Mapping Freedom

far be it for me to want to appear in any way relativist on democracy. after all, democracy is democracy, it does not require qualifiers, be it in the form of sovereign, islamic, people’s, bolivarian, or any other. russia is backsliding on democracy, that much is true. i don’t think anybody sane would argue with that. rolling back the chaos that was shoved down everybody’s throats as democracy in the 90s was a conscious decision, because democracy was nothing more than a smokescreen to enable a handful of oligarchs to plunder and rape the country. the only solution was for the state to reassert itself, and given the kgb-nurtured mentality of putin’s team, curtailing the freedom of the press (especially tv) and taking the competition and choice out elections was the only way they knew how to do so. i’m sure putin and the more enlightened of his protégés do want russia to grow into a fully democratic country in the european mould. they don’t believe russia is ready for it, though. and nobody knows if even they know when russia will be ready, and how to tell this readiness.

having said that, however, the freedom house methodology leaves me nonplussed. it’s eurocentric, in as much as it looks at other countries from the vintage point of european (and by extension, north american, australian, isreali, and other ‘white’ western democracy there is). which prejudices countries like india, where elections do matter and r competitive to the extent not seen in america, where gerrymandering and vote-rigging via unauditable machines have made congressional elections in many a district meaningless by guaranteeing the incumbent a virtually free pass to perpetual – due to absence of term limitations – reelection. and yet india scores a relatively paltry 3, and america a perfect 1, meaning it is a paragon of democratic virtue, the proverbial shining city on the hill.

the brains behind the freedom index, however, r honest about one thing. they openly admit their methodology is not culture specific, all but fessing up to a pro-western bias. and thank god for that, for otherwise i could not square indonesia’s getting a partly free ranking, and russia not free. never mind all the restrictions resurgent islam places on women and on personal freedom. never mind the dire economics of indonesian existence that undoubtedly taxes heavily whatever strictly political freedoms the country may have. fdr was right when he listed freedom from want as a fundamental right. and on that score russia is ahead of indonesia, and many other countries judges partly free or even free, by leaps and bounds.

just one more thing. once u put the methodology in doubt, the freedom house democracy index becomes nothing more than a thinly veiled beauty contest. and perhaps as useful as people magazine’s 100 most beautiful list.

If my memory serves me right it was in 1973 that the CIA started sub contracting out some of their propaganda activities. A survey that gives the nation that puts into office a man that got less votes than his opponent top marks as “most free” is the summit of absurdity. The tragedy is that not surprisingly the political elites in countries like Russia that hesitate to “trust the people” react very badly to having this sort of horseshit stuffed down their throats.

Obviously, these ratings are a public relations exercise. Outfits like Freedom House, living off the US government dole, have to keep themselves in the news. From its most recent annual report, I see that of its total 2006 funding of $26.4 million, $21 million came from the US government, principally the State Department and USAID.
So – sort of the tabloid version of the State Department’s annual reports on human rights practices (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt).

I don’t find this deeply offensive, really. The more the USG propagandizes for human rights elsewhere, the more able its own citizens are to argue against water-boarding, etc. And I guess most people would understand that if Freedom House didn’t award the US a “1″, its USG funds would drop to “0″.

That said, the report’s Russia assessment is clearly light on the last decade’s criminality and greed, and seems to imply that democracy was thriving – whereas now (it says) “Russia is not an electoral democracy.” http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2007&country=7258

As Astana says – that’s the problem: By falling into the lazy media game of personalizing — “Yeltsin years” vs “Putin years” – a decade and a half of complex political history, Freedom House misleads, unconsciously mirroring the claims of Putin’s own propagandists.

I don’t think we know whether “putin and the more enlightened of his protégés do want russia to grow into a fully democratic country.” Maybe, maybe not. But other Russians certainly want it, though just not in sufficient numbers yet. Political development is a process driven by demand, not supply. I don’t think outsiders idealizing one period and demonizing another contribute anything to this.

I miss the Treaty of Westphalia.

I’m sure we all harbor a soft spot for Count Maximilian von Trautmansdorff, if only for the name.

Hmm, from http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=24720

“I have no desire to copy the behavior of organizations like Freedom House,” Kucherena said. “We have completely different tasks. … Freedom House has only one goal: to publish data, which was assembled using methodologies that nobody understands, in order to draw attention to themselves.”

You’re not the only one, Sean.

