# Chaotic but free



## luis masci

We are, in Argentina, very disrespectful of the law. It’s noticeable in several aspects. Just as a sample I’d mention the following. Nobody care so much about the traffic rules, people cross the streets in anywhere, and generally going around the downtown in every big city is chaotic (even worst if you are driving).
This is annoying to me. However, surprisingly, I’ve heard some foreigners like this characteristic, adducing they are tired of severity and duties of developed countries and love this kind of freedom they feel here. 
So my question is: how much severe is your country in this matter? 
Do you feel tired of severity of the law at the point that you would prefer to live in a chaotic environment but feeling free?


----------



## anthodocheio

Have you heard of "Everybody longs for what he doesn't have"? Or something like that...


----------



## Vanda

Are you sure you are talking about Argentina? Don't you mean your neighbor? 

Law? Which law? What are they for?


----------



## luis masci

Vanda, as you already know it’s not the first time we find similarities between our respective countries. However I don’t think it’s a matter of idiosyncrasy; it has rather to do with imitating attitudes. 
I’ve a friend who is so much disrespected of the law. He went for a while to Germany. When he came back I noticed he was as chaotic as ever; so I asked him if it was also his behavior in Germany. He said: ” Noooo…there everybody obeys the law and of course me too.”
So I asked him why here, he turned out on the bad behavior again.
He said “because here everybody does it this way”.
We have a saying for that: “En el país que fures has lo que vieres”.(In the country you are do what you see)


----------



## avok

It is the same here  
I guess a bit of respect for the rules would not hurt anyone!!! Nevertheless, I agree that, to some extent, rules in many west/north european countries kill the creative minds and people begin to have rather normative values that keep them away from the "humanist" side of the story.


----------



## kdl77

An interesting story about my country, laws and bad behaviors...
In italy, when you are riding a motorcycle you must wear an helmet, for your safety. This law is very important, of course, and is respected almost everywhere. ALMOST! Because there are some cities (I won't tell you which cities, because I don't want to seem a "racist"!) where nobody respects this rule. Moreover, in those cities the rule is that when you are wearing an helmet, you're going to mug someone! There, if you see someone with an helmet, you know that he's not respecting the law, but he's hiding himself in a legal way.
So, sometimes it's important to know when your respect of the rules is too much! 

PS: forgive my bad English, I'm still learning.


----------



## birus

> In italy, when you are riding a motorcycle you must wear an helmet, for your safety. This law is very important, of course, and is respected almost everywhere. ALMOST! Because there are some cities (I won't tell you which cities, because I don't want to seem a "racist"!) where nobody respects this rule.


I'll tell it because I CAN (I live there): Naples and most of all the Campania 'district', at least. Plus several other places in the south of Italy.
But personally I do always wear my helmet.


> Moreover, in those cities the rule is that when you are wearing an helmet, you're going to mug someone!


This is true only for a small portion of all the above mentioned places. For example, in Castel di Principe, a small town where one of the most powerful camorra families resides, it seems to be true (I've never been there, though). Or in some very small areas around Naples (some streets of Secondigliano, as an example).
But in all the other places, you just risk to be judeged as "not very cool" and "not smart", because you are respecting the rules. Hope this is not going too much OT.

By the way, it is my belief that for some mysterious reason, the tendence to follow or not follow the rules in a country is very much influenced by the latitude!
I've been travelling throughout France for example, and noticed that they would care less and less about the driving rules while heading southwards...
Oh and one more thing about “En el país que fures has lo que vieres”: the americans that I know at work, that stay here in Naples for some months, keep talking about how the rules are much more followed in the States, but then seem to take a great pleasure in behaving like us in the street, and breaking them!
Sorry for my English I am writing very quickly!


----------



## badgrammar

I used to love that very same quality about France...  Whether driving, crossing the street, fudging your taxes (cheating), smoking underneath the No Smoking sign (next to the cop whose doing the same ), cutting in line (what line?), switching price tags in the supermarket, aquiring advantages of all kinds using contacts (family, friends, officials, employers)..., if you could get away with it, nothing wrong with it!  As an American, it was hard to get used to, and I've never been able to get past my upbringing and play the game like the locals.  But I liked the non/loosely-regulated atmosphere. 

HOWEVER, this is all (sadly I think) changing.  The country is more and more safety and law oreinted, and "Système D" is quickly becoming a thing of the past.  I really did enjoy the sort of "latin" way of life, and the total disregard for political correctness.  

There are so many things that I scoffed at when I saw them happen in the U.S., and now most of them have happened, or are about to happen, here.  Case in point - Sarko just passed a law that wine bottles must feature a warning sticker with a pregnant woman on it holding a glass of wine, with a line through it.  An American "public safety" import, circa 1999.  Now a pregnant woman seen sipping a glass of champagne will get the hairy eyeball in France, just like back home...  Not politically correct...


----------



## Etcetera

Oh, it's the same in Russia. Smoking under the No Smoking sign, crossing the street wherever possible, driving at speed higher than is allowed... 

I must confess that I sometimes do cross the street where there's no crossing - but I always make sure there aren't any approaching cars in both directions. Most people do the same. Alas, we don't pay much attention to the laws... 

But in general, I don't think that people should really be so careless about laws. There are silly laws, of course, but there are laws that are well worth respecting. For example, the prohibition on smoking in public places. There are so many people who are allergic to cigarette smoke, or simply don't like it (including myself).


----------



## palomnik

I'm old enough to believe that in some societies, at least, respect for the law is a generational thing.  I'm aware that northern Europeans have a reputation of obeying the law, and German and Scandanavian immigrants to the USA brought that with them.  I'm also aware that southern European countries have a traditional reputation of not having the same respect for the law.

But in the USA people have noticeably gotten less respectful of the law over the last fifty years.  Most would credit this to the baby boomer generation, which pretty much placed self-absorption on the center of the altar of society.  There has been a noticeable decline in respect for the law in Russia as well, a fact which I associate with the discrediting of the Soviet regime.  Of course, even before 1991 there were a lot of people in the USSR that thought that cheating the government was an act of civil disobedience, and therefore honorable; however, when the Soviet Union collapsed this attitude remained.  I think Russians may be getting over it now, but I haven't spent enough time on the ground there lately to say.


----------



## Athaulf

palomnik said:


> But in the USA people have noticeably gotten less respectful of the law over the last fifty years.  Most would credit this to the baby boomer generation, which pretty much placed self-absorption on the center of the altar of society.



I would say that trends in North America have actually reversed direction again since you got that impression. This definitely holds for serious criminality -- crime rates in the U.S. had been rising until some 15 years ago, but have been falling ever since then. More relevant to the topic of this thread, it also holds for petty everyday anarchic behavior of regular people. 

