Originally Posted by shDK
It is a major misunderstanding that you receive anything from the state simply because you don't wan't to work. It simply doesn't work that way. If the state believe you can work. You will be forced to work for your social welfare.
I believe you are right about the stereotype's flooding the media on both sides. Won't say that European Media is any better Them the US.
We often hear that we are less free then you people in the US. Please tell me. Besides the right to buy weapons. Where are my freedom more restricted then yours ? What is it you are free to do, that I am not ?
I would say that voting turnout it a very good way to judge a democracy. If almost half the people who can vote chose not to, or are simply to lazy. You have a bit of a problem.
Touching on my European past experiences, having lived in the UK for a very long time, I have seen firsthand an influx of immigrants who have simply immigrated for economic reasons. Individuals, who have no intention of assimilation, or even learning the language, let alone calling themselves "British" after naturalization. They have brought about with them their culture, their language and the expectation that the native inhabitants of the nation will assimilate to them instead. These individuals then go on to tax the welfare system of the country - unemployment benefits, housing, education, you name it, without contribution and even after naturalization. I have, for quite some time, worked as a professional interpreter in this line of work and have pretty much "seen it all". At one point in time, it was considered shameful to be on government assistance, but boy have times changed.
This, unfortunately, isn't any different in the United States. But it isn't just immigrants, legal or illegal. Instead of trying to better themselves or look for opportunities to get off government aid, certain individuals who may be natives, have no intentions of ever bettering their lives and instead, consider handouts to be a sufficient form of income to make a living, if you even call it that. Restricted welfare, e.g. eligibility for government assistance restricted to three months, after which you have to find a job and are on your own, may be one school of thought. But I personally do have a problem with people attempting to live off taxpayer's contributions, who work hard and long hours to make their living.
I believe what we have moved onto here is a comparison of different cultures and perspectives, and have gone way off topic. Every nation has evolved differently and will have their own set of values accustomed to throughout their own history. What one considers freedom might not be freedom to another. Take, for example, the rights of women to vote in Persian Gulf states. To women in that region, that is a freedom, but taken for granted in Europe or North America, where women have been voting for a very long time.
Having said that, America was founded on individualism; rights are individual, not collective.
As an example, access to healthcare may be considered a right by many, just as the right to free speech, but that right is rationed, controlled and managed by the government in countries where universal health care is the norm. It is dependent on several factors such as one's age, one's health and obviously cost. But if it is rationed, which means a fixed amount of it is dispensed to each individual, how can it be a right? Do we do the same with free speech, or the right to bear arms as you have brought up? Should the government decide on your behalf where and when you should have access to your firearm or what type of firearm you can have, and whether or not you keep it loaded? In short, these are collective, which subjects them to ration, control and restrictions by the government.
Some consider it a right to have income and to redistribute it to benefit the "weak", a right to education as the government deems fit or the right to parenting, so long as it fits a certain set of "ideals". To an individualist, these lead to you giving up your personal liberty and freedom to the government.
An individualist believes in less government interference and regulation, but more liberty to the individual. Moreover, natural rights as given by God, untouchable by the government or other bodies. Rights are not collective or depended on a "common good". Rights are unalienable, and cannot be deprived from an individual. You will find this is something many Americans feel very strongly about.