Many Americans talk about "freedom" but their definition is largely narrow and specific to political issues they feel strongly about. The same people who talk about "small government" simultaneously use the federal government to bludgeon states into submissions on issues such as legalized marijuana. It's usually something that's used to justify a specific political position and not an overall sentiment of allowing actual freedom.
On the contrary, many Americans support policies that are against many ideas of freedom such as the disenfranchisement of felons.
For example, someone might use an example of being able to deny a LGBTQ person a service as "having freedoms" but ignore the fact that by denying them that service, that person is also simultaneously less free.
There is no such thing as actual freedom. You exercising your "freedom" almost always means imposing upon someone else's. In your example wouldn't someone having to provide a service to a LGBTQ person even though it is against their religious beliefs be a violation of their freedom of religion just as much as refusing to provide them service would be a violation of the LGBTQ person's freedom?
"Freedom" is used a lot when politics comes up not because it is a way to justify political positions but because politics is to a great degree the arguing of whose freedoms trumps another's under what circumstances.
that's party of the problem, that view of freedom, that's more about individual choice. It often flys in the face of achieving greater freedoms through rules and social cooperation. People are familiar with the concept but often don't think about it, like driving on the road, if people were allowed individual choice about how they want to drive on roads it would be a nightmare to drive on the roads, but luckily, people aren't "free" to choose which side of the road to drive on ,etc, there are a bunch of rules, and because the vast majority follow these "restrictions" a greater freedom is achieved, you can get from A to B in relatively short time periods in relative safety. Cooperative freedoms tend to give some of the greatest actual freedoms, however, they need to be underpinned and balanced with a set of core individual rights. Working out that balance is... tricky.
In the same way that federal money can't be spent on abortions because of "religious freedom" but we still go to war with taxes collected from Quakers, we had to fight for decades over the "definition of marriage" because a certain religion's liberties are more equal than others.
The freedom to disagree with others. The freedom to marry who you want. The freedom to move about freely in nature without having to worry about property lines.
In some places that are less free, these things are frowned upon.
"In some places that are less free, these things are frowned upon." They are frowned upon by some because they affect what those people believe their freedoms should entail. None of these are examples of exercising of freedoms that don't affect the freedom of others.
Take for example the freedom to move about freely in nature without having to worry about property lines. This most definitely affects the property rights of others and their freedom to do as they wish with their property. I'm not saying that your freedom of movement shouldn't out rank their property rights and the freedom to do as they will with their own property but it certainly impacts their freedoms.
I think most scandinavians would disagree with you.
In my opinion, someone having a problem with people taking a walk in their forest need help.
(And yes, I grew up on a property that has a forest, and yes, when encountering people going for a walk or gathering mushrooms, one says «hello» and smiles)
> In your example wouldn't ... be a violation of their freedom of religion
Not at all, that's not what freedom of religion is.
I can practice a Mayan or Inca religion by myself - that's freedom of religion - but I cannot allow it to affect other people's life e.g. by organizing human sacrifices.
How is an individual refusing to provide a service which is readily available from others significantly impacting other people's life?
Also not being able to practice ritual sacrifice if it is part of your faith is a violation of your religious freedom. We as society have made the decision that the right to life is a greater right than your right to freely practice your religion but it is still a violation of your right. It is just another example of how in a functioning society decisions have to be constantly be made regarding whose rights are greater than someone else's under what circumstances.
I think freedom and access to power are entangled.
People with access to power or money either don't need to interview for jobs, or don't have criminal records that complicate that process.
So, they are more free by default. Not only do these checks not affect them directly, they create a nerf on a whole set of other people, which creates a contrast of freedom.
I do not think many would go out in public and say they like seeing the poor unfairly burdened. However, I believe in many cases groups in the United States have chosen "power over principals."
This is where the choice to protect power supersedes choosing to act principals or professed beliefs.
I do not think this is a new thing, though I think it has never been so public and given today's politics the contrast is particularly stark.
Being free to background check someone you're going to work with, work for, or hire is in fact an entirely correct aspect of being free broadly. The US position on that is correct, not contradictory.
Restriction on action which does not involve using violence against others is restricting freedom in any proper liberal model of the word. That goes for everything from prostitution to drug use, and it absolutely includes being able to research information about other people you're going to work with.
It's hilarious that a place like Norway, which eg thinks publishing open salaries is to be touted, is then magically closed on checking other information about a person. So which is it, open information or not culturally? It's contradictory, arbitrary horseshit is what it is.
The position is philosophically identical to claiming that speech must be heavily restricted to be truly free (ie free of "hate" etc.). It's nothing more than intellectual infantilism, part of the mental immaturing and weakening of the West. It's Orwell-think, inverting everything; more restriction on personal action is freedom, more restriction on speech is free speech.
No, infantilism is being unable to contextualise freedom and see it in its proper communal and social context. Handing private entities the ability to engage in surveillance against their fellow citizens isn't freedom, it's eroding the very basis of freedom. It's creating a private panopticon in which everyone is constantly conditioned to behave and comply. That is actually what modern American society is by the way, literally infantilized. Students are being policed by their universities, children by theire hyper-religious parents, minorities by their neighbours ring doorbells, and workers by their companies, no state required.
The proper way to understand the liberal tradition and apply it today is to understand that the liberal tradition is concerned with threats to individual freedom, period. 200 years ago, in early capitalist times, citizens were equal and the state was powerful. Today private power and surveillance is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than anything the American government can come up with.
The liberal tradition applied today, by the spirit rather than the letter of the law and its proper intent, must be concerned with stopping citizens and private firms from controlling each others lives, rather than be obsessed with some 18th century homesteading logic or 'voluntary contracts'.
So TLDR; your opinion is the way it should be done and anyone who thinks otherwise are wrong. How free of you.
> It's Orwell-think
Hilarious in a comment stating the US position is the correct one. I'd like to know of an example of another nation that is more or even on the same level of Orwellian as the US? I can't even think of one historically, far from it today. Of course the US way of thinking would require you to yell CHINAMAN or RED RUSSIAN now as loud as you can, but in reality neither have near as Orwellian a state as the U.S. of NSA.
