[igk]

Do you know when and how that changed? I'd like to change my view, but just from the discussions I've had with US citizens and what is see happening in your politics, it seems like it is very much still alive. Sure, Sanders and his crowd think less like this, but he lost to Hillary, and not only because of rigging

[talmand]

It would be difficult to nail down, simply because it's not a across the board change that happened overnight. There have been various encroachments on our liberty and property rights over decades.

Simple examples: police confiscating money and small items during routine traffic stops with little or no recourse, overzealous use of eminent domain for questionable reasons, creation of various "fees" because local government can't get tax increases passed, etc.

There's likely more easily found but those are the first few I can think off the top of my head. Note that in some areas of the US this sort of thing happened and there was instant backlash against it in some jurisdictions. But in others the government moved along just nicely thank you very much.

People think of their homes as their "property" and maybe there is some basis in "freedom" in that. But most people don't "own" that property in the first place. Property can mean many different things and many different aspects of property are in a constant state of seizure by government for its own ends.

[igk]

Ah, I misunderstood you then. I got the impression you mean that the mindset had changed. What you describe seems to indicate that the mindset is still the same, but the reality is changing. And in my opinion, this is exactly due to the mindset. Especially the thing about fees to sidestep the aversion to taxes. The police and eminent domain thing sounds like corruption, and maybe also correlates with your idea of freedom: if freedom is something which is enabled by society and the restrictions and opportunities that come with it, you risk some of your freedom if you act in a corrupt manner. If freedom is something that property gives you, and society is only there to protect your property because warlording is stressful, then trying to get away with small corruption becomes desirable.

Your last sentence confirms me in this. "The government" is made up of people who got into power for idealistic or selfish reasons, yet you refer to it as its own entity and concept. This gels well with the "lay of mine" concept of freedom, less well with the "we as a whole enable us all" flavour.

Obviously, I am biased, and I might be interpreting things. If so, please corrent my misunderstandings if you have the time.

[talmand]

I don't fully agree with everything you say, but it's close enough along the lines of what I'm saying that I can't disagree with it either. It's a complicated thing with a huge gray area surrounding it, there's room for multiple trains of thought that can be reasonably correct. I think that's a fact many people tend to forget when discussing such matters.

But I would say that the mindset hasn't changed per se, but I think it's starting to get there.