In 10 years, where will the most progressive place on earth be?

[th!nkstyle]

In terms of overall freedoms etc. what do you think? note that in US even though obviously Bush is not "progressive", local governments are, and they overrule any macro governing scheme.

Right now there are several hot spots on earth that are progressive.

What do I mean by progressive places?

places that are most liberal with personal freedoms. that is to say, you can do almost anything you feel like, as long as it doesnt interfere directly with other peoples needs and doings. Key issues include gay marriage, legal drugs, legal prostitution, indiginous rights, non-conservative governments in power, green power being pushed, etc etc.

places that have many of the above components
San Fran, Amsterdam, Vancouver, Boston (and analagous/close cities), London, other Europe cities (although im not sure which is exactly more progressive than another per se.), also I am not fimiliar with the N.Z./Austrailia scene, where is the most progressive place down there?

I have a feeling in 10 years it will be a European place that will win my vote this category, although i hope it will be a north amercian city cause that will be best for the world (as it would mean US will have to be less conservative)

[kuranes]

The USA seems to be moving in the opposite direction from this. I suppose it would be an island nation somewhere. I can see a place allowing lots of freedom with some drugs, but very little with others that lead to addiction/crime. It would be interesting to see whether the Amsterdam model could be transplanted, and how well it really works. I've never been there. Just heard about it as stoner/sex mecca.

[tinribz]

I would gess the same as now, the Netherlands.

[th!nkstyle]

but netherlands isn't all that great a place except for the freedoms. Most of the country is below ocean level, everything is crowded, the weather isnt the best, green space is not plentiful. Probably all these reasons contributed to what it is not politically/socially.

Basically, as free as it is there, the livability is not the best. I think that the livability will become more of a factor for progressive people and that Holland might loose its title due to this.

Then again, what do i know? : P

[th!nkstyle]

The USA seems to be moving in the opposite direction from this. I suppose it would be an island nation somewhere. I can see a place allowing lots of freedom with some drugs, but very little with others that lead to addiction/crime. It would be interesting to see whether the Amsterdam model could be transplanted, and how well it really works. I've never been there. Just heard about it as stoner/sex mecca.

This I think I agree with, plus i think it would be cool. an island will start the trend of nation states. I think the political world will start a tipping point of a whole new phase like this.

[Nighthawk]

Hmmmm ... I'm holding out for New Zealand. Thoughts?

[Purple-Silver Fox]

The Netherlands have experienced in the past years some kind of a swing to the right. According to those rightwingers, because the population didn't like the muslim immigrants being too conservative and religious. ;)
So there is some polarization; AFAIK daily life isn't affected too much.

[th!nkstyle]

The Netherlands have experienced in the past years some kind of a swing to the right. According to those rightwingers, because the population didn't like the muslim immigrants being too conservative and religious. ;)
So there is some polarization; AFAIK daily life isn't affected too much.

yes this seems to be the trend lately in countries overall. Canada and Australia now both have governments that want to get rid of the gay rights laws that have been passed there.

Is there any other countries with this issue? i cant think of any off the top of my head (countries with leftish systems, yet with new rightish governments.) poland comes to mind too actually for this, although it is in a much different context than aust&canada

[booyalab]

places that are most liberal with personal freedoms. that is to say, you can do almost anything you feel like, as long as it doesnt interfere directly with other peoples needs and doings. Key issues include gay marriage, legal drugs, legal prostitution, indiginous rights, non-conservative governments in power, green power being pushed, etc etc.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that all of these issues are examples of personal freedoms, even in the way you define it.

1. Marriage isn't a "right" it's a restriction of the rights we already have. That would include gay marriage, obviously.
2. regular intake of mind-altering substances doesn't just affect the person taking them and legalizing it increases the demand, which then increases the chance of addiction
3. legalizing prostitution promotes sex trafficking, doesn't necessarily decrease illegal prostitution (legalizing it cant erase the stigma attached), increases child prostitution, increases STD rates (prostitutes are offered extra money for sex w/out condoms), in a 5 country study most of the 146 women in systems of prostitution didn't even want their industry to be legalized.
4. preferential treatment for minorities has historically done very little to help in the advancement of that subculture. In fact, it's more likely to reinforce the harmful behavior that is keeping the group in their lower economic/social status in the first place.
5. non-conservative= socialist, enough said
6. green power being pushed by the government means interference in the free market.

