I'll fight for your right to say it."

If someone uses words in a way that I would question morally or rationally, I will fight them with my own words. Not by undermining the right to free speech.

Anyone who suggests free speech should not be a unrestricted right is basically saying "I'm willing to be locked up/punished if someone doesn't like what I have to say."

To me, that is a very dark path to start walking down.

What has lying got to do with free speech? That's a moral issue, not a legal one. But here's a potential example you might be referring to: Say I ask someone if it's safe to walk out on a frozen lake. They lie and say yes. I walk out onto the ice, fall through, and suffer hypothermia. Who's fault is it? I'd strongly argue it's mine; I chose to walk out on the ice. The person who lied to me simply proved themselves a liar/idiot.

See above. What happend to the mentality "mockery of stupid people"?

We need to teach people to think rationally, not gag them out of fear they'll corrupt the guillible and stupid masses with words.

No, I don't see a problem with free speech there; I see a problem with the existence of stupid people and those who take hearsay as factual evidence.

I on the other hand subscribe to the notion "Even if I hate what you're saying, I'll fight for your right to say it."

If someone uses words in a way that I would question morally or rationally, I will fight them with my own words. Not by undermining the right to free speech.

Anyone who suggests free speech should not be a unrestricted right is basically saying "I'm willing to be locked up/punished if someone doesn't like what I have to say." To me, that is a very dark path to start walking down.

I'm sure you wouldn't, until people locked you up for saying something the majority of others or those in power don't agree with.

I on the other hand subscribe to the notion "Even if I hate what you're saying, I'll fight for your right to say it."

If someone uses words in a way that I would question morally or rationally, I will fight them with my own words. Not by undermining the right to free speech.

Anyone who suggests free speech should not be a unrestricted right is basically saying "I'm willing to be locked up/punished if someone doesn't like what I have to say."

To me, that is a very dark path to start walking down.

We need to teach people to think rationally, not gag them out of fear they'll corrupt the guillible and stupid masses with words.