Only peace protects freedoms in post-9/11 world

[Nitro]

Only peace protects freedoms in post-9/11 world

It is not economic prosperity but peace that guarantees press freedom. That is the main lesson to be drawn from the world press freedom index that Reporters Without Borders compiles every year and from the 2008 edition, released today. Another conclusion from the index - in which the bottom three rungs are again occupied by the “infernal trio” of Turkmenistan (171st), North Korea (172nd) and Eritrea (173rd) - is that the international community’s conduct towards authoritarian regimes such as Cuba (169th) and China (167th) is not effective enough to yield results.

“The post-9/11 world is now clearly drawn,” Reporters Without Borders said. “Destabilised and on the defensive, the leading democracies are gradually eroding the space for freedoms. The economically most powerful dictatorships arrogantly proclaim their authoritarianism, exploiting the international community’s divisions and the ravages of the wars carried out in the name of the fight against terrorism. Religious and political taboos are taking greater hold by the year in countries that used to be advancing down the road of freedom.”

“The world’s closed countries, governed by the worst press freedom predators, continue to muzzle their media at will, with complete impunity, while organisations such as the UN lose all authority over their members,” Reporters Without Borders added. “In contrast with this generalised decline, there are economically weak countries that nonetheless guarantee their population the right to disagree with the government and to say so publicly.”

The US is the 42nd most free country on the planet...countries like Ghana, Mali, and Surinam have been found to be more free. A very scary statistic...

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29031

[Wiper]

This ain't surprising me if I take look at the comments at the Google Chrome thread. This is no offense but 3 people in the US said they didn't bother at all about, in my eyes a few bridges too far, EULA. And what about the RFID which doesn't seem to bother anyone.

People just accepted in general already to give up a lot of freedom to defend/prevent against attacks and that's not only in the US.

Is it a real threat? Yes it excists, but somehow when I wake up I don't think "Ow, I hope I'm gonna make it till the end of the day".

[EXEcution]

Is it a real threat? Yes it excists, but somehow when I wake up I don't think "Ow, I hope I'm gonna make it till the end of the day".

Exactly. That's when the government steps in. Economic theory suggests: "If voluntary provision of public goods will not work, then the obvious solution is making their provision involuntary. (Each of us are saved from our own individualistic short-sightedness, i.e. our tendency to be a free rider, while also being assured that no one else will be allowed to free ride). One frequently proposed solution to the problem is for governments or states to impose taxation to fund the production of public goods. This does not actually solve the theoretical problem because good government is itself a public good. Thus it is difficult to ensure the government has an incentive to provide the optimum amount even if were it possible for the government to determine precisely what amount would be optimum (see also resource allocation mechanisms and public finance)."

There's always a compromise between freedom -- which is contextual anyway -- and government intervention. The government may not always have the perfect solution, but because people will almost always act in their own self-interest, they will not see an immediate need for national defense.

[Nitro]

"because people will almost always act in their own self-interest"


Not true. This is mostly an American way of thinking. That rugged individualism. The founding fathers were against this.

[EXEcution]

"because people will almost always act in their own self-interest"


Not true. This is mostly an American way of thinking. That rugged individualism. The founding fathers were against this.

What was the last thing you did that wasn't in your own self-interest?

[Nitro]

Is that a serous question? All the time bro and I'm sure everyone here does. Anything from a simple act as opening the door for someone to giving someone a ride that is well out of my way and inconvenience to me. I do things for the common good much moreso than out of some sort of self interest to titillate my ego.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/Detoc/ch2_08.htm

[EXEcution]

Is that a serous question? All the time bro and I'm sure everyone here does. Anything from a simple act as opening the door for someone to giving someone a ride that is well out of my way and inconvenience to me. I do things for the common good much moreso than out of some sort of self interest to titillate my ego.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/Detoc/ch2_08.htm

I could easily make the argument that you did those things to make yourself feel better about yourself. I open doors for people and give them rides as well and don't expect anything in return, but I do get gratification out of it.

The point is that you are not going to go our of your way to buy a tank in order to protect everyone around you from a potential attack.

[Nitro]

Yes I would...

There is no such thing as an absolute. There is no up, there is no down, there is no right, there is no wrong.

Etc.

[EXEcution]

Yes I would...

There is no such thing as an absolute. There is no up, there is no down, there is no right, there is no wrong.

Etc.

No you wouldn't, because otherwise you would have a tank by now. The rest of your post is too obvious to even address.

[Nitro]

agree to disagree.

[EXEcution]

agree to disagree.

Can you just buy me a tank plz? :D

[Nitro]

fine :P

[Mr Clean]

Only peace protects freedoms in post-9/11 world

It is not economic prosperity but peace that guarantees press freedom. That is the main lesson to be drawn from the world press freedom index that Reporters Without Borders compiles every year and from the 2008 edition, released today. Another conclusion from the index - in which the bottom three rungs are again occupied by the “infernal trio” of Turkmenistan (171st), North Korea (172nd) and Eritrea (173rd) - is that the international community’s conduct towards authoritarian regimes such as Cuba (169th) and China (167th) is not effective enough to yield results.

“The post-9/11 world is now clearly drawn,” Reporters Without Borders said. “Destabilised and on the defensive, the leading democracies are gradually eroding the space for freedoms. The economically most powerful dictatorships arrogantly proclaim their authoritarianism, exploiting the international community’s divisions and the ravages of the wars carried out in the name of the fight against terrorism. Religious and political taboos are taking greater hold by the year in countries that used to be advancing down the road of freedom.”

“The world’s closed countries, governed by the worst press freedom predators, continue to muzzle their media at will, with complete impunity, while organisations such as the UN lose all authority over their members,” Reporters Without Borders added. “In contrast with this generalised decline, there are economically weak countries that nonetheless guarantee their population the right to disagree with the government and to say so publicly.”

The US is the 42nd most free country on the planet...countries like Ghana, Mali, and Surinam have been found to be more free. A very scary statistic...

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29031

Did you read the whole article? I ask that seriously, because the basis for the ranking of 42 has to do with the fact that we are involved in armed conflicts. That's it. A journalist dies in Iraq and we are 42nd. LOL. The rankings are based on surveys sent to member organizations in the various countries with 49 criteria in it. "The questionnaire was sent to Reporters Without Borders’ partner organisations (18 freedom of expression groups in all five continents), to its network of 130 correspondents around the world, and to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists. A scale devised by the organisation was then used to give a country-score to each questionnaire." A couple hundred people with a secret scale determine the level of the freedom of press in the whole world? You can't say anything bad about the Royals in England, but their press is more free than ours...right.

Nitro, I love your passion for things. It's great that you want to discuss topics and engage in discussions. But your ideals keep leading you to information that is not grounded in reality. You love to post this stuff but don't seem to bother doing a little reading and fact checking before determining what is good info and what is crap. You do yourself a disservice when this happens. Think, don't follow. It makes a world of differnence.

Sirc will now post about how I am an pseudo-intellectual. Take it away Sirc.

[Nitro]

No I did not actually. My apologies.