[Nighthawk]

2. regular intake of mind-altering substances doesn't just affect the person taking them and legalizing it increases the demand, which then increases the chance of addiction


... but they make the SJ workday go down sooooo much better ;)

[th!nkstyle]

I strongly disagree with your assertion that all of these issues are examples of personal freedoms, even in the way you define it.

1. Marriage isn't a "right" it's a restriction of the rights we already have. That would include gay marriage, obviously.
2. regular intake of mind-altering substances doesn't just affect the person taking them and legalizing it increases the demand, which then increases the chance of addiction
3. legalizing prostitution promotes sex trafficking, doesn't decrease illegal prostitution (legalizing it cant erase the stigma attached), increases child prostitution, increases STD rates (prostitutes are offered extra money for sex w/out condoms), in a 5 country study most of the 146 women in systems of prostitution didn't want their industry to be legalized.
4. preferential treatment for minorities has historically done very little to help in the advancement of that subculture. In fact, it's more likely to reinforce the harmful behavior that is keeping the group in their lower economic/social status in the first place.
5. non-conservative= socialist, enough said
6. green power being pushed by the government means interference in the free market.

All valid points, from a certain perpective on reality (likewise with my comments). we have very fundamental differences in what freedom means.

to me, i value freedom of the individual the most. you sound like you are valuing the system as a whole much more.

Obviously we would be an example of how people vote differently in elections : P

[distraction tactics]

Oh come on, booyalab...

-Gay marriage is a 'rights' issue insofar as nations are trying to deny gays the ability to marry.

-Drug legalization does not necessarily mean increased demand, but it does mean regulation, a safer product, and better accepted means for treating addiction. A fact being proven in Vancouver with 'safe houses', much to the neo-con's horrified dismay.

-Going on a date is basically being fed/entertained in exchange for giving someone sex; cutting out the middleman and just taking the money isn't immoral or unethical, but absurd that it's still illegal. For the same reasons as drugs, it is in everyone's best interest to legalize prostitution.

[booyalab]

All valid points, from a certain perpective on reality (likewise with my comments). we have very fundamental differences in what freedom means.

to me, i value freedom of the individual the most. you sound like you are valuing the system as a whole much more.
not exactly, although when it comes to politics you can't separate individuals from the systems in which they interact.

1. marriage is not a right granted to individuals it's a restriction
2. individuals are affected when drugs are legalized, as shown by what I already said
3. individuals are affected when prostitution is legalized, as shown by what I already said
4. the incentives created by preferential treatment for minorities will affect individual decisions. Actually, affirmative action is more likely to be evaluated by it's rationales and goals than the consequences it will bring for real people. Empirical studies of those consequences most commonly show that the benefits from those programs only go to a small minority of the group, which is always the most prosperous segment.
5. the more power a government has, the less freedom the citizens have. where the ideal conservative government seems to be less free to liberals, is actually more free in a pragmatic sense. The existance of immorality already means we lack freedom. I am not free to keep my doors unlocked because people are known to steal and murder. The rule of law makes this less likely.
6. environmentalist legislation affects the free market, which affects individual buying options, it also can affect lives. The reason so many people in Africa are dying from Malaria is that environmentalists believe that birds are more important than human beings, and anything that might harm birds, even if it can save human lives, must be banned. I'm talking about DDT of course.
Then there's the French heat wave deaths. The high temperatures alone do not explain the deaths, we often get temps above 100 in this country, it was 104 when the majority of people died, most were elderly. High energy taxes worked just like environmentalists planned- less energy consumption, which means air conditioning is very rare.

