Humanities desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 10

Fact check on Supreme Court case Berghuis v. Thompkins

Resolved

The "Associate justices" listed in the infobox as dissenting include Justice David Souter, whose name is not listed in support of the ruling or dissent. The dissent was by Justice Sonia Sotomayor whose name is omitted from the list of associate justices.

Can someone check this and comment/clarify at Talk:Berghuis v. Thompkins? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It was a template code error which listed the justices before Souter's retirement. —Kevin Myers 06:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates and Scots Accents... What Gives?

Ok, it seems to me that in every cartoon and movie that involves pirates, the swashbuckling buccaneers are talking with pronounced Scottish accents! Who started this stereotype or where did it start? And why? Perhaps just one pirate had a Scottish accent and then caused some one to think that all pirates did, I don't know! If you can come up with some sort of answer, that would be nice! Thanks! Stripey the crab (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought they were West Country accents and assumed it was because there is a strong seafaring tradition in that part of the country. The coves and rocky cliffs of Devon and Cornwall were ideal for smuggling and wreckers, so there was also a belief of some lawlessness asociated with sailing. I don't think I've ever heard a Scottish-accented pirate on screen.

(ec) The stereotypical pirate accent (supposedly originated by Robert Newton) is actually based on the the English West Country accent. What makes you think it's Scottish? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to weigh in here and say that most pirates would have been from the West Country, hence had the appropriate accent. I know there were several noted Irish pirates, but I cannot think of a celebrated Scottish pirate off the top of my head.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Kidd was Scottish (and wouldn't you know it, we have Category:Scottish pirates). But yeah, "oo arr Jim lad" is West Country. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the stereotypical pirate accent is West Country. As an American, I can say that Americans often do not recognize or accurately distinguish the various British accents. If the questioner is American, he/she may have heard the accent, perceived that it is British but not a "typical English" (i.e., RP or Estuary) accent, noticed that it is rhotic, and concluded that it must be Scottish. Marco polo (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I had totally forgotten about Captain Kidd. Despite them both being rhotic, there is a big difference between a West Country accent and and a Scots. If one wishes to hear lovely West Country accents they should get a copy of the 1967 film Far From the Madding Crowd starring Julie Christie and Terence Stamp.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When my niece was about 6 years old, we visited the ancestral haunts in Cornwall and stopped in the beer garden of a pub. The barmaid brought out our lunch with a cheery "Alroight moi luvvers?" My niece said loudly; "Why does everybody talk like pirates here?". Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. By the way, if I recall correctly, the animated pirates singing during Disneyland's famous Pirates of the Caribbean ride (US meaning!), had West Country accents. "Yo ho yo ho......"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on International Talk Like a Pirate Day and Pirates in popular culture have some information confirming what respondents have been saying here. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to hear eastern Brits, who drop the "r", try to talk like a pirate with the exaggerated "r". I would expect that trained actors such as Hugh Laurie can, but I'm not sure every citizen could. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? What an odd thing to say. I speak a non-rhotic, south-east England, accent, and it's pretty easy to add "r"s when I pretend to be a pirate. Or pretend to be American. Or pretend to be Scottish. And I'm rubbish at accents. It's not like my accent lacks the "r" sound; we just don't use it in many of the places that rhotic accents do. And I know where those places are, since I've been exposed to loads of rhotic accents IRL and in media. (And because I can spell, and because the 'dropped' "r" re-emerges in some contexts, but the former would require more thought and the latter is unreliable because of the intrusive r, among other things) 86.164.69.239 (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to get them in the right place, 86, but not everybody does. I was in a production of Cider with Rosie in Halifax last year, and the cast hd varying degrees of success at West Country accents; but I noticed that even the ones that got most of it right still had a tendency to say "mar" (with an R) for "Ma". The problem is that the vast majority of occurrences of that vowel in non-rhotic English are cases where rhotics pronounce and 'r', and it is easy to get the exceptions wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Kidd, like most folks who move to New York when they are five, counts here as a New Yorker. But who knew about Robert Newton inventing piratespeak? or International Talk Like a Pirate Day? well done!--22:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In Buffy the Vampire Slayer. there was an episode (Goodbye Iowa) wherein Spike (a Brit vampire played by an American actor) whose normal speech was nonrhotic, wished to persuade soldiers/bad guys that he was an American. He suddenly added "rs" to the point that he sounded like a pirate: "I'm just a friend of Xandarrr's." Similarly, in real life, a British girl in the US was telling someone her name, and the hearer repeated the name as "Watahouse?" whereupon the Brit girl, hyper-rhotically said "Waterrrhouse!" because it annoyed her to hear Americans pronounce it non-rhotically. It seems easy for Brits to be rhotic when they want to be. Edison (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AndrewWTaylor's response is the one I've heard told: One of the oldest film pirates (played by Robert Newton) was played with a West Country accent, because they wanted something distinctive, and others followed suit until the origin was lost to most people. Steewi (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger and poverty