I have the impression that each new generation in North America is, on average, more afraid to commit even the slightest breaches of order and discipline. They are also more ready to condone almost any act of government and law enforcement if it just has a formal legal backing, and they are supporting ever greater controls and regulations over every aspect of life, with concerns for safety and moral purity absolutely trumping those for individual freedom and privacy. Generally, if I ever even hear people complaining that the society is becoming too controlled and uptight, it's from people of around 30 years of age and up. 

Even your claim about the culture of "self-absorption" seems mistaken to me. It might have been true two decades ago, but I have a feeling that since then, collectivist attitudes of all kinds are making a huge comeback. That's at least my impression from observing (and arguing with) today's people of university age.


----------



## sunkitty

Athaulf said:


> I have the impression that each new generation in North America is, on average, more afraid to commit even the slightest breaches of order and discipline. They are also more ready to condone almost any act of government and law enforcement if it just has a formal legal backing, and they are supporting ever greater controls and regulations over every aspect of life, with concerns for safety and moral purity absolutely trumping those for individual freedom and privacy.


 
I don't know if I want to open this can of worms here, but you could see the shift in this trend almost overnight in the United States after September 11, 2001. All levels of government were able to take advantage of people's fear to impose whatever type of freedom-restricting laws they wanted, and the American people shockingly accepted a lot of these types of restrictions that they would not have accepted on September 10th.


----------



## Argónida

Chaos = freedom? No rules = humanity? I don't think so. I think rules should be fair, they have to have sense, that's very important, but they are needed. If we have no rules we are less human and less free. No rules means the kingdom of "la ley del más fuerte" _(sorry I don't know this in English)._ I think my rights and my freedom end where the other's rights and freedom begin.

By the way, I'm fed up of drunk people singing and shouting under my windows until 5 or 6 in the morning; I'm fed up of _botellonas_ (thousands of people drinking, pissing, shouting, listening to music and leaving kilos of rubbish on the streets all night long); I'm fed up of cars parked on sidewalks; I'm fed up of people putting their feet on the trains/buses seats. Probably all that people feel free and happy, but they are violating other's rights. And that is unfair. And in order to avoid that kind of things, we need rules to live togheter.


----------



## Fernando

Count me in the

"More law, less chaos, please" opinions. 

Since I think that Spanish disrespectful of laws is generally overestimated for foreigners is underestimated for Spaniards.

As someone said:

"España es un país de leyes draconianas moderads por su sistemático incumplimiento."


----------



## Sepia

I am sure the disrespect of traffic laws described in the thread starter not only causes unnecessary traffic jams but - much worse - also takes its toll in severe road accidents.

What Germany is concerned - lots of people find it totally cool to drive fast even where it is against the law and at the end waists everybody's time by causing traffic jams. However, surveys have shown that a lot more than 50% of German drivers are really afraid of those individuals who drive fast with too little distance to the vehicle in front of them. 

I don't think that more than a few idiots would like traffic rules to be less strictly observed. Or does anyobody here want to get killed?


----------



## ernest_

While a lot of people usually dismiss certain traffic rules, especially speed limits because it is obvious to anyone that they are too low, in general they respect other drivers and pedestrians, most of the time; and people who drive crazily or perform questionable manoeuvres, such as sneakily trying to overtake other cars in a queue, are not held in high respect. It seems like some rules are considered useless and nobody really cares about them -except law-enforcement entities-, but there are other "unwritten" rules that most of the people agree to and respect.


----------



## badgrammar

Yes, okay...  But would India fell like India if cars stopped at lights and stayed in their lanes and herders kept livestock and cattle off the road?  Well, it might be safer, that's true, and nobody can say that's a bad thing in and of itself.  But that kind of chaotic system is both exciting and inspiring at times....


----------



## palomnik

Athaulf said:


> I would say that trends in North America have actually reversed direction again since you got that impression. This definitely holds for serious criminality -- crime rates in the U.S. had been rising until some 15 years ago, but have been falling ever since then. More relevant to the topic of this thread, it also holds for petty everyday anarchic behavior of regular people.
> 
> I have the impression that each new generation in North America is, on average, more afraid to commit even the slightest breaches of order and discipline. They are also more ready to condone almost any act of government and law enforcement if it just has a formal legal backing, and they are supporting ever greater controls and regulations over every aspect of life, with concerns for safety and moral purity absolutely trumping those for individual freedom and privacy. Generally, if I ever even hear people complaining that the society is becoming too controlled and uptight, it's from people of around 30 years of age and up.
> 
> Even your claim about the culture of "self-absorption" seems mistaken to me. It might have been true two decades ago, but I have a feeling that since then, collectivist attitudes of all kinds are making a huge comeback. That's at least my impression from observing (and arguing with) today's people of university age.


 
Sorry, but in general I can't agree with you, Athaulf.  I agree that people are willing to relinquish a good deal of their rights to the government, but that's because they don't care about them as much any more - a result of self absorption.  As John Irving said in one of his books, the only way to get an American's attention is to tax him, or draft him.  This current administration is doing neither, and so people don't care.

In the meantime, petty infringements of the rules - bad driving, disturbing other people's privacy, etc. - are, in my opinion, clearly on the rise, along with a reluctance among Americans to confront people who do these kinds of things.  I don't think there is anything resembling an increase in collectivism; rather the contrary - even if people are not actually bothering other people, they are tending to live in their own world, and associating only with people that agree with them.


----------



## Sepia

ernest_ said:


> While a lot of people usually dismiss certain traffic rules, especially speed limits because it is obvious to anyone that they are too low, in general they respect other drivers and pedestrians, most of the time; and people who drive crazily or perform questionable manoeuvres, such as sneakily trying to overtake other cars in a queue, are not held in high respect. It seems like some rules are considered useless and nobody really cares about them -except law-enforcement entities-, but there are other "unwritten" rules that most of the people agree to and respect.



Why is it obvious that speed limits are too low? At some places 50 kmh in the city is even too fast. Think about much space you need to stop from that speed, including reaction time. And where traffic lights are synchronized for a green wave at 50 km/h everybody who is trying to go faster actually slows everyone down because they are sitting at red lights and stopping those who could have moved right trhrough the junction.


----------



## ernest_

Sepia said:


> Why is it obvious that speed limits are too low? At some places 50 kmh in the city is even too fast. Think about much space you need to stop from that speed, including reaction time. And where traffic lights are synchronized for a green wave at 50 km/h everybody who is trying to go faster actually slows everyone down because they are sitting at red lights and stopping those who could have moved right trhrough the junction.