Wall Street Journal
January 18, 2008
Enjoy the Wall Street Journal Reaction to this qutie humurous event, particluarly their indignation at some of Putin’s digs:-

Russia-Backed Think Tank To Study Western Democracy
By ANDREW OSBORN

JRL 18th Jan ITEM 6

Kucherena’s is just one of at least three groupings that I know of which are vying for the kremlin’s blessing for something like this. One — not Kucherena’s — is already funded and about to launch.

A survey that gives the nation that puts into office a man that got less votes than his opponent top marks as “most free” is the summit of absurdity.

This is no more absurd than a tennis player walking away with a trophy having beaten his opponent 3-6, 6-5, 6-5.

A survey that gives the nation that puts into office a man that got less votes than his opponent top marks as “most free” is the summit of absurdity.

Actually, the above makes the fundamental flaw in thinking that the measure of democracy is a measure of freedom: it isn’t. Democracy is merely the means to ensuring freedom and liberty, not an end in itself. If freedom and liberty can be measured (and I’m not sure they can very accurately), then the nature of the democracy which is bringing about a high score is irrelevant: the goals of the democracy have been met.

I have never understood the finer details of the electoral college system, but I once read an explanation which made reasonable sense to me, and (I think) was justified on the grounds that it protects to some degree against the tyranny of the majority, i.e. furthered the cause of freedom and liberty. So provided that under this system the US results in greater freedom and liberty than places such as Russia with a more simple democratic system, there isn’t much point in complaining about the US system if you accept that freedom is the end and democracy merely the means.

And whether the US is somehow undeserving of a high freedom ranking and Russia has been unfairly treated in this survey, it is hard to judge. But I recall driving across 26 US states in 2000 and even as a foreigner I didn’t need my passport once after I’d left the car rental place. Here even locals need a passport to board a train to the next town. No country can ever be called free on any measure if it doesn’t allow its citizens to move freely about the country, bans them from moving to another city to look for better work, and demands they have to be registered at a fixed address or be treated as bums.

“No country can ever be called free on any measure if it doesn’t allow its citizens to move freely about the country, bans them from moving to another city to look for better work, and demands they have to be registered at a fixed address or be treated as bums.”

Well said, Tim.

Sean, it is clear that in some respects the US now is less free than it used to be. I hope this trend will be reversed, but I’m not sure it will happen. Nonetheless, the US is indeed a remarkably free country when compared to Russia and many many other countries around the globe. To somehow imply that the US is just as bad (or almost as bad) as Russia is just laughable.

I completely agree, Kolya. It’s a mistake to hold Russia to unrealistic standards. But it’s even more of a mistake to accept the Kremlin’s ridiculous “what-about-the-US” defence.

In the UK, where I live, people like me face a harrowing task in trying to prevent the introduction of ID cards. But as an opponent of a major govt policy, I face none of the sanctions or constraints my counterparts in Russia would be confronted with.

To somehow imply that the US is just as bad (or almost as bad) as Russia is just laughable.

Isn’t it just.

sean wrote: “Plus the internal passport system in the Soviet Union didn’t do much to stem movement. People moved. A lot. The only people who were tied to the land were kolkhozniki who didn’t even receive passports until the 1970s (if at all).”

sean, actually, the collective farmers got their passports shortly after khrushev came to power, not in the 70s, as u indicated, when he had long ousted from power. and internal passport regulations in the soviet union were not as benign as some might think. one example of how onerous it was: u could not check into a hotel in the same town u had ur registered domicile. the reception desk clerk would look at the stamp in the back of ur passport, and refuse to check u in if u officially resided in that town. and if a mixed gender twosome wanted to check into the same room, it was the clerk’s sacred duty to make sure they were officially married (for that, another stamp was affixed in of the middle section). vestiges of that r still very much alife in the way russian hotels treat russian and foreign passport holders. for the latter, the price is at least twice what the russian nationals r asked to cough up.

when he had long BEEN ousted from power.

u could not check into a hotel in the same town u had ur registered domicile.

Arkady Renko mentions this in Gorky Park. He asks what good reason would somebody have for staying in a hotel in the town in which he lives. There are probably few answers.

I don’t even know if Russians are refused registration when the move to a new city anymore.

I know at least two Russians who have enormous difficulty getting registered in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, or indeed anywhere else in Russia. One of them is a bloke whose parents sold their apartment and moved elsewhere, leaving him in the place he’d rented for a few years. He is now classed as homeless and cannot renew his driving license, because he merely rents a place and cannot be registered anywhere. The other is a Russian citizen, originally from Bishkek, who is registered in one of our company apartments because she cannot get registration anywhere other than Bishkek.