How come world hunger is increasing (from some 800m to 1bn the last five years according to FAO) while extreme poverty is decreasing (from 1.4bn in 2005 to 1.2bn in 2009 according to the World Bank)? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely explanation is the increase in food prices. Also, I believe that poverty as measured by the World Bank and other statistical agencies does not take into account food raised by subsistence farmers for their own consumption, which could allow people in extreme poverty to avoid hunger. There is a steady trend in many countries working against this kind of subsistence farming, as tenant farmers are evicted by property owners who choose mechanization or by lenders taking land as collateral for unpaid debts. These redundant farmers often move to cities where their cash income (from casual labor or other economic activity in the informal sector) rises, but it does not rise high enough to cover the market cost of a healthy diet. Marco polo (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organ action

I've read pipe organ and tracker action and still don't get it... A single press of a key must open valves into (at times) dozens of tubes, some of them quite big and wide. These must be quite large valves, right? How can an organist engage them all with a single finger pressing a key?

Isn't it like trying to stop a truck with the vacuum servo dead? How did they overcome inertia of the valve, friction in the gears and wires etc.? East of Borschov (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Disadvantages of tracker action" section says that it does take a lot of force to press a key at times. I think the answer to your question is just "with effort". The article also says that the really big, loud, high-pressure organs of the romantic period used tubular-pneumatic action to overcome this problem. 213.122.45.16 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want keys that take some effort to press, try the low notes on a carillon. Rmhermen (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