[booyalab]

-Gay marriage is a 'rights' issue insofar as nations are trying to deny gays the ability to marry. i'm not even talking about whether it's right or wrong, i'm saying that marriage is a restriction of rights, and therefore the existance of gay marriage does not indicate greater personal freedom, unless we're talking about conflicting definitions of personal freedom.



-Drug legalization does not necessarily mean increased demand, but it does mean regulation, a safer product, and better accepted means for treating addiction. A fact being proven in Vancouver with 'safe houses', much to the neo-con's horrified dismay. of course it means increased demand, that's an economic fact.
safer product? think about the irony of that.
safe houses could exist in a place where drugs are illegal, if it was privately run.
I'd be dismayed by my tax money going to enable drug users.



-Going on a date is basically being fed/entertained in exchange for giving someone sex; cutting out the middleman and just taking the money isn't immoral or unethical, but absurd that it's still illegal. For the same reasons as drugs, it is in everyone's best interest to legalize prostitution.
wow.
that is a very poor rebuttal, I'm not even going to humor you. sorry

[sbw]

2. regular intake of mind-altering substances doesn't just affect the person taking them and legalizing it increases the demand, which then increases the chance of addiction

one study indicated a higher percentage of addicts in san francisco (shits illegal) than in amsterdam (y'know).

also, the first part of your statement is irrelevant to the discussion of legality due to other, existing laws.

Scott

[sbw]

wow.
that is a very poor rebuttal, I'm not even going to humor you. sorry

obviously you believe his statement to be ridiculous; everyone doesn't necessarily share your reaction.

Scott

edit: nighthawk, I'm wondering if it might be new zealand too :joft:

[ptGatsby]

1. Marriage isn't a "right" it's a restriction of the rights we already have. That would include gay marriage, obviously.


Marriage isn't a right at all. Therefore the government shouldn't be involved in protecting it, nor denying it, to anyone.

To deny personal agreements is a restriction on rights. It is no different than gays not being allowed to enter into an employment contract - that limits his rights too.



2. regular intake of mind-altering substances doesn't just affect the person taking them and legalizing it increases the demand, which then increases the chance of addiction


I'd agree with this one. Considering how many drugs are handed out by doctors and all; illegal drugs are a drop in the bucket when you look at the effects of legal drugs.



3. legalizing prostitution promotes sex trafficking,


Source? Everything I've ever read says the opposite. Making an industry illegal forces people to make the entire distribution chain illegal, normally increasing that sort of trafficking.



doesn't necessarily decrease illegal prostitution


Source? By definition, it should decrease 'illegal' by making it legal.



increases child prostitution,


Source? I would see an argument for it making no difference, by why the increase? No doubt this will come down to using a 'Cambodia' version of the story, but we are talking about our culture right here. Social effects cause the majority of the current trade. I'd also point out that those countries live off of foreigners, where it is largely illegal.



increases STD rates (prostitutes are offered extra money for sex w/out condoms),


Strawman - this would happen either way. I'd also assume that if there was regulation, this would decrease. The largest spread of STDs seem to be in the illegal markets, or uncontrolled markets. The Nevada scene certainly seems to have shown this.



in a 5 country study most of the 146 women in systems of prostitution didn't even want their industry to be legalized.


I'd be interested in reading this study, since everywhere I've looked, at least in Western culture, has a movement in the opposite direction. Same with the government studies recently done here in Canada... or so the papers around here tell me.



4. preferential treatment for minorities has historically done very little to help in the advancement of that subculture. In fact, it's more likely to reinforce the harmful behavior that is keeping the group in their lower economic/social status in the first place.


I'd agree...



5. non-conservative= socialist, enough said


Big no.

Conservative ; Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

Socialism ; Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

I am neither. Liberal and Conservative is closer, if still not opposites.



6. green power being pushed by the government means interference in the free market.


Anything the government pushes or does interferes in the free market, in theory.

[wildcat]

Spain.

[th!nkstyle]

not exactly, although when it comes to politics you can't separate individuals from the systems in which they interact.

let me put it a different way.