I'm not saying that all speed limits are too low, I'm saying that some of them are. You are lucky to be German, because in Germany politicians actually use their brains and set sensible speed limits, everything is calculated and has a purpose, which is nice. But down here it doesn't work like this. It works like this: one day the mayor of Barcelona wakes up and says to himself "I've got an idea" and next day he passes a new law ordering whatever has occurred to him, no matter how stupid or ridiculous it may be.


----------



## Athaulf

sunkitty said:


> I don't know if I want to open this can of worms here, but you could see the shift in this trend almost overnight in the United States after September 11, 2001. All levels of government were able to take advantage of people's fear to impose whatever type of freedom-restricting laws they wanted, and the American people shockingly accepted a lot of these types of restrictions that they would not have accepted on September 10th.



Actually, the trends I described are much older than the events of 9/11. It's certainly true that certain groups of people have become more eager to support freedom-restricting measures since 9/11, and in some contexts, changes in the fascist direction have indeed been drastic (e.g. in the airports), but I would say that the bottom-line influence of these events on the society has been smaller than many people imagine. But now we're drifting far off topic.


----------



## Athaulf

palomnik said:


> Sorry, but in general I can't agree with you, Athaulf.  I agree that people are willing to relinquish a good deal of their rights to the government, but that's because they don't care about them as much any more - a result of self absorption.  As John Irving said in one of his books, the only way to get an American's attention is to tax him, or draft him.  This current administration is doing neither, and so people don't care.
> [...]
> I don't think there is anything resembling an increase in collectivism; rather the contrary - even if people are not actually bothering other people, they are tending to live in their own world, and associating only with people that agree with them.



I think I understand your points better now; I would say that rather than contradicting one another about this point, we are actually describing different aspects of the same society. The self-absorption you mention is undeniable when it comes to people's personal lives and their relations with other individuals. However, at the same time, there is an increasing urge to compensate for this state of affairs by pushing for ever greater levels of control, surveillance, and collectivism in the political system. This is the natural course of events in an atomized (or, as you call it, self-absorbed) society. 



> In the meantime, petty infringements of the rules - bad driving, disturbing other people's privacy, etc. - are, in my opinion, clearly on the rise, along with a reluctance among Americans to confront people who do these kinds of things.


Obviously, your direct experience withe the American society has been much greater and longer than mine, so it would be silly for me to contradict this. But again, we might be talking about different things. It's probably true that informal good manners are continuing to deteriorate, but when it comes to the rules and discipline formally imposed from above -- either by the government or by any other powerful and faceless entity -- I see an ever increasing level of obedience and conformity.


----------



## argentina84

One more time, a Word Reference thread is challenging my prejudices.

Now, I have come to know that we (Argentinians) are not the only ones who systematically break the law.


----------



## sunkitty

Athaulf said:


> Actually, the trends I described are actually much older than the events of 9/11. It's certainly true that certain groups of people have become more eager to support freedom-restricting measures since 9/11, and in some contexts, changes in the fascist direction have indeed been drastic (e.g. in the airports), but I would say that the bottom-line influence of these events on the society has been smaller than many people imagine. But now we're drifting far off topic.


 
I actually was heading back onto to topic by bringing this up. I just didn't know if I wanted to go here. 

I definitely agree that the trend has been shifting toward more law enforcement and law-abiding in the United States for quite some time. For example, 20 years ago, drunk-driving laws were not enforced as harshly as they are now. Smoking bans were not as widespread as they are now, but even the ones that did exist back then were not as strictly enforced, and people tended to ignore them.

The shift that I see happening since September 11th is that people are beginning to vote lawmakers into office who will crack down harder on all crime, even "small things" at the local level. It's always hard to talk about the "general opinions" of the U.S. because it's a huge country, and people in Texas tend to have very different attitudes than people in California, for example. But even in the states where laws were previously "made to broken", I have noticed a big shift in the last few years towards general law-abiding, and that people are no longer complaining as much about local laws being enforced. I don't stay in one place too long, but in the last ten years, I have been to 40 states and lived in 11, and I notice these differences when I leave a state and return to it 5 years later.

My humble opinion, of course. I'd be interested in hearing from Americans in different states to see if anyone else has noticed this.


----------



## CrepiIlLupo

It seems to me that certain laws, and the behaviors and attitudes toward said laws depends a lot on your location within a country as well.  This is probably especially evident in the United States, where it seems to make sense to reason that general "civil respect" sorts of laws like jaywalking, being excessively loud, littering and putting your feet up on the seat of a public transportation system would be more of a problem in bigger cities. I wholeheartedly agree with sunkitty in saying that the landscape, both political and geographical, is too large in the U.S. to make any sort of precise generalizations.

However, I agree with the opinions that laws in America are taking on a stricter trend.  It has been my observation that more control by the government is being put onto the average American citizen, and Americans have been apt to take these in stride.  My personal theory about the reason for this is simply that I believe Americans have had an increasing sense of apathy toward their political process over the last forty years or so.  

As far as some sort of reckless abandon for the laws which are already put in place goes, I think that Americans in general don't go around needlessly breaking the codes of conduct.  I hypothesize that this is mainly because they fear getting caught for their crimes, as the police force here enforce violations such as driving very fast or littering or smoking in places where smoking is prohibited (for the most part).  

Despite this observation, however, Americans have a comparably higher rate of more serious crimes than other developed countries (such as murder).  I live in Philadelphia, so this has gotten some special attention in the last year.  This is certainly a complicated question to answer!


----------



## Horazio

Chaos is good just for a vacation ,it's part of the "exotism". 

But if you have to live there ,it's another story.


----------



## Yulia Alex

Fernando said:


> Count me in the
> 
> 
> "España es un país de leyes draconianas moderads por su sistemático incumplimiento."



Exactly the same thing we say about us in Russia


----------



## Fernando

Thank you, Yulia, I did not know. Then I assume we have not invented the sentence.

For the non-Spanish speakers (in rotten Engllish):

"Spain/Russia is a country of Draconian laws, moderated by their systematic non-compliance."

I mean: many and very tough laws, but nobody cares about them.


----------



## cubaMania

luis masci said:


> We are, in Argentina, very disrespectful of the law. It’s noticeable in several aspects. Just as a sample I’d mention the following. Nobody care so much about the traffic rules, people cross the streets in anywhere, and generally going around the downtown in every big city is chaotic (even worst if you are driving).
> This is annoying to me. However, surprisingly, I’ve heard some foreigners like this characteristic, adducing they are tired of severity and duties of developed countries and love this kind of freedom they feel here.
> So my question is: how much severe is your country in this matter?
> Do you feel tired of severity of the law at the point that you would prefer to live in a chaotic environment but feeling free?