generation

is it scientific to divide demographic history into generations List of generations and conclude a common trait? Lifestyle varies from individual to individual. May be technological advancement has some effects on the attitude of a particular generation. Say 1970s people were certainly not habituated communicating with a long distance friend through facebook. But all it depends on other factor like political orientation, economic status also. Is not it? For example an LGBT activist born in the 1950s supported LGBT rights, but conservative born in the 1990s may still oppose LGBT rights. So is it scientific to classify generation? --Socilogisto (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to a certain extent as the teenager living in the early to mid-1970s (myself) for example would have likely spent long hours chatting to his or her friends through the medium of the telephone in lieu of Facebook, we also had our own stereos which we listened to as well as FM radio. The late 70s shifted to the disco scene. (Remember this is from an American perspective). Prior to that the kids in the 1960s would have grown up with the television, the 1980s was the MTV generation, the 1990s saw the advent of the mobile phone and Internet. All these changes in technology would affect each new generation, making their attitudes and habits different from the preceding one.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "scientific" and on how the division into generations is being used. It seems a fair hypothesis that people who were roughly the same age in the same cultural environment might have similar tendencies in areas such as aesthetics, values, and so on. However, to handle this hypothesis scientifically, you would need to test the hypothesis empirically using cross-generational surveys or the like to determine whether in fact similarities within a given generation distinguish it from other generations. Science requires that everything be tested carefully. A danger with the use of generations as a sociological tool is that of reification. For example, the US Census defines the Baby Boom Generation to include everyone born between the years 1946 and 1964. If you do cross-generational surveys, you will find that this cohort shares certain attributes. It is tempting then to say that everyone born between these two dates forms part of a coherent group with a collective identity. However, I was born in the United States in 1962, near the tail end of this cohort as defined by the Census Bureau, and many of the attributes associated with Baby Boomers do not apply to me or others born around the same time. We have some Baby Boomer attributes and actually more of the attributes associated with the so-called Generation X. These lists of attributes are artifacts of the rather arbitrarily drawn boundary dates for these so-called generations. For example, you could put me and my peers at the center of a generation (let's call it the Lost Generation) encompassing everyone born between 1958 and 1974 and find, lo and behold, that we share a list of attributes different from the generations born before and after us. Then there is the tremendous variation within each generation along racial, religious, and other lines. So it is best not to give too much importance to these groupings. Marco polo (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's scientific, but it's not algorithmic. Human behavior is complex: it's possible to identify general classes and trends, but there is always a degree of variability within groups that makes absolute conclusions impossible. for instance, generational cohorts (which is what you are talking about) aqre clearly identifiable, since people raised in a given time frame are all broadly influenced by the same socio-cultural factors, but generational cohorts vary internally according to ethnicity, social status, nationality and location, and etc. for instance, the 1960's generational cohort (meaning the people who were coming into adulthood in the 1960s) were all deeply influenced by the aftermath of world war II, but how this influence manifested varied: it was experienced one way by upscale white US citizens (who either embraced or became disaffected with smug prosperity), another way by black Americans (still excluded from the prosperity and equality experienced by others), another way by Europeans (steeped in the physical and economic recovery from the devastations of the war), different ways by the Russians (raised under Stalinism) and the Japanese (raised in an occupied empire). --Ludwigs2 16:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the double impact that the Kennedy assassination and Vietnam War had on the youth and even children in the 1960s. There was a drastic change in attitudes towards government, family, authority figures. For the first time in history there was a noticible generation gap which effectively excluded people born roughly before 1935.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} That the term "generation gap" originated in the 1960s does not mean the effect originated in the 1960s. — Lomn 16:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite another period in recorded history when there was such a flagrant celebration of youth and the culture it spawned? The 1920s came close, but not quite.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne boleyn, you're the one who made the assertion "for the first time in history...", so it's appropriate for Lomn to have called you out for not citing a reference. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lomn, "generation gap" was popularised in the 1960s, but it has earlier origins - for example, Robert Graves uses the phrase in his 1929 work Goodbye to All That. Warofdreams talk 10:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)First time in history? What about the gap between those born to late to be born into slavery and those who were freed slaves? What about the gap between those who were born after the advent of world exploration on a round world and those who were raised to think that only very special people ever venture more than about 50 miles from your birthplace? Every major event in history has the effect of being something new to the older generation but something common to the younger generation. The 60s is not the first time that a pointless draft was in place or an assassination took place. Just in the U.S., you can look at the Civil War and Lincoln's assassination. -- kainaw ™ 16:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tendency by the media to group things together and then make declarations about them that may be false or misleading. Most of us in the 1960s did not take recreational drugs or participate in anti-war protests, so we weren't interesting to the media. Farther back, most Americans obeyed the Prohibition laws, but the media were more interested in the ones who did not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for refs, well here's this one: Generation gap and I found this: Maguire Online: The Life and Times of Ed Sullivan, Chapter Sixteen, "The Generation Gap". I found this line here that says (they were discussing Jim Morrison's mythical appearance on the show) "this was when the culture itself erupted into a generational divisiveness never before seen in American history".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. That says "American history", and you said "in history". 2. He said the divisiveness was unprecedented, but you claimed the 1960s hosted the first noticeable generation gap. 3. So you have found some guy who made this claim. Is it a reputable source? A biographer of Ed Sullivan? You know that here on the Reference Desk we are very pedantic and suspicious of anything that sounds at all like exaggeration. Claiming that there was no noticeable generation gap before the 1960s is silly. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That states that the 60s had the widest generation gap in American history. Do you have a ref that the 60s was the first time there was a noticeable generation gap in all of history (not just American history)? I find it hard to believe that never in history had there been a generation gap of any kind before the 60s. -- kainaw ™ 16:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have always been generations gaps in all cultures and nations throughout history; but these two articles explain the overwhelming cultural gap between the generations that existed in 1960s-and not just America! See Counterculture of the 1960s and 1960s--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and I'll generally agree with that. But it's a far cry from "never before in history", and still well removed from even claiming "the widest gap in [American|world] history". There was a significant generation gap. Agreed. — Lomn 18:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USA first time homebuuyer $8,000 tax credit

I was wondering, in the provision that requires you to live in the house you just purchased for 3 years, are there exceptions for active duty military, because they are required by the government to relocate, often in shorter spans then 3 years. Googlemeister (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with other legal issues, you should consult with an appropriate professional for specific circumstances. However, the National Association of Home Builders has a page up on special rules for service members. Note, of course, both the potential conflict of interest and the extensive legal disclaimer. — Lomn 16:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian nationality law

Pls i want to get more insight on the citizenship by birth of India, paterning to the article written on this website. thanks.41.138.170.249 (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Indian nationality law#Citizenship by Birth gives a short but specific definition, and other categories of citizenship, along with their criteria, are listed straight after it. Was there some particular part of the rules you wanted to know more about? Ka renjc 20:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US/UK Relations

