The question kind of doesn't need any explanation- but I will provide some background for the reason I posed it:

In the back drop of GWs war on freedom in the US, a couple Bushbots I know quipped up with this one: Well, it is just natural that we don't get to be too free anymore- there are just too many poeple out there that freedom creates too much chaos and is too dangerous to allow to be free like we were 100 years ago.

then, they went on to ask how many countries with over 200 million poeple are considered a "free" society. Well- I guess that would be 0 at this point.

So- question is

Is there a population # that, at a certain point- certain civil liberties become a danger to the society itself?

Can a country, of say, over 500 million remain free and protect civil liberties of all it's citizens, and still remain a country?

Is there a population # that, at a certain point- certain civil liberties become a danger to the society itself?

I don't really see why a very small nation would not be endangered by its freedoms as much as a large nation. If, for example, a nation is "soft" on crime by having open trials and so forth, I don't see why this should make a large nation any less safe than a small nation. Similarly, I don't see why a large nation that is "hard" on crime (secret trials and so on) would be any more secure from its criminals than a small one. It seems to me that it is the system that matters, not the size.

Can a country, of say, over 500 million remain free and protect civil liberties of all it's citizens, and still remain a country?

I don't see why not. I can understand that a large nation is much more difficult to govern than a small one; however, it seems to me that this means that, unless the society is truly repressive, one is likely to have more freedom, simply because the government will have a harder time tracking you down. There are, for example, many places in the USA where a person could survive with little or no contact with government at all.

The other edge of this sword is that those benign services which a government can provide are much more difficult to perform in a large nation. Witness, for example, the crumbling of some parts of the infrastructure of the United States. I blame nobody for this; the job is enormous and extremely costly in money and time and human labor.

I would say that the vast size of the USA and other large nations, if they have a reasonable amount of freedom at all, would tend, if anything, to make them more chaotic rather than more repressive.

Explain to me how I'm not free. What civil liberties am I being deprived of?

I'm feeling pretty free. Look at what's happening in Iran and compare it to the US and tell me I'm not enjoying massive freedoms! And YES, compare it. We have unheard of freedoms in the US.

So yes, a country over 300 million can remain free. In fact, with numbers like that it's possible to ignore a government bent on taking away your rights - especially if you've already enjoyed them.

Umm I'm confused here CruisingRam, GW has a war on freedom in the US ? Really? Thats saying a lot, am I to assume his intelligence gathering techniques have something to do with that statement? He has done nothing as far as I can see to degrade the level of freedom we have in this county, and this is in fact a free country but you believe what you will, because you know what ? You have that right here. Sadly enough to speak out against ones government or religion for that matter in some places can actually get you killed, so think about that when one of the things you choose to proclaim with your freedom is how unfree we are.

Bush however is guilty of a couple things as far as I can see, for one he is a very poor communicator to this nation as well as others. He is also rather slow in my opinion, I don't particularly like him myself, however I'm realistic and what he isn't is some tyrant dictator with a constant hidden agenda to harm his own nation on purpose, with all due respect I am so tired of the elaborations made on him, yes he is a poor leader, and yes he has made mistakes, but statements like "In the back drop of GWs war on freedom in the US".... I believe are extreme elaborations that don't do us any good. We know he is a poor president, we get it.

To get back on the topic I have to ask you what exactly is free in your opinion? What do you value as freedom, as a person because I'm going to tell you now that human beings are not perfect, in fact far from it and a gouvernment is simply a reflection of the nation in which it represents. Wherever there are people there will always be problems, because thats one thing we are quite good at is creating is these problems, but for every downside to our behavior there are great things about us that has driven us so far as a species. This in turn is true of our government as well, is it perfect? Absolutely not but neither are we. Sometimes its important to acknowledge the good things we as a nation have accomplished.

While I do think one should hold their government to a higher standard than Joe across the street, I'm not going to stand here and claim this is not a free nation, this countries laws are set up, and our nation itself is set up so that this country becomes what you make of it, if you want a career and to live a life of ambitious goals and high set dreams its there for you, if you want to take it easy become a farmer and enjoy the simple pleasures in life, its there for you, but you know what? If you want to go down the tubes do drugs, drink heavily, or go to the local strip club every sunday night, well thats there to brother, it is what you make of it. Concern to have a better functioning gouvernment is very healthy, we should have it, but consider history as well as some other nations today when you demote the freedom this country has, freedom that many today unfortunately take advantage of.