 
Ah, Luis, when I am a foreigner temporarily in a different culture I may enjoy the differences in attitude and atmosphere.  When I am on vacation in a tropical island paradise I enjoy forgetting all about time, responsibilities, etc., but you can be sure that when I get back home I will expect everything to run on time, traffic to flow smoothly, customer service to be reliable, the elevators to work properly, etc.  It is one thing to visit and enjoy the differences, and another thing entirely to have to live with inconveniences on a daily basis.

But there is something more important buried in your question, I think.  In an country such as yours (Argentina) where there is such a recent history of a horribly oppressive, brutal government, it may be understandable that a culture of flaunting small laws would emerge.  Those who feel powerless against oppression may use these small infringements to make themselves "feel free" when they can do little about preserving their real freedoms.

Which is freedom?
being able to blow smoke toward the restaurant table next to yours (maybe causing an asthma attack)
or
being able to walk anywhere in your country without being required to carry any form of identification for the gendarmes to demand of you.

Which is freedom?
being able to drive through red lights (maybe causing a traffic jam or even an accident)
or
being entitled to humane treatment at all times when in police custody, and a speedy trial by fair written law if accused of a crime.

Which is freedom?
being able to have a noisy party until 4 A.M. (maybe keeping awake your neighbors who have to go to work in the morning)
or
being able to read books and newspapers which oppose the actions of politicians currently in power.

Which is freedom?
being able to leave your dog's poop on the sidewalk (stinking up the neighborhood and possibly causing disease)
or
being able to express your opinions and organize political movements, however unpopular they may be, without fear of being fired, thrown in jail, tortured, or killed.

Of course, it is possible for the "little" laws to become so numerous and ridiculous that they cry out for opposition.  But in a civil society, I really think that most of the civil laws that are there just to make things run smoothly for everyone's benefit (traffic laws), and to prevent people from trampling on each other (not letting your dog poop on your neighbor's lawn) are not the laws that determine freedom in a meaningful way.


----------



## Athaulf

cubaMania said:


> Ah, Luis, when I am a foreigner temporarily in a different culture I may enjoy the differences in attitude and atmosphere.  When I am on vacation in a tropical island paradise I enjoy forgetting all about time, responsibilities, etc., but you can be sure that when I get back home I will expect everything to run on time, traffic to flow smoothly, customer service to be reliable, the elevators to work properly, etc.  It is one thing to visit and enjoy the differences, and another thing entirely to have to live with inconveniences on a daily basis.



Unless the rules themselves are a source of inconvenience. The issue is necessarily subjective; some people prefer a certain level of control, others prefer another. At the end of the day, in any society there will be some people who are unhappy because they feel an excessive level of control, discipline, and uptightness, some others who are unhappy because they feel like the society is too anarchic and permissive, and yet others who think that things are more or less OK. The only thing that can change is the ratio between the sizes of these groups.



> Which is freedom?
> being able to blow smoke toward the restaurant table next to yours (maybe causing an asthma attack)
> or
> being able to walk anywhere in your country without being required to carry any form of identification for the gendarmes to demand of you.


And what if someone asked: which is  freedom -- being able to avoid the trivial inconvenience of having to carry an ID and occasionally show it to a police office when asked, or being able to live free of all criminals that would be caught by introducing such a system of universal control and surveillance? Yet apparently, you feel strongly in favor of the freedom to walk around without being subject to random police ID checks, despite the fact that these checks would have at least some positive effect in fighting crime. I'm not pointing this out because I'm in favor of mandatory ID -- I'm definitely not! -- but to demonstrate how subjective the notion of "greater freedom" is. Many people don't care much, if at all, for the freedom of movement without carrying an ID, while on the other hand, many do care for various freedoms that you would brush off as unimportant. (The same holds for anyone else, of course, not just you.) For example, in Croatia, unlike in Canada, a cop can ID me whenever he pleases and fine me if I don't carry my ID card, but I can light up in a bar. I honestly view this particular trade-off as favorable just like you view it as unfavorable.


----------



## cubaMania

Yes, I have run into that particular dichotomy before.  I've been aware that various folks in other countries have looked at me uncomprehendingly when I cite the US tradition that says free people do not have to carry identification and police cannot demand it of us.  In my turn, when speaking with a French family who proudly proclaimed that they could smoke anywhere they want because in France "we are free!", I looked at them as if they were crazy.

Nevertheless, from those "freedoms" I happened to mention which I hold to be serious, you did select the one particular "freedom" for which there is an odd gulf between the English-speaking world, and almost everybody else.  Do you seriously propose that the freedom to smoke in crowded places is on a par with the freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom to oppose government policies openly and without fear of retaliatory violence?  Do you seriously not see a difference between civil laws aimed at smoothing the functioning of the society and fundamental liberty?

By the way, your English is amazingly good.


----------



## avok

Horazio said:


> Chaos is good just for a vacation ,it's part of the "exotism".
> 
> But if you have to live there ,it's another story.


 
I think chaos is good neither for vacation nor for life. I live in a chaotic place and it is tiresome. 



Fernando said:


> Thank you, Yulia, I did not know. Then I assume we have not invented the sentence.
> 
> For the non-Spanish speakers (in rotten Engllish):
> 
> "Spain/Russia is a country of Draconian laws, moderated by their systematic non-compliance."
> 
> I mean: many and very tough laws, but nobody cares about them.


 
Turkey and more than half of the countries too.



cubaMania said:


> Ah, Luis, when I am a foreigner temporarily in a different culture I may enjoy the differences in attitude and atmosphere. When I am on vacation in a tropical island paradise I enjoy forgetting all about time, responsibilities, etc., but you can be sure that when I get back home I will expect everything to run on time, traffic to flow smoothly, customer service to be reliable, the elevators to work properly.


 
Not just you everybody wants everything to run on time, traffic to flow smoothly, customer service to be reliable etc..



badgrammar said:


> I used to love that very same quality about France... Whether driving, crossing the street, fudging your taxes (cheating), smoking underneath the No Smoking sign (next to the cop whose doing the same ), cutting in line (what line?), switching price tags in the supermarket, aquiring advantages of all kinds using contacts (family, friends, officials, employers)..., if you could get away with it, nothing wrong with it!


 
Maybe that's why French "Revolution" happened in France but not in Scandinavia  Revolutions need rebellious actions not obedience.


----------



## Athaulf

cubaMania said:


> Yes, I have run into that particular dichotomy before.  I've been aware that various folks in other countries have looked at me uncomprehendingly when I cite the US tradition that says free people do not have to carry identification and police cannot demand it of us.  In my turn, when speaking with a French family who proudly proclaimed that they could smoke anywhere they want because in France "we are free!", I looked at them as if they were crazy.