The system is utterly insane.

To somehow imply that the US is just as bad (or almost as bad) as Russia is just laughable.

I am not implying that. I am saying that if you cannot get it right yourself in the basic fundamentals that you proclaim, then criticising other people does not make you look very smart and certainly gives other countries little reason to imitate you.

The Russian defence “your as bad as we are” is weak but not totally irrelevant. Ask the Pustuns of Afghanistan, the Iraquis or any number of Central and South American victims of US activities whether they think about it. The real test for the United States will come when the Latinos follow the logic of Kosovo and ask to be given independance or union with Mexico. The last time some states decided to secede 600,000 people were killed, as the Chinese Prime Minister pointed out in connection with Taiwan not so long ago.

The Russian defence “your as bad as we are” is weak but not totally irrelevant.

There’s no question that the US and allies have done terrible damage to their credibility internationally. No doubt at all. And it makes pragmatic good sense that Moscow would seek geopolitical advantage from that, including self-justification for unpleasant things done in the name of order, security and sovereignty. But if I want to assess Russia’s political progress, I’m not sure how helpful it is to run through a check list of American failings at the same time.

Anyway — I suspect we’ll have more to discuss today. Edward Lucas has dropped an excerpt from his new book into the Daily Mail.

http://edwardlucas.blogspot.com/2008/01/daily-mail-except-from-new-cold-war.html

It is, umm, vigorous.

Oh. There’s more, in a somewhat similar vein: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TLUQ51NG0H111QFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/opinion/2008/01/19/do1909.xml

And also, regarding the British Council affair, from the Telegraph’s exuberantly right-wing columnist Simon Heffer: “We should have Russia expelled from the G8 and treated like an international pariah, and should have the unequivocal support of other civilised countries in so doing. Our Foreign Secretary should be aware that such behaviour is rather how Hitler and Stalin started, so should stamp on it now.”

New cold war? Well, cold war rhetoric anyway.

Edward Lucas has dropped an excerpt from his new book into the Daily Mail.

http://edwardlucas.blogspot.com/2008/01/daily-mail-except-from-new-cold-war.html

It is, umm, vigorous.

Read it. It’s amazing that the Economist allows such mindless prejudice to ruin their reputation. Who is subbing whom?

Plus I was told that the militsia technically can’t even ask for registration anymore. Does anyone know?

Sean, are you joking? I’ll admit that I haven’t been there since summer ‘06, but I think it was ten years ago that “registration” was ruled unconstitutional. Informed Russians and foreigners have been unsuccessfully arguing the point for those 10 years with militsionery who still demand registration.

Reading Lucas’ article I can agree that he takes the most dour perspective – but I don’t break into sweats over the “Stalinist terror” reference because there was actually such a thing. Showing such sensitivity over the mentioning of such a shameful chapter in Russian history diminishes the real horror endured by millions at that time. Let’s all agree that Russia today is a long way from those days of widespread killing and enslavement.

But I sense a lot of insecurity in the comment section concerning Russia’s dismal placing on the freedom scale. I think some of that has to do with the definition of terms – particularly ‘freedom’. If one defines freedom as “freedom from want,” then a government with its tentacles reaching for every aspect of life seems less threatening because of the promise of security. But that loss of freedom – the loss of free expression for example – is not felt by those who see their government as providing the bread they eat or the jobs they hold. It’s a fair trade. But in the long run, if one believes that living as free as one can is closer to a dignified life than dependence upon a ‘controlled existence’ that eschews bourgeois visions such as liberty, is the potential of the human spirit really allowed to blossom? What glories could one expect from the free Russian?

So I tend to agree with the freedom scale in as much as freedom of expression, robust elections and free market economics tend to facilitate liberty, whereas, as in Russia today, the illusion of such things serve only to mock such things. Maybe ‘controlled liberty’ might be all the heirs of Stalin can endure, but I would hope that rather than diminish such history we would learn from it.

Robert, I was referring to Sean, not to you, when I wrote:

“To somehow imply that the US is just as bad (or almost as bad) as Russia is just laughable.”

I agree with what FH wrote on this. And I have nothing against exposing Western hypocrisy. Another thing, though, is to do the equivalent of what a drunken alcoholic may say to a friend who advises him to temper his drinking: “Why should I, I’ve seen you drink too!”

