Vaquedoso

I appreciate your understanding, though I’m inclined to disagree. Of course I get the historical context in which they were written, but that doesn’t make it exceptional. You say in the US you have emphasis on personal freedom and protections against government overreach, but many countries would pride themselves as well in their take about it. Even so, in the USA your police officers can detain you on a whim declaring possible suspicion and confiscate your belongings if they so wish. You speak of personal freedoms, yet you still have stricter laws compared to my country in some cases, like drinking, gambling and prostitution or even jaywalking. Or the existence of HOAs, that despite not being governmental agencies themselves, they are adjacent and speak of aspects of american life that are more regulated than in other countries. You also have eminent domain in the USA, where the government can legally force you to sell your land.

And we can keep on comparing examples on how life differs based on countries, but to get back on track, the american constitution and its accompanying bill of rights are not inherently more ‘free’ than any other countries constitution. Even more so when you take into account that many countries’ constitutions were based partially on it, which itself was based on Roman law.

I understand how important they are to american speaking points, though, you said it best when you said it was an integral part of your perceived self image. But that doesn’t detract from the reality that people in the USA aren’t intrinsically ‘more free’ or have more freedom just because they are american, there are plenty of countries with comparable levels of rights and government overreach.

Again, most countries have these protections as well. The USA is not special in this regard. Most countries have a document detailing the rights and duties of the people along with the obligations and limits to the state. And obviously, these documents are intrinsically linked to the government and would fail to prove valuable in its absence. In layman’s terms, you can’t have your bill of rights ‘protecting people from the government’ without having a government in the first place, as the mere document itself is a product of governance and part of the social contract

You were just arguing against this kind of government, but now you are all for it? Make up your mind. ‘the bill of rights’ means nothing without a government enforcing it.

In any case, this shows just how ignorant you are to the world around you. Documents protecting the rights of the populace aren’t exclusive to the US, nor were they the first to write them, look up the magna Carta, written in medieval times; or the Hammurabi code, one of the first written legal documents that protected the weak and the vulnerable.

What’s more, most countries today also have these protections written in their respective constitutions, so this whole “the US is special” talk is just propaganda you ate

For some reason it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t believe in history beyond 1776

I’m not from the US, so I don’t care about your founders.

History books, and biology as well mind you, actually say that the actions of a group of individuals working together have more power than those of individuals working alone, and in any coordinated effort there is a subsection of the group that takes care of the whole and marks the pace. Throughout history the civilizations that managed to thrive and leave their mark were those whose governing body was efficient and effective, and there’s no denying that. You may be able to wrangle your friends and coordinate them without a specific administrative role, but try doing that with a group of people surpassing the hundreds of millions and you will have a problem.

Are you crazy enough to be implying that your own government is your enemy? Public administration is necessary to any kind of social coordination and the reason you were able to leave that comment