 
On the other hand, even this freedom doesn't mean much nowadays, when people mostly drive rather than walk around, since as a driver, you do have to carry identification and produce it upon request by the police. Admittedly, it is true that the English-speaking world is (still) generally free of the worst excesses of bureaucracy that can be found in continental Europe (especially post-Communist Europe). 



> Nevertheless, from those "freedoms" I happened to mention which I hold to be serious, you did select the one particular "freedom" for which there is an odd gulf between the English-speaking world, and almost everybody else.  Do you seriously propose that the freedom to smoke in crowded places is on a par with the freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom to oppose government policies openly and without fear of retaliatory violence?  Do you seriously not see a difference between civil laws aimed at smoothing the functioning of the society and fundamental liberty?


Yes, but this thread is not about the elementary security of life and the fundamental freedoms of speech, assembly, due process, etc. Rather, my understanding is that the topic is about societies where people do have a relatively satisfactory level of these basic freedoms, but which differ in the level of relatively petty regulations of everyday life. Obviously, if we're going to talk about the situation in, say, North Korea or Iraq, it doesn't make much sense to go beyond the issues of fundamental liberty and security. 

The point of my previous post was that even relatively petty controls and regulations can make people feel genuinely restricted and unfree. Just like you would feel genuinely restricted and unfree if you were obliged to submit to random police ID checks, I also feel genuinely restricted and unfree because of a bunch of other regulations that are objectively just about as petty. 

Also, you're describing the situation as if people's personal freedom is being restricted only to prevent clear and present harm and danger to others. But many laws and regulations are designed to prevent either purely victimless activities or activities whose supposed harm is so vague, weak, or far-fetched that whole life would come to a complete halt if we were to stop everything equally harmful. Those are the ones that irritate me personally the most. 



> By the way, your English is amazingly good.


Thanks.


----------



## badgrammar

I think there is also a fundamental, underlying attitude in certain cultures that makes them very resistant to authority.  French culture has historically had what I would call a problem with authority, atleast ever since the Revolution. 

Authority is the system that tries to impose its will on you, like a strict parent.  Authority seeks to control you.  If you have an engrained cultural dislike for authority (due to your country's history, perhaps), you are more likely to see law-breaking behavior.  Maybe it is a "culture of rebellion" or of "personal freedoms" - but I do agree that some "personal freedoms" encroach on the rights of others. 

In any case, in France it is changing, the election of Sarkozy bears witness to that:  People now want tougher laws, more restrictions, crack-down on this, enforcement of that.  But you can't stop the world from changing, the pendulum is always in motion. 


Also agreed that the U.S. has become very law-abiding by and large (I'm talking about your average citizen, not about those involved in crime).  People seem really conscious of the law, and there is a sort of "survey-and-report" attitude there that worries me.  You see your neighbor do something you deem suspicious or illegal, you call the "authorities".  It's quite big-brotherish to me.  

P.S. The smoking thing in France is pretty much coming to be a moot point, new laws were put in place last year, and they are enforced.  Within a year or two, it will be like every other place in Europe and the U.S., with a total ban on smoking inside any public building, even reastaurants and bars.  And as a smoker, it doesn't bother me anymore, I think that's the right decision, you get used to it...


----------



## Nanon

badgrammar said:


> I
> In any case, in France it is changing, the election of Sarkozy bears witness to that: People now want tougher laws, more restrictions, crack-down on this, enforcement of that. But you can't stop the world from changing, the pendulum is always in motion.


 
Though I am very abiding of democratic rules, I think we shouldn't say that each and every French citizen (and not even every Sarkozy voter) exactly wants tougher laws. But many people want to live in a risk-free environment and are ready to pay the price for it, i.e. less freedom, more speed limits, more non-smoking signs, more radars... and restoring the concept of authority, in family life and at school. Authority was a central topic in Sarkozy's campaign.
At the same time, the current trend in the French society is that "there is too much state", to many rules, too much bureaucracy and too many civil servants. Talk about a paradox.


----------



## cubaMania

Athaulf said:


> ...Yes, but this thread is not about the elementary security of life and the fundamental freedoms of speech, assembly, due process, etc. Rather, my understanding is that the topic is about societies where people do have a relatively satisfactory level of these basic freedoms, but which differ in the level of relatively petty regulations of everyday life...


Well, if I am not addressing the question under discussion, but rather hijacking the thread, then I will withdraw.



Athaulf said:


> ...Just like you would feel genuinely restricted and unfree if you were obliged to submit to random police ID checks, I also feel genuinely restricted and unfree because of a bunch of other regulations that are objectively just about as petty...


But the classification of this one highly misunderstood freedom as "just about a petty" bears comment. It is not in the same class with traffic laws and other laws designed simply to oil the machinery of society because it is a tool of intimidation by the authorities, easily used to track, harass, cause fear, and intimidate.


----------



## avok

badgrammar said:


> People seem really conscious of the law, and there is a sort of "survey-and-report" attitude there that worries me. You see your neighbor do something you deem suspicious or illegal, you call the "authorities". It's quite big-brotherish to me.


 
What???  It is not big brotherish, it is the big brother itself, a bigger brother inside the big brother. If things go on like this, every one will be a big brother on their own.


----------



## Athaulf

cubaMania said:


> Well, if I am not addressing the question under discussion, but rather hijacking the thread, then I will withdraw.



I didn't mean to imply that you were hijacking the thread. I was just explaining why I think it's pointless to include the fundamental freedoms into consideration in this thread. I'm sorry if my previous reply sounded harsh or accusatory; this was certainly not my intention. 



> But the classification of this one highly misunderstood freedom as "just about a petty" bears comment. It is not in the same class with traffic laws and other laws designed simply to oil the machinery of society because it is a tool of intimidation by the authorities, easily used to track, harass, cause fear, and intimidate.


Just to avoid any possible confusion, I'll repeat that I'm against any system of mandatory ID -- but still, I honestly can't see what's so different about it compared to other laws designed to, as you say, "oil the machinery of the society". Are you feeling any less harassed or intimidated when a traffic cop pulls you over and asks to see your driver's license? Are you feeling any less tracked when you think that the same information about you that would be kept in a national ID database is already kept by the DMV, social security, and a bunch of other places where cops can look easily if they really want to? 