Sean, you wrote:

“But hell I reject the whole rhetorics of freedom anyway.”

Can you elaborate on that a bit? Keep in mind that I’m no social scientist and have not read many leftist (or rightist) ideological tracts. Incidentally, I’m now reading Critchley’s much maligned “Infinitely Demanding”. I don’t know what to think of it just yet, since I did not yet read the parts many of his fellow leftists and anarchists criticize. If anything, when I glanced ahead I got the impression (perhaps wrongly) that he’s much too deferential to Marxism and Leninism.

‘Finally all this utopian talk of “freedom” rings no different than utopian talk about “socialism.”’

It really is funny, isn’t it.

It’s also really funny how such people seem to believe that “liberal democracy” is some kind of Hegelian telos of history. Do people really believe that “liberal democracy,” a notion that is only a couple of hundred years old (at best), is going to be around in 300 years? It’s a historical eyeblink.

Sean – an eloquent argument in favor of state control. To deconstruct ‘freedom’ as simply the arrogant musings of those who are victims of it, and then compare it to idealism of socialism takes a creative mind indeed. Fascinating!

It is not often that I get to hear those who actually argue against freedom, who dismiss freedom as a meaningless, utopian weapon of the greedy. Apart from the caricature of the American you ridicule so deftly, I think a lot of us have a fairly good understanding about the freedoms we actually have and the importance of idealism in insisting upon the illusive ‘perfect’ form of freedom. No one is deluded about the influences that profit from such things, we just recognize that the price of freedom might mean we must endure things unpalatable to others who would rather not be free. We are not libertines, nor are we communists. The trend in America right now is more government control of the economy and security. Many of us fight against that, but you ought to feel some solace that America is leaning in your direction, no?

I do think that Russia and the US are good for comparison.

Yet you compared them anyway. Useful.

But if you’re a partisan for capitalism then you should realize that the State is your dearest friend.

But who on hear is a cheerleader for capitalism? None that I can see. On the other hand, if you’re a cheerleader for individual freedom and liberty (a concept which you seem to dismiss), then the state is assuredly not your friend. The answer, of course, is a smaller state.

Yikes. An awful lot of poorly defined isms being tossed around here. I guess flag-waving terms like “freedom” have that effect.

Why is this so complicated? Are ordinary people in Russia feeling better about their lives than they were previously? If so, is the improvement sustainable long-term?

My concern is that it is NOT sustainable. The rich-poor gap is excessive. The economy is still unhealthily focused on rent-seeking. The “verticality” of state decision-making is replicated, in miniature, in most companies and organizations. Corruption has been institutionalized and, because everyone assumes the Head of State puts “a little something aside” (as Sean has said), all but legitimized.

There will be a further economic crisis at some stage. Maybe not this year. Maybe five years from now. This is inevitable, because capitalism assumes, and to an extent generates, crises. Whenever the next one happens, the current elite will be held responsible. This will give a rival grouping their opportunity. Win or lose, the upshot will be more chaos.

That’s what this discussion is about – not driver’s licences in the USA and trivial fines for forgetting to send in a form.

Chaos in a place like Russia means fatal consequences, including jail in TB-ridden colonies or being picked up in an unmarked car and shot.

But who on hear is a cheerleader for capitalism?

Sorry. I am. Though I moonlight for the other side from time to time.

Look, if I have to talk about what I call ism-ism (def: a ridiculous need to wear a team sweater on behalf of some half-baked ideology), I am a steadfast advocate of realism. What is, is. I’d like to improve on it. Period.

“Corruption has been institutionalized and, because everyone assumes the Head of State puts “a little something aside” (as Sean has said), all but legitimized.”

But it’s always been like this! Cf. Brezhnev, Leonid.

PS. I don’t asume that it is just Russian leaders doing it (Helmut Kohl, anyone?), or even that all Russian leaders necessarily do. I don’t know if Putin has or not. What I am doing by saying “I wouldn’t be suprised if he did” is known in layman’s terms as “covering my ass,” in case he has.

Curiously, I thought the grasping hand of the state was a danger to a free market system. The reason that corporations spend so much money swaying and shaping the State’s laws is because the state has been shown to be willing to distort its role and dole out advantages through the bullying of government. Corporations are not doing so to undermine themselves or their profit, actually it’s quite the opposite. They look for unfair advantage by using the state to throttle their competitors. How predictably human!

