Chapter 4. Closing talk.

I think the reason why there are so many central and eastern European countries on this list is because the people of these countries know what real tyranny is. Unlike western Europeans and northern Europeans, who are privileged to be wealthy, advanced, and overall strong enough to have some control over their own policies, eastern Europe was a bunch of puppet states of the Soviet Union. Some Eastern Europeans remember what tyranny was like, and in some nations, planted the seeds of skepticism towards authority. 

At some points in history, Poland was a liberal/libertarian when compared to the rest of the world. In Whatifalthist's video What if Poland was a Superpower?, Poland had a representative government with a monarch can be deposed at will by the Parliament, was the most democratic European state until the 1830's, had a market economy, tolerant and pluralistic system, and even a strong intellectual culture. Whatifalthist also mentioned "the Poles had a powerfully strong sense of personal liberty and freedom", "during the high middle ages, when feudalism thrived in Western Europe, in Poland, the average farmer was free", "Poland was a haven for tolerance for any group", and even had "a very well developed capitalist economy". I would also say that bad experiences with both Communism and National Socialism have inoculated the Polish people against them. 

A lot of people today consider Poland to be a conservative country. However, I consider Poland to be a pseudo-libertarian country. In Poland, 14-17 year olds can go to vocational school instead regular school, one can drive a moped at 14, there is no age for drinking or smoking (buying alcohol or tobacco is 18. I think setting the limit at the age of majority is reasonable), medical marijuana is legal, recreational cannabis is decriminalized up to a certain amount, prostitution is legal, and Polish gun laws are very permissive by European standards. In Poland, newly manufactured blackpowder guns, even revolvers, are virtually unregulated (though they have to be designed before 1895), licenses for handguns and even "assault weapons" are shall-issue, and conceal carry is automatically legal for self-defense and even target shooting permit holders (unless the Police put a restriction on your license), and it is even legal to conceal carry black powder revolvers!

When it comes to guns, unlike in the Anglophone world, where guns were a big part of history and were a controversial issue in society, guns have played less of a role in Polish society outside of war and military matters. Polish people have many other things to worry about, and considering the lack of gun-related crime in Poland, there is little to no movement supporting stricter gun control. In other words, the majority of Poles are seemingly contempt with the way gun laws are in their country. There is also the possibility that Polish culture just lacks busybodies to support a nanny state.

I think that the reason why Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra are among the most libertarian countries in Europe is because of European culture and the enlightenment valuing the individual and liberalism combined with a high-trust society in which people feel little to no need for authoritarianism for society to function.

This is in contrast to other western Europeans, who, being both wealthy and being privileged to live in an enlightenment society, have grown soft, see the state as a good thing and not a threat to their liberty, and accept the state playing the role that is closer to a nanny than a night-watchman with the state providing bread and circuses in the form of services paid for by high taxes, double-digit unemployment rates, going into debt, and mediocre military strength to keep Russia from taking over Europe and discourage China from bullying the rest of the world.

It seems that the Scottish and Irish definition of freedom is actually merely group self-determination, not individual freedom. Not to say that these countries do not have subjective positive traits, but by the objective measuring sticks that I have used, Scotland and Ireland, while I would rate as average or above average in terms of personal freedom in the world are, when I compare them to the rest of Europe, only average or slightly below average in terms of personal freedom. 

Scotland lets people drive and be adults at 16, but that is about it. 

Ireland is one of the best countries in the world to do business in, allows medical marijuana, allows 17 year olds to drive and allows 16 year olds to drive work vehicles, tractors, and motorbikes, but has some of the most restrictive firearms laws anywhere in Europe with discretionary classifications of "Unrestricted" and "Restricted" firearms (semi-automatic assault weapons are legal on paper, but are rarely licensed, and even a low-powered pellet rifle may be classed as "Restricted firearms"), may-issue firearms licenses and no exceptions for airguns (aside from airsoft guns if the power is 1 joule or less), antique firearms or blackpowder firearms, crossbows counted as firearms, and even prostitution is illegal.

It seems that the difference between "oppression" and "tyranny" is that "tyranny" is more often used to refer to oppression done by a state actor. 

Oppression is not someone being merely saying rude things. Oppression is not having a baker refuse to bake a cake for your wedding. Oppression is not being able use the bathroom of the sex other than the sex listed on your birth certificate.

Real oppression is seeing armed, foreign troops in armored vehicles patrolling your neighborhood and demanding papers from people who are simply walking to the grocery store. Real oppression is your country's elections being nonexistent or fraudulent (without serious opposition parties/candidates, and maybe used to put potential dissidents on a list) and your country is a puppet state to one of the largest empires of the industrial age. Real oppression is being arrested, put through a show-trial or no trial at all and imprisoned, executed, or tortured because you joked out loud while drunk with your friends and someone reported you to the secret police.

I do find it interesting that countries that border Russia, had a history of being subjugated by empires or at least invaded in recent history, and/or were once authoritarian states (such as the former Yugoslav countries) have shall-issue licenses to posses firearms. 

Those countries are Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Serbia, and Slovakia. And most of them have shall-issue licenses to posses handguns and even semi-automatic assault weapons.