All I want to point out is that other people can feel equally strongly about freedoms and rights that you ignore as unimportant, and can also be indifferent towards some of those that you hold dear. You would feel bad if you had to carry mandatory ID, and I feel bad because anything remotely fun is so heavily regulated these days  that going to a bar or a rock concert feels more and more like going to a church. I'm not trying to convince people to change their views, but merely to demonstrate that we have a conflict of subjective preferences here, so it's meaningless to consider one's own preferences as somehow objectively more reasonable.


----------



## Athaulf

badgrammar said:


> I think there is also a fundamental, underlying attitude in certain cultures that makes them very resistant to authority.  French culture has historically had what I would call a problem with authority, atleast ever since the Revolution.
> 
> Authority is the system that tries to impose its will on you, like a strict parent.  Authority seeks to control you.  If you have an engrained cultural dislike for authority (due to your country's history, perhaps), you are more likely to see law-breaking behavior.  Maybe it is a "culture of rebellion" or of "personal freedoms" - but I do agree that some "personal freedoms" encroach on the rights of others.
> 
> In any case, in France it is changing, the election of Sarkozy bears witness to that:  People now want tougher laws, more restrictions, crack-down on this, enforcement of that.  But you can't stop the world from changing, the pendulum is always in motion.



I think it's a consequence of the winds coming from across the Atlantic. Whether Europeans like to admit it or not, the North American trends make their way into European society and politics sooner or later in a much stronger form than any trends going the other way around. When it comes to the current trends towards control and puritanism, Europe is perhaps 10-15 years behind, so the wave that hit the U.S. and Canada in the 1990s is being strongly felt in Europe only now. 



> P.S. The smoking thing in France is pretty much coming to be a moot point, new laws were put in place last year, and they are enforced. Within a year or two, it will be like every other place in Europe and the U.S., with a total ban on smoking inside any public building, even reastaurants and bars. And as a smoker, it doesn't bother me anymore, I think that's the right decision, you get used to it...


However, the most recent waves of anti-smoking legislation in North America are not aimed just at enclosed spaces (where smoking has already been banned for quite a while already in most places). They are increasingly taking a paternalistic, prohibitionist stance akin to drug laws, without even bothering to invoke the usual justifications about second-hand smoke. But I'm afraid this would lead us too far in an off-topic direction...


----------



## avok

Athaulf said:


> I think it's a consequence of the winds coming from across the Atlantic. Whether Europeans like to admit it or not, the North American trends make their way into European society and politics sooner or later in a much stronger form than any trends going the other way around. When it comes to the current trends towards control and puritanism, Europe is perhaps 10-15 years behind, so the wave that hit the U.S. and Canada in the 1990s is being strongly felt in Europe only now.


I've always thought the opposite. European trends find their ways into American social life and are consumed much more quickly hence, get tacky in the end such as Islamophobia, which came into American usage in the real sense of the word, only after the 11 September attacks, has existed in Europe for always.

Europeans want tougher laws, more restrictions not because this is the trend in the States but there is just more immigrants, less job and less money.


----------



## Outsider

cubaMania said:


> But there is something more important buried in your question, I think.  In an country such as yours (Argentina) where there is such a recent history of a horribly oppressive, brutal government, it may be understandable that a culture of flaunting small laws would emerge.  Those who feel powerless against oppression may use these small infringements to make themselves "feel free" when they can do little about preserving their real freedoms.


I feel that CubaMania has touched on a nugget of truth, here. What explains the different attitudes towards rules between northern Europe and southern Europe, for instance? (Well, actually between northern Europe + North America + Australia and pretty much the rest of the world...!)

One difference certainly is that northern Europe has had responsible, democratic governments for a longer time, while much of southern Europe spent decades mired in petty dictatorships. When the state does its job, you respect it; when it's just used to exploit its citizens, they tell themselves "Screw the rules". It becomes a vicious circle of bad government and cynicism towards the law that is not easy to break. Or quick -- it takes generations to overcome.


----------



## luis masci

Yes, what you, Outsider and Cubamanía are pointing out has total sense.
I also attributed to this issue the fact that authority has been declining dramatically here from about the last 25 years (the same time we have in democracy again).
I mean… the new generations haven’t respect toward authorities anymore (whether they are parents, teachers, police, etc). 
I thought it was a logical consequence for years down dictator and oppressive governments. But then, I saw the rest of the world, and seems in everywhere has been occurring similar process. 
So I don’t know what to think really.


----------



## cubaMania

Hmmm, this is getting more complicated.  I do not think that "respect for authorities" is the best basis or the only basis for compliance with rules, laws, regulations, etc.  For myself, I only respect the authorities if they respect me and other citizens.  I mean that all humans should be treated with respect.  (Well, OK, I admit I make an exception for certain despicable human beings.)

What I do have respect for is the rule of law, the constitution of my country, the rights of other people.  My tendency to be a law-abiding citizen is not based upon respect for authority, but rather on the Social Contract.  We can't each of us live by ourselves on 50 acres of land, we need to live together, so we have banded together and set up a system of laws to make that possible.  In a dictatorship or an oppressive non-democratic system of government, respect for authority (or perhaps just fear) may be the basis for complying with laws.  But in free societies organized on the principles of the Social Contract, it ideally depends more upon people feeling that they are equal participants in the society, that they each have a voice and an influence in mutual governance, that there is fairness and justice available to all.  According to the Social Contract, I obey even those laws I think are silly, and others do the same because, obviously, there can never be 100% agreement on exactly what the laws should be, and we are all trying to cooperate and get along.

We do have in USA a tradition of Civil Disobedience.  But this tradition applies only to serious matters where we feel morally obliged to oppose the established laws.  It is a last resort when we feel the society has gone seriously wrong and off-track and we are willing to pay the legal price for openly flaunting the law.  But that does not apply to the ordinary civil laws such as traffic laws, smoking laws, leash laws, etc. whose purpose is only a matter of oiling the everyday machinery of a functioning society.  For those laws, if you disagree with them, the appropriate response is to try to get them changed.  We can vote, we can write to our city council members or other representatives, we can campaign, petition, march in the streets, or even run for government office ourselves, but nobody will ever live in a society in which they agree with every single law, rule, and regulation that exists, so always there will be some laws that we don't much like.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I find compliance depends on the presence of enforcement (when we had photo radar in place, the number of speeders plummetted).  In Canada, the population as a whole has become far more safety-conscious.  We do up our seatbelts without thinking about it; in most circles it is socially unacceptable to drive under the influence; and we generally obey the traffic laws (except in Ontario, where speeding is endemic and enforcement of the limit is minimal).  

The older the residents, the more likely they are to ignore new legislation.  There are plenty of people hunting (or possessing rifles and shotguns) with no licence; plenty of older folks who don't believe in such refinements as turn signals or parking spaces; and plenty of middle-aged people who muscle in on handicapped parking spots.  