My only point is that for all the ‘ism’s’ we use, nowhere is there a perfect practice of them. Theory remains on the page and practice proves that the nature of man mocks perfection. Russia, with its political and cultural history, is different than America or any other country, and its certainly foolish to think they would do things as we would. But we can hope that when they decide to move their feet, it’s in the direction of more freedom, not less.

Then I wonder why I was issued a traffic ticket and a fine for not having the correct address on my CA drivers license a few years ago.

Sean, you are confusing a voluntary program having certain rules with a mandatory one. You do not have to have a drivers license.

Plus the internal passport system in the Soviet Union didn’t do much to stem movement. People moved.

Unless you wanted to move into a restricted city like Moscow or Leningrad. When I moved to Moscow in 1983 militsia would not give me propiska without a valid reason (marriage or a job transfer.) I do not know about other places.

Plus its easy to scam registration anyway.
I do not think that getting under a radar or scamming the system is one of the criteria that Freedom House or anyone could seriously use to determine how free a society is.

The real test for the United States will come when the Latinos follow the logic of Kosovo and ask to be given independence or union with Mexico.

Sure, and it is hardly unlikely this will happen any time soon. Kosovars will not loose much when separated from Serbia, just like Abkhasians would not loose much by splitting away from Georgia. Splitting California away from US presupposes that Mexico has developed enough to even consider such an action. After all Latino immigrants are in the US because US quite a bit better then where they came from. Not like Abkhasians that lived there for a while or Kosovars that migrated to a place many Serbs vacated.

There’s no question that the US and allies have done terrible damage to their credibility internationally. No doubt at all.

International credibility is no different from political capital. I am not a fan of Nixon by any stretch but he had it right: one can’t invest it in a bank. It must be spent. It all depends on how wise or foolish the current spending turns out to be. For now it is only an emotional assessment. Results will come much much later.

My view comes from the idea that every economic system has a corresponding ideology that supports, maintains, and reproduces that system.

Extend that view and add the concept of progress to it and it all fits. This argument is fascinating for a linguist since it uses conflicting definitions or rather concepts. Democracy is different from its implementation. Form and content are not the same. Elections in Pakistan do not make Pakistan a democracy. Democracy is a concept of popular governance. How it is implemented depends on economic system that determines who can participate in it from a very limited democracy of Athens to expanded one of roman Republic through Novgorod, Venice and all the way to universal suffrage. Every time additional wealth is created it trickles down and eventually lifts people upwards on the economic scale. These classes/social groups then begin demanding more rights and popular governance expands.

Cultural, religious, social, clannish and economic coercion on the other hand all limit implementation of democracy. Bhutto had never been a liberal democrat, a Thomas Jefferson in a hijab she has been recently portrayed as. She was a leader of a clan and she owned her party (another misnomer) that had no problems with (democratically of course) anointing her son as their leader. Just an example.
Freedom is another thing that is being tossed around mindlessly (elsewhere, not on this blog, mind you…) To me freedom is a function of choice – both legal and real, political as well as economic. A country with state monopolies is to me less free then a country that allows consumer choice of phone carriers, energy suppliers and such. Has Russia improved on this since the days of the USSR? Absolutely and on every damn front. Naturally to classify it at the same level as the USSR is inappropriate.

Getting back to progress, implementations of democracy seem to follow expansions of individual property rights thus making capitalism suited for freedom (choices) and democracy (rights to participate in governance) the best.

I’d second FH, I am a cheerleader for capitalism as well.

Not at all. You can use your passport or DMV can actully issue you are non driver ID. Besides, you are engaging in a regulated activity you choose to participate in – driving on a public road. Highway Patrol would not pull you over and issue you a citation if you are not driving. Apples and beets.

International credibility is no different from political capital. I am not a fan of Nixon by any stretch but he had it right: one can’t invest it in a bank. It must be spent. It all depends on how wise or foolish the current spending turns out to be. For now it is only an emotional assessment. Results will come much much later.

There are real results that have happened and are happening as a result of our political leaders “spending their political capital”. You can hope that time will continue to put a shine on that turd, but the results are here and now, with the death of civilians in Iraq and the condition under which people must live.

To say the results only come later is arrogant and insulting to those people who have lived through a disastrous foreign policy that our current President is attempting to salvage. Your ignoring short-term consequences and emphasizing long-term consequences, hoping that justifies your apparent point of view. End justifies the means.