Could the US & UK under current treaties ever fight on opposite sides of a conflict? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the two have a nonaggression pact. They are both members of NATO, but conflicts between NATO members are not unknown. It is difficult to imagine a conflict between the two as long as both continue their participation in the UK–USA Security Agreement. That agreement would surely be jettisoned by one or both parties in the event of a military conflict. Could they ever fight on opposite sides of a conflict? Why not? It is virtually inconceivable in the near future, but we can't know how the future might unfold. Would existing treaties prevent such a conflict? Certainly not. Former allies have suspended ties and waged war against each other many times in the past. Marco polo (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with "under current treaties, no." Per the US State Department, the US and UK are presently bound by both the Treaty of Paris (1783) (fun trivia fact: only Article 1 still remains in force) and the Treaty of Ghent, the latter of which specifies that:

There shall be a firm and universal Peace between His Britannic Majesty and the United States, and between their respective Countries, Territories, Cities, Towns, and People of every degree without exception of places or persons. All hostilities both by sea and land shall cease as soon as this Treaty shall have been ratified by both parties as hereinafter mentioned.

...and then there are all the various mutual defense treaties and such. But at a minimum, the two peace treaties in force prohibit the US and UK from taking up arms against one another. — Lomn 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't last long. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Treaty of Ghent states "All hostilities both by sea and land shall cease as soon as this Treaty shall have been ratified by both parties as hereinafter mentioned." How does that prohibit an airborne conflict? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There shall be a universal peace... without exception". How does that allow an airborne conflict? Or a space conflict? Or a cyber conflict? The second sentence is provided to note that the provisions of the first are already in effect, ca. 195 years ago. — Lomn 20:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physically, yes. Is it likely? No, not at all.--92.251.252.236 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can't imagine that in the near future that either of the two countries could afford to fight each other. We do have a massive number of economic and political ties between us, unless I am severely mistaken. Falconus^{p t c} 01:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In world politics, Britain might have wound up allied with Germany or Japan, opposing the U.S., in the judgment of US military planners of the early 20th century. The US had War Plan Red for fighting The UK (and Canada) in effect until 1939. If Hitler had conquered the UK as he did France, then it would have been necessary for the US to invade Canada and occupy ports to prevent British reinforcements from arriving. Edison (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the US continued to care (well maybe not so much cared, but could do anything) about what happened in Europe at that point. Launching an invasion from the UK to France is ten thousand times easier in terms of logistics then launching an invasion of France from Boston. Googlemeister (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just hope the BP oil spill row[1] doesn't get out of hand! Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Kansas a 1-party consent state?

You see, I'm thinking of recording video on a cameraphone during a job interview while it's hidden in my pocket. This is so I can get a job readiness coach at a Workforce Center or Holtz Hall at K-State to critique my interview performance and tell me how I could improve.

