Those rankings are very biased. The press one used to penalize countries at one point for not having journalist unions (don't know if they still do).

As an example, the US press was allowed to publish on the Snowden leaks but in the UK policemen forced The Guardian to smash their hard drives. UK is 11 places above the US: https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2021

The freedom ones often pick and choose freedoms. For example: none include self defense possession, but do include same sex marriage (something that was invented two decades ago).

I assure you, same sex marriage wasn't invented two decades ago. [0]

What was invented two decades ago is treating gay people with enough humanity to begin to CONSIDER giving them the same universal freedoms as straight people get.

So yeah, at this point, in 2022, same-sex marriage is an objective basic freedom. I am not interested in any religion-based counterarguments. Anyone's freedom to hold religious beliefs cannot impune on OTHER people's freedom, regardless of what religious people will claim.

Self-defense posession is a subjective one, I agree. I personally think it's an archaic freedom desire [1] (Honestly, to me comparable "I want the freedom to be able to beat my slave"). But I understand the alternative arguments. This one happens to be something on which the US is a massive outlier from the rest of the "developed" world.

The main point, though, is I don't think people on HackerNews seeking "freedom" are talking about freedom to own guns. I might be wrong.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death

>The freedom ones often pick and choose freedoms.

Is there another way to index multiple countries and measure against each other?

Sounds like you might disagree with the freedoms they chose rather than the process of defining and measuring "freedom." That may be an expression of your own bias.

You are looking at this all wrong. If you want maximum freedom you need to go to a place like rural Somalia. As long as you have the most guns nobody will tell you how to live your life. Want to rape children all day long? Nobody is going to stop you. Want to kill your neighbors and steal their stuff? Total freedom. No nanny state government is going to try to take your money to build roads or remove the dead bodies.

Anyone who has "the most guns" will have "maximum freedom" anywhere. Somalia, USA, England, anywhere. The difference is it's easier to be the person with the most guns in Somalia than in US. However we are talking about freedom of ordinary citizens, not about being the most powerful individual in your country.

Those rankings have absolutely 0 values. We are currently under our 2nd curfew in less than a year, I can't go outside after 10pm under the threat of a 2000$ fine (which the police is very heavily enforcing) and yet we are way up there in the list you linked. Complete joke

Well, when we're in the middle of a Global Pandemic, with the 5th-highest death toll in human history [0], a couple things have to change temporarily, don't you think?

Also, this is a Quebec-only curfew. Take it up with your provincial government. If separated as a country, perhaps Quebec wouldn't make the list. Quebec has plenty of other counter-freedom policies including your government-endorsed islamophobia.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics#By_death_tol...

You are contradicting yourself. It's a global pandemic yet only quebec is going for these absolutely ridiculous measures. Hence why it's ludicrous for canada to be higher than the US. And it's been 2 years, it's not exactly temporary, especially since there's literally no scientific backing for a curfew in a pandemic and our government is not even pretending that there is any. At a certain point the "it's a global pandemic" excuse just does not work and you get well into the threshold of a non free society and I think we are well past that in quebec.

Also, quebec is still part of canada. So again, your point is just strange. You are just deflecting very weakly what I said.

Every province can take invidiual actions for their citizens that the federal government disagrees with. Quebec can do more than the rest.

That's not an argument for restrictive Canadian freedom, that's an argument for INCREASED freedom in Canada for individual provinces (especially Quebec)

"You don't like it -> move" is an argument that doesn't work very well across international borders, but ABSOLUTELY works within a country. If you find Quebec to repressive, move to a different province.

Agreed, and as a Muslim it's for more than one reason as you pointed out earlier. I'm actively looking into moving, probably across the southern border though. But still, I think it's very reasonable to expect the experiences of the second biggest province in a country to be reflected in international rankings.

Are you in the USA? I didn't know you had curfews!?

In canada currently. 6th month of curfews this year... but at least this time it's until 10 pm and not 8pm like the first curfew. So I guess that's something lol

Depends on your definition of freedom, certainly. If your primary definition is "the range of behaviors for which the government will not prosecute you", it's probably the highest one not currently involved in a civil war.

I shared 3 definitions of freedom. You're welcome to yours.

But that sounds like optimizing a society for reckless individual expressionism that the government looks the other way on, vs ensuring that every human being in society has their basic needs met despite their race, gender, gender expression, socioeconomic class, diablement, or mental health.

Is it freedom if you can shoot guns at a barrel in your back yard without getting prosecuted, but can also be legally fired from your job and not have a house rented to you, solely for being trans?

The last man on earth is also the most free man in history. Freedom is not an absolute good nor is it defined as "that which produces the best outcome". The entire purpose of government is deciding which limits on freedom are reasonable to adopt.