As you like to speak in terms of “political capital” I’ll express it in gambling financial terms. He’s in debt to the house with his political capital, and gambling that he can win back some of his losses before his marker is called.

Besides, you are engaging in a regulated activity you choose to participate in – driving on a public road.

If you believe that driving is “voluntary” in the US, you are truly a buffoon. It is very difficult to almost impossible to hold a professional job in this country without the expectation of having a car. In fact, even many more menial jobs require you to fill out an application form indicating you have a reliable form of transportation (i.e. a car so you can come into work on short notice).

I can say that Katja was absolutely miserable when she was forced to utilize our laughable “public transportation system”. She was forced to depart for her job 2 hours early, due to the light bus schedule and I actually picked her up after work or she would have had a similar wait after completing her job. Yes, she could have opted for a taxi, but that would have cost approximately 1/6 of her wages after taxes each day.

“If you believe that driving is “voluntary” in the US, you are truly a buffoon.”

Hey, that’s an overstatement as well as an insult. It all depends on your lifestyle (including your choice of community). I know several adults in the US who don’t have driver’s licenses simply because they don’t want to. Peculiar? Yes. But it’s definitely doable.

One of them is my brother-in-law, a successful freelance programmer, a computer geek in his 50s, an avid walker and bicyclists. His license expired over twenty years ago and he never bothered to renew it. He hates cars and he always hated driving. Another friend, a professional in his forties, also let his license expire years ago. He says he does not miss it. A third friend is in his mid-thirties and he never carries any id and does not even have a bank account. A great guy who moves everywhere on his bicycle. For him it’s a matter of trying to try to life as much as possible according to his beliefs (he’s a green anarchist). These guys purposefully chose to lead lifestyles that do not necessitate a driver’s license.

So when there are states like Russia who don’t allow multinational corporations to rape their country without condition, they make the human rights violations that the Russian state commits as a way to demonize them.

Sean, I’m on board for the argument regarding liberal democracy as the ideology of late capitalism, though I think your argument as phrased here may be slightly deterministic (I give perhaps more space to the autonomy of ideas). But I’m not sure you need to deploy the “rape” of a country’s honor trope here. It just feeds that strand of virulent nationalism that is completely unnecessary.

By the way, sorry I missed you in LA. Two weeks in America was not enough to fit in everything I wanted to do.

To all, I have to say that these on-going debates in the comments section (when they don’t turn into the bizarre all-night nose-thumbing) are always fascinating. Thanks.

‘“If you believe that driving is “voluntary” in the US, you are truly a buffoon.”’

It depend where you are. In Los Angelos yes — in Manhattan no.

It depend where you are. In Los Angelos yes — in Manhattan no.

Evidence is to the contrary, considering the number of cars in Manhattan. No doubt, there is more public transportation in NYC. So that 3% of the US population – they can theoretically opt out.

But the reality is, you still need a car to do any number of things or visit.

As to Kolya’s assertion – with extraordinary effort, you can find a way or a situation to live without a car in the US. It is still so close to mandatory as to be virtually so. People build cabins in the woods without electricity or indoor plumbing also – it doesn’t mean it is a viable lifestyle.

I remain firm on this – and in fact will reiterate that many jobs, if not the majority of them, will not hire you without a drivers license.

You also can’t complete required federal forms at the start of employment without certain forms of identification (driver’s license being the dominant requirement). You could complete that with a passport, but vast majority of Americans (93 to 80% depending on whose data you use) truly don’t have passports.

There are huge numbers of cars in Moscow, Paris, and London too, and they have great public transportation.

In general though you are right. In San Diego it took me 2 hours to get to work using public transportation.

W. Shedd, I disagree with you. It does *not* take “extraordinary effort, to find a way or a situation to live without a car in the US.” Otherwise, why do I know people who neither have cars nor driver licences? We probably move in different circles and, yes, my green anarchist friend (who lives in DC) is an extreme case, but not the other people I know. I agree that it is not common, but it is certainly doable if, for one reason or another, that’s your strong preference.

Although it was not directed at me, I primarily objected to your insulting overstatement: “If you believe that driving is “voluntary” in the US, you are truly a buffoon.”

Incidentally, when I lived in NYC (for a couple of years) I ended up selling my car (which I bought in Colorado) because it was such a pain to deal with.

You can do it in DC (I did), though it can be a pain. DC is very small though and has a good public transportation system by US standards. It must be a nightmare to not have a car in LA.