Using your own example, drugs affect people, people interact with society. Society has rights and should not be punished because of someones stupidity/choices, therefore the person should not allowed to have the drugs in the first place.

Meanwhile, from the user's perspective, you are stripping him of his rights. A drug user will be offended with your laws, to a person that does not and never will, this whole conversation will be a non-issue and life goes on in his ignorance of everyone's wants and needs.

The gay couple canbe married, because in the end who are you to ruin their dream? your life would continue as it did before, exept now you will know and see, and possibly somehow interact with their new found dream. in turn they will have to tolarate/respect what ever it is you do. Who are you to deny someone of freedoms that wouldnt even affect you? respect as many things as humanly possible to create a good society is all im sayin.

The point is that in the system you propose, there is an ultimate "right", and indiviuals can be wrong. what is right and wrong, acceptable unacceptable, nice , not nice, its all relative. I say that by giving everyone individual freedoms foremost, the world would function for individuals as a whole.



1. marriage is not a right granted to individuals it's a restriction
2. individuals are affected when drugs are legalized, as shown by what I already said
3. individuals are affected when prostitution is legalized, as shown by what I already said
4. the incentives created by preferential treatment for minorities will affect individual decisions. Actually, affirmative action is more likely to be evaluated by it's rationales and goals than the consequences it will bring for real people. Empirical studies of those consequences most commonly show that the benefits from those programs only go to a small minority of the group, which is always the most prosperous segment.
5. the more power a government has, the less freedom the citizens have. where the ideal conservative government seems to be less free to liberals, is actually more free in a pragmatic sense. The existance of immorality already means we lack freedom. I am not free to keep my doors unlocked because people are known to steal and murder. The rule of law makes this less likely.
6. environmentalist legislation affects the free market, which affects individual buying options, it also can affect lives. The reason so many people in Africa are dying from Malaria is that environmentalists believe that birds are more important than human beings, and anything that might harm birds, even if it can save human lives, must be banned. I'm talking about DDT of course.
Then there's the French heat wave deaths. The high temperatures alone do not explain the deaths, we often get temps above 100 in this country, it was 104 when the majority of people died, most were elderly. High energy taxes worked just like environmentalists planned- less energy consumption, which means air conditioning is very rare.

1. that makes no sense to me what you said there
2. adressed above
3. ditto
4. ditto
5. the less power governents have, the more power private corporations have. corporations overall goals in in money, not in ethics.

6.you base a lot on this "free market". i think your free market sucks because it is fundamentally flawed. therefore anything you speak of it is non-sense to me.

However, even though i am the polar oposite of your beliefs, i really do try to see your perpective, and i guess you perhaps too try to do this, that the side you think is total BS is truely 100% believed by the other person. this always amazes me and keeps me quite interested in all sorts of diverse crowds and perspectives.

[sbw]

my town (fort myers, florida) should merit consideration. although it was alleged some years back to be the most segregated city in the south, it has a combination taco bell/long john silvers fast food stop, right by the highway. this, my friends, is progress.

Scott

[distraction tactics]

i'm not even talking about whether it's right or wrong, i'm saying that marriage is a restriction of rights, and therefore the existance of gay marriage does not indicate greater personal freedom, unless we're talking about conflicting definitions of personal freedom.

Nor, am I really - I'm talking about action-potential. That in most countries I can marry a woman but not a man is a 'rights' violation because I am limited in my options. If you're hung up semantically on what a 'right' truly is, save it.


of course it means increased demand, that's an economic fact.
safer product? think about the irony of that.
safe houses could exist in a place where drugs are illegal, if it was privately run.
I'd be dismayed by my tax money going to enable drug users.

On the other hand, your tax money is providing them free housing. By extension, you're advocating that those who have committed no moral or ethical wrong be subjected to context more conducive to physical and sexual assault, or 'real' crimes.