I think you can figure out what many of those countries have in common (if you are savvy about history).

Not all countries that had authoritarian regimes or were subjugated by empires have shall-issue firearms licenses, though. Countries such as Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Romania, Ireland, Spain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Slovenia all have may-issue licenses to poses firearms (though Slovenia has permissive may-issue, so it barely belongs here). 

Then again, Portuguese Estado Novo, Francoist Spain and Yugoslavia, which Bosnia and Herzegovina used to be part of, while authoritarian regimes, were not quite as brutal and cruel as National Socialist Germany or especially the Soviet Union/Russia. The United Kingdom, a country with may-issue firearms licenses, an island that has not been invaded in centuries, had an empire that ruled over almost a quarter of the world and has invaded even more than that. Sweden, a country with may-issue firearms licenses, is flanked on both sides by stable and wealthy liberal democracies, freeing it from needing to deal with the world's biggest shithole with a history of authoritarianism AND totalitarianism that just a miserable place to exist (Russia). Germany was always collectivist and was the birthplace of Prussian authoritarianism, the Prussian schooling philosophy, Marxism, National Socialism, Frankfurt School identity politics and is just a culture of conformity and not thinking for oneself.

And all this time, Andorra, Liechtenstein and its guardian on the world stage, Switzerland, is watching the rest of Europe and its shenanigans (today, they all have shall-issue firearms licenses. They all are also some of the freest countries in Europe).

In all seriousness, I think that the correlation between being subjugated by an authoritarian regime or empire and having shall-issue firearms licenses is a coincidence, but I find it to be an interesting coincidence nonetheless.

As Officer John from the SpongeBob episode Keep Bikini Bottom Beautiful, "some people never learn" (not that I am a fan of the cartoon, but I like the quote).

What absolutely astounds me is how much easily cured willful ignorance and confirmation bias there is. Even in the age of the internet, people fail to falsify their own position, for example someone who supports more restrictive gun control checking Wikipedia and comparing the gun laws of different countries and U.S. States. I can say more about people reading on their own statistics, or if Christianity is required to be nationalistic, skeptical towards immigration, pro-life or disagree with transgenderism, or that Christianity is good at preventing leftism, Marxism or pedophilia. 

Whatifalthist mentioned in his video Twelve Lies about Reality., "the truth is that our minds are inherently self-serving and irrational. We ignore information we don't like". 

Maybe Doctor Theodore John Kaczynski is right. Maybe we as human beings are just not meant to handle the complexities of the modern world. As Whatifalthist said in his video Twelve Lies about Reality., "we're hunter-gatherer apes used to tiny communities in the wilderness struggling to live in massive ant-hill societies".

Additional reading:

Articles:

Drifting In and Out of Socialism: The Case of Ireland

What is Individualism? What is Collectivism?

The American Dream is Still Alive. Trust me, I’m a Foreigner.

Books that case for small government and individual freedom:

Beginner:

1. The Separation of Business and State by Ryan Dawson

2. No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed by John Stossel

3. The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul

4. Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul.

5. Back on the Road to Serfdom, edited by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

6. The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek

7. The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

8. Two Treatises on Government by John Locke

Intermediate:

9. Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick

10. Real Dissent: A Libertarian Sets Fire to the Index Card of Allowable Opinion by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Advanced. While I find anarchy to be a utopian idea, these books nonetheless still have good ideas on how some things can be run better without the state. Please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater (in other words, do not reject all of the ideas of a book simply for having a single utopian idea):

11. Free eBook: 14 Hard Questions for Libertarians — Answered by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

12. The Machinery of Freedom - Guide to a Radical Capitalism by David Friedman

Economics:

1. The Separation of Business and State by Ryan Dawson

2. Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell

3. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

4. How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes by Peter Schiff

5. Meltdown by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

6. Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

If you are really serious about philosophy, then I recommend Murray Rothbard and Walther Block. However, I feel that most people are not convinced by the non-aggression principle, and that even people who are unenthusiastic about the state would prefer to have flawed rule of law over chaos with warlords as seen in places such as Somalia and the possible rise of an even bigger and more tyrannical state without the restraints of a constitution or even representation as that no Rothbardian anarchist utopia exists today. I also do not really promote anarchism because I really do not feel that the strong majority of the population are ready for the type of anarchy that philosophers promote. And lastly, there already are plenty of deontological (philosophical) libertarians arguing using the non-aggression principle, so I chose to use mostly consequentialist arguments as that I don't think that anyone writes in the argument and information-packed no-holds barred style that I write in.

However, I am still definitely sympathetic to the non-aggression principle.

I do not really recommend spending your time and energy reading Ayn Rand. Though if you ever run out of books to read on politics and economics, I suggest checking out the Mises Institute's library.

1. Did you learn anything? If So, what have you learned?

2. How did this article effect your worldview, especially with the meaning and importance of freedom?

3. Did I make arguments for or against things better than you (previously) would have?

4. If you learned something about misconceptions about American and European gun laws or Christianity failing to effect morality, then why did you not check Wikipedia to falsify your belief? Who is the ignorant person know, the American who wrote this article or the European that this article is targeted towards?