However, if I'm in a 2-party consent state, I would have to obtain permission beforehand. I believe I tried Googling for list of states by party consent but didn't have any luck. Therefore, could you please help me here? Thanks in advance. --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 18:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under what circumstances does the consent law figure into it? If you're only recording it for your own use, "to see how you did", and not to use that against the interviewer in some way, I don't see why it would matter. However, it might be best to inform the interviewer, so that both of you can play to the video camera, and not just yourself. Also, if you're actually intent on getting a job at that organization, being sneaky in your very first encounter with them is not a good start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bugs that recording your job interview without their consent is dishonest, and I'd fire you if I was the hiring manager and I ever found out. If you have access to a job readiness coach, why don't you just have the coach perform a job interview with you, so he can give pertinent feedback right away? Now, how about a reference? Without giving legal advice on whether you're going to be allowed to do this in Kansas, I found this statute which makes it a misdemeanor to do certain things with a hidden camera. I don't know if Kansas has any other laws on the books about hidden camera activities. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as bugs points out, legal consent only matters if it becomes a matter of law - e.g., if you try to use the recording in a lawsuit, for public presentation, for blackmail, or etc. you can record anything you like for your own personal use, and only need to worry about ethical considerations (since other people do not, as a rule, like being surreptitiously recorded, and will hold a grudge if they catch you at it), or the possible legal ramifications if the recording gets out of your control (e.g., if you record this interview and give it to your employment coach, and s/he posts it on their company website, you might be liable for damages if the interviewer or his company decides to sue). --Ludwigs2 21:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. You are speaking very broadly and with certainty, but I'm pretty sure you're not familiar with the laws of every country and state in the world. Cite references, please. If you troubled to read the Kansas link I posted above, you'll see it's a misdemeanor to make certain recordings, even if they are for personal use. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are websites directed towards reporters that exist that detail which states are multi-party recording consent states and link to the statutes. Try looking at [2] who provides "free legal assistance to journalists." Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree Ludwigs2 claims is way too broad. Because of the rise of small easily hideable cameras (and mobile phones cameras) NZ has a law against "Intimate covert filming" [3]. While it obviously won't apply in the OP's case because it's unlikely there will be anything 'intimate' in the interview room, it does make it a crime to do so even without an intention to publish or use the material for any way but for personal use as I suspect it was for e.g. [4] [5] [6] and many similar people. I'm quite sure NZ isn't the only country (the earlier ref mentions other countries including the US as does [7] [8]) with such laws and I believe other laws could have applied before the specific law (it was made to provide a clear legal framework). While I suspect no country will specifically forbid what the OP is describing, this is just a hunch; and it's obviously possible there will be some laws (having established that it being for personal use is not guaranteed to mean it's okay) particularly since there's likely to be an expectation of privacy in an interview room. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is absolutely no way you can time your interview so you get ANY sleep in the preceding 36 hours, I can't fault you for not being able to remember how you did. Otherwise, try to pay attention: your recollection of the dialogue is good enough. When I've trained people for job interviews, they were able to recall their answers to previous interview questions (especially when fresh in their minds, ie a recent one) quite well. You don't need to resort to nerdy overkill. 92.224.205.209 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Angus

The article Angus Douglas-Hamilton, 15th Duke of Hamilton says he was Earl of Angus between 1938 and 1940 (presumably as eldest son of the then-existing heir to the Duchy), but there is no mention of his son, Alexander Douglas-Hamilton, 16th Duke of Hamilton having ever been Earl of Angus. What are the "rules" about who serves as Earl of Angus? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The eldest son of the Duke of Hamilton uses the title Marquess of Douglas and Clydesdale, while the Duke of Hamilton is the actual Marquess of Douglas and Clydesdale. The eldest son of the eldest son of the Duke of Hamilton uses the title Earl of Angus, while the Duke of Hamilton is the actual Earl of Angus. The 15th Duke used the title Earl of Angus while he was grandson of the Duke of Hamilton. The 16th Duke was born after his grandfather's death and therefore immediately started using the title Marquess of Douglas and Clydesdale. I hope I was clear. Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that explains it. Thanks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Most free" country

What country has had hte least number of laws that banned something or oppressed someone or whatever throughout its history? I understand it's somewhat subjective, but I'm just looking for the country that has had the least number of laws that could be considered dicriminatory or censoratory. I was thinking it could be one of the scandanavian countries, but I don't know.--92.251.252.236 (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here Freedom in the World (report) and the subsequent links are a good place to start. ny156uk (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infact scratch that here Index of Economic Freedom historical rankings is good for economic freedom and here for democracy Democracy Index. Not quite perfect for liberal but I suspect the democracy one is close enough - it ranks the Nordic countries very highly (unsurprisingly). ny156uk (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you've noted, it's subjective (I'd say far more than "somewhat"). Here are some considerations to narrow things down:

"throughout its history" - look at relatively recent countries
"throughout its history" pt 2 - what are the criteria for country continuity? Is pharaohic Egypt separate from or included with modern Egypt, for example?
Impact of population: surely banning something to 1 billion is more oppressive than banning that thing to 10 million - so look at low-population countries
Degree of diplomatic recognition - how "countrylike" does it have to be?