How does it mean increased demand? That I have no personal demand for drugs has no bearing on their illegal status. Ironically, I could probably score a joint more quickly than the 10-15 minutes it would take me to walk to a store to buy it legally. Drug legalization may legitimize its use in mainstream society, but demand is a red-herring argument - even if demand were to increase, so what? Drugs aren't bad, mmmkay?


wow.
that is a very poor rebuttal, I'm not even going to humor you. sorry

Funny thing is, if you bothered to 'humour' me, I would completely destroy your argument.

[th!nkstyle]

demand is a red-herring argument


I like when people say red-herring, we need to get that phrase back and in the mainstream!

[distraction tactics]

I like when people say red-herring, we need to get that phrase back and in the mainstream!

I like seafood. :drool:

...Nah, not really.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

one study indicated a higher percentage of addicts in san francisco (shits illegal) than in amsterdam (y'know).

also, the first part of your statement is irrelevant to the discussion of legality due to other, existing laws.

Scott
That's true, Belgium and France have more cannabis users than Holland.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

5. the more power a government has, the less freedom the citizens have. where the ideal conservative government seems to be less free to liberals, is actually more free in a pragmatic sense. The existance of immorality already means we lack freedom. I am not free to keep my doors unlocked because people are known to steal and murder. The rule of law makes this less likely.So it doesn't matter where the power is, but whether those that have it can't or don't abuse it.


6. environmentalist legislation affects the free market, which affects individual buying options, it also can affect lives. The reason so many people in Africa are dying from Malaria is that environmentalists believe that birds are more important than human beings, and anything that might harm birds, even if it can save human lives, must be banned. I'm talking about DDT of course.Both market and legislation can have good and bad effects. DDT piles up through the food chain, eliminating a significant part of the ecology upon which those people are depending for food, fuel etc. Not to mention that DDT ends up in those very humans it pretends to save, poisoning them.


Then there's the French heat wave deaths. The high temperatures alone do not explain the deaths, we often get temps above 100 in this country, it was 104 when the majority of people died, most were elderly. High energy taxes worked just like environmentalists planned- less energy consumption, which means air conditioning is very rare.If people took the real costs into account when using energy instead of the market costs, we wouldn't have to cope with global warming now.

[LongSilence]

To support Booya- remember: Marriage is an instituition made to tell people what society in general wants people to act and be like. I know people can ask the question: "What is Society really?" and quote surveys and questionnaires but they can't change the fact that "permanent" homosexual unions are anti-social in that they go against the fundamentals of every society in history.

Even the societies that permitted or even sanctioned gay sex used marriage always as a means to sanctify heterosexual unions. If you look at it from one particular perspective marriage was mostly about making sure that families were made that could produce and bring up children with a patriarch and a matriarch. Gay relationships make sense, but marriage is an old tradition that has always been about more than just the two people involved. Like Booya says, its a way for society to set down a reproductive code of conduct. People's rights have never been a big issue with it AT ALL. Just ask women.

Gay civil unions that grant legal benefits are worthy but gay marriages break down much of the institution's original foundations. You might as well start letting people marry multiple partners or their sisters. I don't get why gay people would really want to get married given its history- i mean, why would a black person want to join the ku klux klan?

Anyway, I think Europe in general will be the most progressive place- with certain countries allowing certain freedoms more than others.

[distraction tactics]

To support Booya- remember: Marriage is an instituition made to tell people what society in general wants people to act and be like. I know people can ask the question: "What is Society really?" and quote surveys and questionnaires but they can't change the fact that "permanent" homosexual unions are anti-social in that they go against the fundamentals of every society in history.

Even the societies that permitted or even sanctioned gay sex used marriage always as a means to sanctify heterosexual unions. If you look at it from one particular perspective marriage was mostly about making sure that families were made that could produce and bring up children with a patriarch and a matriarch. Gay relationships make sense, but marriage is an old tradition that has always been about more than just the two people involved. Like Booya says, its a way for society to set down a reproductive code of conduct. People's rights have never been a big issue with it AT ALL. Just ask women.