I find, on the whole, that Canadian youth are much more respectful of the laws and by-laws than their parents.

By the way, I think that CubaMania has summed up the whole idea of major and minor freedoms beautifully.


----------



## Outsider

cubaMania said:


> In a dictatorship or an oppressive non-democratic system of government, respect for authority (or perhaps just fear) may be the basis for complying with laws.  But in free societies organized on the principles of the Social Contract, it ideally depends more upon people feeling that they are equal participants in the society, that they each have a voice and an influence in mutual governance, that there is fairness and justice available to all.


You shouldn't believe all the hype about the efficiency of dictatorships. Most of the time, they are rife with corruption and nepotism. Starting with the members of the government, who, having come to power illegitimately, tend to be cynical about the worth of their jobs. It's just that you don't get to hear about it.


----------



## Etcetera

badgrammar said:


> People seem really conscious of the law, and there is a sort of "survey-and-report" attitude there that worries me. You see your neighbor do something you deem suspicious or illegal, you call the "authorities". It's quite big-brotherish to me.


What if the neighbour's actions are really illegal and can even be dangerous for other people?

I understand what you're talking about. When I am reading books about the life in the Soviet Union in the 1920s to 1970s, the citizens' readiness to go and report to the authorities whatever they find "suspicious" about their friends and neighbours (even relatives!) is one of the most abhorrent and disgusting things for me about the whole Soviet system. 

But... suppose I'm taking an intercity bus. Suppose I see that the driver is constantly breaking the rules, thus endangering not only his own life, but also his passengers' lives. What should I do?


----------



## badgrammar

Well, that is one thing, seeing behavior that is not only against the law but also puts others in danger.  

What I am talking about would be like calling the police because you think you spy a marijuana plant in someone's backyard, for example...  

And short of alerting authorities, the general tongue clucking that goes on, and harsh judgement of other peoples' habits, activities, child-rearing, patriotism (or lack thereof), etc...    That sort of behavior is a typical way that a society keeps people in line.

When I am in the States, I get this feeling that I am always being observed by others and judged against current ideas and trends in Political Correctness, how "good people behave in a good society". All that eyeing-up and judging one's  neighbor just can't be good, even though it discourages "chaos" and encourages an orderly, predictable lifestyle for all. 

I have no qualms about the necessary enforcement of laws, especially those meant to protect others.  What I don't like is the over-homogenization (is that a word?  ) that results in cultures that strive to be chaos-free.  

A little chaos is fine with me, keeps things interesting.


----------



## Etcetera

badgrammar said:


> What I am talking about would be like calling the police because you think you spy a marijuana plant in someone's backyard, for example...
> 
> And short of alerting authorities, the general tongue clucking that goes on, and harsh judgement of other peoples' habits, activities, child-rearing, patriotism (or lack thereof), etc...


Oh, I do agree here. I believe in a person's democratic right to live as they want, as long as it doesn't harm others. 



> A little chaos is fine with me, keeps things interesting.


That's true, too.


----------



## Prometo

I've stumbled into this late, but I felt I had to put in my 2 cents...

This discussion loses a lot in "translation" because you are right at the core of ethnocentrism: while you think legal\civic\social issues are at stake you are actually sporting dark glasses that impede your full understanding of other points of view on the subject (which are based more on the anthropological perspective of the speaker).

~

I heard of a published pamphlet once available in Colombia, meant to provide advice to domestic drug traffickers whose business required that they spend extended periods of time in South Florida, living among the locals without raising suspicions.  The booklet made a point to let readers know that they should mow their lawns regularly, because yanki neighbors would be incensed otherwise, bringing "heat" to bear on the criminals.

The Colombians would never have been nearly as concerned with manicured yards as the Floridians.  The two groups have different world views, and to believe that they could engage in psychologically meaningful exchanges on the relative merits of landscaping is to be naive about the concept of culture.

In the United States police patrols constantly stop people to harass and railroad them, especially those not having the "profile" of conformists or the wealthy.  Not too long ago, an important British visitor was beaten up severely  by the authorities for jaywalking (as reported by the BBC).  In Albany, where I used to live, a lawyer was arrested for wearing a T-shirt with the lettering "Give peace a chance"...

This stuff is seen as mere routine in the USA, because of the myth: "It's a free country"... the same "freedom" exported to Iraq, where the innocent population longs for a return to the days of wine and roses (mint tea and dominoes) under Saddam Hussein, who was himself railroaded into universal condemnation and murdered in a miscarriage of justice.. all in a day's work, routine USA style...

I spend most of my days in a region where there is no jaywalking (though the police would not bother me if I indulged), no prostitution (though those activities are totally legal), no harassment or violence (cops would never bother you unless you REALLY deserved it), nobody cares what you wear, how you keep your garden, or which party gets your vote.  Still, people here criticize their governments and societies mercilessly.

I submit to all of you that my current residence is a paradise of personal freedom, like Iraq once used to be, whereas those "freedoms" of the English-speaking alliances are nothing but prisons for the soul.


----------



## badgrammar

Very nice post, Prometo!  

Of course, now we're all curious - where is it that you spend most of your days?


----------



## Prometo

_Very nice post, Prometo!

_Thank you, badgrammar.  You gave me inspiration (#47).  I'm in Scandinavia right about now, but superstition forbids discussion


----------



## Porteño

This has been a most interesting and enlightening discussion although at times it has come dangerously close to crossing the OT line. However, I think that much of it has little relation to the original thread which was about being law-abiding or not.

_We are, in Argentina, very disrespectful of the law. It’s noticeable in several aspects. Just as a sample I’d mention the following. Nobody care so much about the traffic rules, people cross the streets in anywhere, and generally going around the downtown in every big city is chaotic (even worst if you are driving) This is annoying to me. However, surprisingly, I’ve heard some foreigners like this characteristic, adducing they are tired of severity and duties of developed countries and love this kind of freedom they feel here. 
So my question is: how much severe is your country in this matter? Do you feel tired of severity of the law at the point that you would prefer to live in a chaotic environment but feeling free?_

In the UK, and I guess this applies to most of the English-speaking and Anglo-Saxon countries (I hesitate for ethnical reasons to include Scandinavia, but will anyway), most people obey the laws because they have an innate fear of the rule of law. This is not the same kind of fear as under dictatorships, and is more related to the fear of being caught doing something wrong which is quickly learnt by children almost as soon as they are born. The people in those countries are well aware that, if they are caught breaking the law, they will be duly punished and the penalties can be quite severe and make their lives extremely uncomfortable thereafter.