Kolya – I don’t know what to tell you, you really haven’t offered a convincing argument, just a group of hippy friends in Vermont (my friends and family in Vermont are in this category as well). That is really just a fraction of the US population.

I have a former room-mate who doesn’t own a car and rides a mountain bike everywhere. I’ll still see him sometimes riding around the area. He spends hours just accomplishing daily tasks that take minutes for most other people. He suffers numerous consequences as a result – everything from credit difficulties due to never having a car loan, to additional difficulties and hassles registering to vote. Most people can’t and don’t put up with those hassles. He still has to get a taxi or know a friend with a pick-up truck for many tasks.

In many situations, you can’t accomplish living without a car or license at all. Period. For example, God help you if you have kids and don’t have a car in America. You’ll be begging and borrowing a ride to every school or sporting event from about the age of 6 to 16.

Oh wait, your friends probably home-school, right?

I just don’t think you can cite those few people who make extraordinary efforts to not use a car as proof or practical evidence that driving is in essence, not voluntary for the vast majority of Americans. We have developed our entire infrastructure around the automobile, to the extent that life is very difficult without a car and driver’s license. To argue otherwise is to be a contrarian buffoon – just as I cited.

Don’t forget the social importance of having a car! In many social circles, not having a car = member of the rabble.

W. Shedd, once again, the only reason I sent that comment was because I found that this: “If you believe that driving is “voluntary” in the US, you are truly a buffoon”, is an overstatement.

I have no objections to what Sean or Chris wrote about it because they were much more nuanced. In other words, if for whatever reason you don’t want to have a car in the US or have a drivers license you can indeed live such a life and still be “successful”. Yes, that probably means that you have to live in certain communities (like NYC, DC, San Francisco, Portland, and many others) in which that’s possible. As I wrote, when I lived in NYC I sold my car because I didn’t need it.

As you noted, I live in Vermont and compared to, say, Nebraska, there are more people here with “alternative lifestyles”. But that is one of the points: it is possible to choose such a lifestyle. If you are sufficiently committed to a certain lifestyle, it makes sense to move to a place where such lifestyle is possible.

By the way, none of the people I used as examples live in Vermont. One lives in DC, my brother-in-law lives in Pittsburgh, and the third one lives somewhere in South Carolina. Of these three, only my DC friend does it for ideological reasons, the other two simply hate cars and driving. Compared to a typical American these last two may be peculiar, but they certainly did not go through any extraordinary effort.

Fascinating. This exchange really brings the concept of “freedom” down to earth, doesn’t it? For many — certainly in the US, and I bet in Russia too — car ownership IS freedom.

For what it’s worth, I despise the things and would love to have ‘em banned from where I live now (London). I had one in DC but not in NYC. For a time, 15 years ago, I was the proud owner of a tiny blue Tavria in Moscow but my foot went through the floorboard at some point and I had to junk it. Worst car I’ve ever had, by far, but it did feel liberating at the time. (Esp as the GAI tended not to bother me.)

It is telling how this discussion turned. The original claim that the USSR’s propiska was little different from requirement to have a valid and current address on drivers’ licences has been conveniently catapulted into a proxy you can’t live in US without a car. Whether it is possible to live without a car in the US is just as immaterial as a potential claim that having to pay for electric power is just as oppressive as being forced to obey propiska restrictions. Somehow a desire for convenience becomes almost equal to state dictate of where one can and can no reside.

Yes, we do not live in vacuum, but we also make decisions based on a pattern of life we choose for ourselves and it is hardly unlikely that people can cherry pick everything. You want to live in the vast plains away from city life, then your chances of doing it without a car are slim unless all you want to do is sit in a Montana cabin and send out mail bombs. But you can choose to live in Seattle like my daughter and not to have a car.

Driving a car is still a voluntary action. The state does not compel you to do it. Your lifestyle or your role expectations might force you to, but it is not the state that does it. For all I care someone still has a choice to move to South Africa and become a bush bum working in a game preserve. Or move to Santa Cruz where I live, bike to surf when its up and bike to your bus boy job at night. Chris here does not need to have US driver license with a valid current address. He can safely avoid CHP traffic fines by driving in Moscow. I could not ignore Soviet propiska and move to the US in kind. That choice was not available.

As for Shedd’s comment, thanks Kolya, but Mr. Shedd here had illustrated on numerous occasions a propensity to take disagreements personal so much so that now if my views insult him, I am inclined to take it as a compliment.