Anyway, some possibilities based on these criteria: Principality of Sealand, Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Nauru, Palau, Kosovo, Montenegro. I'd generally exclude the Scandinavian states on the basis of age and population. — Lomn 21:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets say its history was since its current government was formed. So the USA since 1788, UK since 1707 etc.--92.251.252.236 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom is a fairly subjective thing—you need freedoms for as well as freedoms from. Somalia in the 1990s is a great example of this. Absolutely no laws banning anything whatsoever, but also none guaranteeing freedoms. The net result is not what most would consider a "free society." --Mr.98 (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your link answers the OP's question. The stuff about "freedoms for" is irrelevant to the question. Myself, I think Somalia was/is a free country with some problems, which are not problems of a lack of freedom but problems to do with crime and culture and war - but then, I have no patience with the "positive freedoms" concept and see it as a veil for authoritarianism. 81.131.40.54 (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is exceedingly relevant. "Crime and culture and war" are exactly the point of having positive freedoms. You cannot dismiss them from any notion of "freedom"—all are legal transactions related to the rights of individuals. The affirmation of the right of one against the right of another (you do not have the right to rob someone, for example) is key to the entire concept. Both are integral to why people tend to like government regulation on the whole, though they disagree on many details of the implementation and exactly what domains it should extend into. The libertarian focus on only the "freedoms" it values and pretending those are all-inclusive is misleading to say the least. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarians tend to exclude freedom for anything from the definition of freedom because, of course, it implies government and therefore tax and therefore coercion, and coercion is generally seen as the opposite of freedom; but of course when one talks about freedom one could arbitrarily define it as freedom to accept social security payments, or freedom from sunlight, or freedom to spend one's life locked up in a deep cellar against one's will, and it's this kind of thing which makes it a slippery concept. Whether we include freedom from crime in the definition depends on our agenda; unless we all agree in advance what our agenda is, speaking about freedom is at best vague and at worst means talking at cross purposes. The OP specified freedom from discriminatory laws, censorship, bans, and (vaguely) oppression. These all (except the last, depending what it means) imply freedom from government intervention, not a request for more of it. 213.122.51.118 (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current UK wasn't formed until the 1920s/30s by that standard :P. Ironholds (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is asinine to pretend that something 550 meters square like "Sealand" is a "country" to be compared with actual countries like the UK or the US. I own two pieces of land far larger than the "country" of Sealand. Edison (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything asinine about that: 92 specifically said Degree of diplomatic recognition is one of the factors to consider when working out what you're looking for, and (unlike your pieces of land) someone actually seriously tried to establish, and get people to recognise, Sealand as a separate country. This makes it a useful example of why you would want to consider Degree of diplomatic recognition when answering this question. From your comment, you seem to be suggesting that size is the main factor in whether or not a bit of land is a country, but I have no doubt some individuals or corporations own areas of land larger than Belgium. This doesn't make those areas separate countries, nor does it damage Belgium's state as a country. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that a silly pretend country is not a country to be compared to actual countries so far as it laws are concerned. Edison (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once said, "The only way to be totally free is to want nothing." So how "free" you are depends on what you want, and how easy it is to get it. I've known folks who think Switzerland is a freer country than the USA or the UK, because there's such a low crime rate, and they don't mind the regimentation. That's not my idea of freedom, but everyone has their own concept of "free". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure Sealand is relatively "free", just as a boat in the middle of the ocean is "free". The freest you can be is when there's no one else around. But that's no always practical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er what "regimentation" is there in Switzerland apart from mandatory militia?--178.167.179.162 (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "silly pretend countries" -- the problem is that picking an agreeable bright-line test for country status is tricky. I agree that Sealand falls into most definitions of "silly pretend country", but it's got what's probably the strongest claim of modern micronations (see Sealand#Legal status) -- so I suggested it as one end of a fuzzy continuum. — Lomn 17:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting Sealand aside, I think what the OP is looking for is a country that has most closely gotten to achieving complete anarchy. Now while the anarchist idealist will portray the ideal of an anarchist state as ultimately the most desirable goal of the human condition, I personally (while not completely dismissing the idea of people being good, order seeking beings in the ultimate end) also believe that at least some of the stigma of lawlessness = utter chaos is more than warranted. TomorrowTime (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm asking for. Somalia is an anarchy and it's not exactly free. I mentioned laws.--178.167.206.65 (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where (if you're the OP) you mentioned wanting laws. You twice mentioned "the least number of laws". So I assume now the country you're looking for must also have something like a low level of violence and the reliable protection of private property. Question: do you consider laws that create public services to be oppressive and discriminatory against private businesses? 213.122.51.118 (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the service.--92.251.251.233 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles positive freedom and negative freedom. Here in the UK I enjoy the freedom that a "free" health care system gives. On the other hand I wish there was more physical space and it wasnt so crowded, and that the CCTV cameras could be binned. I think the OP is going to find it impossible to find a country where you get everything you like while having nothing you dislike - for example free health care matched by paying taxes. 92.15.10.239 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]