Here in Argentina, the rule of law no longer applies and the whole system has broken down and is thoroughly corrupt from the very top to the very bottom. It is true that prior to 1983, Argentines lived for more than fifty years under a succession of undemocratic governments and dictatorships, both civilian and military. At first it seems that the people were unaware, or turned a blind eye to the excesses and the growth of corruption. This was in part due to a total lack of freedom of the media, which is largely true still today since the principal news agencies are government controlled and the newspapers themselves depend on revenue from government advertising in return for toeing the line. There is very little if any independent media and that which exists is unable to spread the word because of economic restrictions. On the bright side, it is a fact that one can openly express ones opinions without fear of arrest and/or ‘disappearance’, but when the lid came off (Argentines call it ‘_destape_’) after the 1983 elections, the pendulum swung violently to the opposite extreme and _laissez faire_ became the order of the day.

The institutions, long corrupted under the aforementioned governments, including the politicians, the judiciary, the police and all other symbols of authority, simply failed to perform their duties and society slipped into virtual anarchy. As in many other countries, parents fail to act responsibly toward their children. Following this, the school teachers are left powerless to exercise any kind of discipline for fear of being accused as repressors. And so it goes all the way up the scale. Crime has increased enormously  and the famous city that never sleeps now hides itself in gated communities, or behind triple-locking armour-plated doors and window bars  Forty years ago, when I first visited this country, there were two ‘friendly’ policemen on every corner, always courteous and helpful. The traffic was much more orderly (of course there was a fraction of the number of vehicles then compared with today). On the surface at least there appeared to be law and order and the people by and large obeyed the rules.

With this collapse of ordered society, the people have virtually given up, seeing that justice is not applied, that judges and policemen have their price and that protests, while not infrequent, are usually ‘engineered’ and are not spontaneous and rarely achieve anything. 

If you ask around, you will find that almost nobody is happy with this situation – this is not freedom – they would like to return to a more orderly way of life. How do achieve this however, is an almost insoluble problem. The various ‘interest groups’ protect themselves (how many private armies exist here?) to the detriment of society as a whole. Sure, for tourists it is a great place to visit – it’s cheap and has a lot to offer besides steaks and tango. For them, the chaos they endure while on their two-week stay is perhaps a novelty, but they can quickly return to their controlled environment and feel happy, not so the long-suffering Argentines.


----------



## luis masci

Congratulations Porteño. You have done the best description (with foreigner eyes) that I have ever heard.


----------



## Porteño

Thank you luis masci, you are very kind. 

With regard to many of the other opinions that have been expresed, I would ask the question - What exactly is freedom? In the UK now there are some 4.5 million CCTV cameras following your every movement. If you walk from Oxford Circus down Regent Street to Piccadilly Circus, you will have been filmed some 300 times! (How far is that? About half a mile? Wow! Some freedom) Tañk about Big Brother in 1984. The present government there wants to introduce IDs against the wishes of the people in general. What do they need them for? To pry into your private affairs. If you need to prove your identity most people nowadays carry credit cards, bank cards and a plethora of other identifying documents, why bring in yet another?

Being a resident of both Brazil and Argentina, I have the required IDs, but in all the years I have been in these two countries I have never been asked for them once for reasons either than commercial or banking purposes, certainly never on the street by a police officer.

In the UK ones neighbours did all the spying; they knew everything about you - who you were dating, what time you came home last night, who left your home the morning after, etc, etc. - Is that freedom? Here in BA you  have a nodding aquaintance with your neighbours but unless you bother them in some way, they couldn't care less what you do.


----------



## ter_

Porteño said:


> In the UK, and I guess this applies to most of the English-speaking and Anglo-Saxon countries (I hesitate for ethnical reasons to include Scandinavia, but will anyway), most people obey the laws because they have an innate fear of the rule of law.


I don't think the new underclass generation in the UK has that same innate fear which you and I probably have. I can see this every day where I live. As an example, a very common trend in recent years is for the emergency services (fire brigade, ambulance - even paramedics) to be attacked by gangs of youths, just for kicks, when they are out on call. This happened recently near where I live and when the police finally arrived, they got pelted with stones too, until backup arrived.
By the way, I'm not just some old fogey moaning about "youngsters today", because I'm not yet 30 myself. Based on my limited travelling experience to Scandinavia, Germany and the Benelux countries, I think the UK is far more chaotic, and definitely getting worse.


----------



## Porteño

I'm very sorry to hear that ter.. I receive emails daily from _The Times_ and _The Telegraph _which all too frequently corroborate your statement. At least we haven't gone that far yet, although policemen are not uncommon targets but are usually shot dead rather than beaten up. Ambulances and para medics are thus far free from such attacks but with the ever increasing use or abuse of drugs here, I don't know how long it will be before they start following the example of their British 'peers'.


----------



## luis masci

In every country there are gangs and individuals acting against of society.
The point is, their influence should be reduced at the minimums. That seemed was the case with the hooligans for instance. 
While in most European stadiums it seems there are no barriers between spectators and players, here in Argentina it is quite the opposite. There are increasingly high wire fences all around the field and separated areas for both teams' followers. Players must be keeping away from the spectators when they went on and off the field.
All of that is indication that the “barras bravas” (our kind of hooligans) are leading the things and there is not solution in sight.


----------



## Porteño

luis masci said:


> In every country there are gangs and individuals acting against of society.
> The point is, their influence should be reduced at the minimums. That seemed was the case with the hooligans for instance.
> While in most European stadiums it seems there are no barriers between spectators and players, here in Argentina it is quite the opposite. There are increasingly high wire fences all around the field and separated areas for both teams' followers. Players must be keeping away from the spectators when they went on and off the field.
> All of that is indication that the “barras bravas” (our kind of hooligans) are leading the things and there is not solution in sight.


 
This was exactly the kind of thing I was referring to when I mentioned the 'private' armies here in Argentina. In the UK and other European countries that used to have football hooligan problems there was no apparent connection between the hooligans and the clubs, whereas it is a well-known fact that the 'barras bravas' are fully supported by the club directors, or some of them at least. What is even worse is that the infighting between these groups is not confined to the stadiums but is carried on to the surrounding neighbourhoods. The police, who of course are also 'connected' do absolutely nothing to control these menaces and even if they are arrested, a friendly or perhaps 'terrified' judge releases them the following day to continue their mayhem.

Not so long ago BBC World aired a report on Argentina where the correspondent described all the security checks he had had to endure to gain entrance to a football match. The following pictures then showed the scenes inside the stadium with people firing guns and throwing fire crackers and he likened it to a war scenario, while naively (although I think he was actually being sarcastic) asking how all these offensive weapons had got past the security checks!


----------