Gay civil unions that grant legal benefits are worthy but gay marriages break down much of the institution's original foundations. You might as well start letting people marry multiple partners or their sisters. I don't get why gay people would really want to get married given its history- i mean, why would a black person want to join the ku klux klan?

Anyway, I think Europe in general will be the most progressive place- with certain countries allowing certain freedoms more than others.

Cutting to the heart of the matter, marriage is only worth the society in which it exists; ours defines it otherwise.

Nations have sanctioned gay marriage - the reluctance of the United States to allow it under the pretension of historical context makes no claim on the authority of its true definition.

This discussion is retarded, no personal offence intended to you, LS.

[LongSilence]

Don't worry- I'm not particularly attached to the concept. I have no desire to keep it just for the heteros. But, I think that now gay marriage is deemed ok- it follows that so should polygamy and incest.

[distraction tactics]

Don't worry- I'm not particularly attached to the concept. I have no desire to keep it just for the heteros. But, I think that now gay marriage is deemed ok- it follows that so should polygamy and incest.

By rights there is no reason they shouldn't - being that people are even more emotionally distressed by those concepts than they are homosexuality, we're unlikely to see a drive for it anytime soon.

Frankly, I wouldn't weigh in on the issue myself. I support gay marriage less as a legal principle and more as a moral evening-of-the-scales to combat the religious right who use the marriage issue to marginalize homosexuals. I believe what they fear is not that two men or two women can marry each other - because the effects on society truly are null - but that homosexuality is on the verge of being legitimized in society, something with which their flawed morality and emotional state cannot cope.

Less than honourable, yeah.

[LongSilence]

To be fair, marriage has pretty much been about marginalising almost everyone. After all, its basically the only situation in which religions have sanctified the act of sex. Heterosexuals who sleep around or who commit adultery have always and still get condemned too. From a religious standpoint, sex has its main purpose of producing babies, with the hopeful side-effect of bringing the potential parents closer together. The problem with gay sex, even between committed adults, is that it won't ever produce offspring and so will fundamentally be about personal pleasure. Even if its mutual religion has never liked such an idea as it looks too much like people living for themselves.

Now it could be very well argued that this is a REALLY blinkered way to look at things- but it works for religion, which has always said that we can and should be more than just animals. Now married men and women are sanctioned to hump like rabbits simply because there is the possibility that each of their acts might produce children and thus be an act for the 'good' of "their" society or culture.

Societies in general will never be able to truly cope with the idea of their people living lives that don't involve at least some sort of sacrifice or adherence to the general principle of reproduction. After all, things get complicated when people start living for themselves right to the very end...

[htb]

Originally Posted by ptGatsby:
Marriage isn't a right at all. Therefore the government shouldn't be involved in protecting it, nor denying it, to anyone.Your first sentence is correct but the second is a non sequitur. If marriage is not a constitutional right then it is only a legal entitlement; so a legislative or electoral majority can, beyond 14th Amendment considerations of race, regulate as seen fit.

[sbw]

To be fair, marriage has pretty much been about marginalising almost everyone. After all, its basically the only situation in which religions have sanctified the act of sex. Heterosexuals who sleep around or who commit adultery have always and still get condemned too. From a religious standpoint, sex has its main purpose of producing babies, with the hopeful side-effect of bringing the potential parents closer together. The problem with gay sex, even between committed adults, is that it won't ever produce offspring and so will fundamentally be about personal pleasure. Even if its mutual religion has never liked such an idea as it looks too much like people living for themselves.

Now it could be very well argued that this is a REALLY blinkered way to look at things- but it works for religion, which has always said that we can and should be more than just animals. Now married men and women are sanctioned to hump like rabbits simply because there is the possibility that each of their acts might produce children and thus be an act for the 'good' of "their" society or culture.

Societies in general will never be able to truly cope with the idea of their people living lives that don't involve at least some sort of sacrifice or adherence to the general principle of reproduction. After all, things get complicated when people start living for themselves right to the very end...

...and I wondered why people get married even before I read this...:joft:

Scott