> Those two things, gun culture and death penalties, are massive.
I oppose both, but some things are more important than personal safety.
> The constitution is not an effective check on federal power; the commerce clause seems to have magical capabilities.
The constitution is in many ways an effective check on all levels of government, but not in all matters. Arguing about the commerce clause is very bizarre, however -- I have to think you don't understand what it's been used for if you're dragging this into a discussion of basic rights.
> asserted the authority to unilaterally assassinate US citizens without a trial
I suggest reviewing the SAS's conduct in Northern Ireland.
> At least RIPA creates legal justification for intelligence monitoring of communications. The US executive appeared to just unilaterally appropriate that capability with retroactive immunity.
The fact that warrantless surveillance had to be done in secret is exactly the point. I prefer a country where such evil must be carried out covertly to one in which it is openly accepted.
> I oppose both, but some things are more important than personal safety.
I'm sure I could be very "free" in the anarchy of Somalia, but without safety, effective freedoms are very limited. Quite a lot of government tyranny is needed to create a space for freedom to begin with. A social safety net, subsidized or free college education, socialized medicine (whether through public or universal private coverage), etc.; I consider some of these things fundamental to living a life of freedom rather than fear.
> Arguing about the commerce clause is very bizarre, however -- I have to think you don't understand what it's been used for if you're dragging this into a discussion of basic rights.
Gonzales v. Raich, for example.
> I suggest reviewing the SAS's conduct in Northern Ireland.
I'm not aware of the British prime minister ever standing up in the Commons and effectively announcing the right to kill UK citizens. Government wrongdoing, particularly by security services, are ten a penny in most large states, IMO. These days, in the western world, it's usually governments succumbing to US arm-twisting.
I understand that you're invested in defending the US. I, however, don't have a particularly strong motivation to defend the UK; I'm not a UK citizen, I've just lived here for a few years. I'm not interested in attacking the US in this argument. I'm just saying that, as a practical matter, I feel more free, and less afraid of the state, in the UK than I do in the US - and I work for a US company and visit the US multiple times every year for weeks at a time.
(If I wanted to attack Parliament's involvement in Ireland, I'd rather point to Cromwell. But those days are past.)
> I prefer a country where such evil must be carried out covertly to one in which it is openly accepted.
If this is your true position, be aware that you have not chosen one of a dichotomy; you have in fact chosen a superset of tyranny. Not just evil acts; but covert evil acts.
But, of course, the UK has committed its own share of covert evil acts. I don't think it's ever been caught running a network of secret prisons in modern times, though.
You're reading a lot more into my statements than what is there. I loathe my country and would leave it in a heartbeat were it practical -- but not for the UK.
I oppose both, but some things are more important than personal safety.
> The constitution is not an effective check on federal power; the commerce clause seems to have magical capabilities.
The constitution is in many ways an effective check on all levels of government, but not in all matters. Arguing about the commerce clause is very bizarre, however -- I have to think you don't understand what it's been used for if you're dragging this into a discussion of basic rights.
> asserted the authority to unilaterally assassinate US citizens without a trial
I suggest reviewing the SAS's conduct in Northern Ireland.
> At least RIPA creates legal justification for intelligence monitoring of communications. The US executive appeared to just unilaterally appropriate that capability with retroactive immunity.
The fact that warrantless surveillance had to be done in secret is exactly the point. I prefer a country where such evil must be carried out covertly to one in which it is openly accepted.