FP jaan, I'm really surprised to see you going from totally supporting the US model to saying things I was saying a year ago, in just a few short months. I'm a little concerned to be honest with you. I felt like you were tha Yin to my Yang, now we're just two lost sould swimming in a fish bowl (little Pink Floyd and Samad Behrangi reference)
LOL. I am not sure if you are serious in your statement that I support the US model. It has nothing to do with the US, Iran, Europe or this or that ism.
I support sole responsibility and ownership for each individual soul, thus maximum possible individual freedom. That is the very simple and clear matrix to measure every social organization against. The principle is as simple and clear as 1,2,3. It is irrefutable.
Whenever, wherever this fails regardless of whether it is in the past or present, in the US or in Iran, to the extent that it fails, missery follows, it just takes a little time for results to show.
In this respect the US constitution though imperfect, is the greatest human achievement ever. However, as exactly predicted by the authors of the constitution, the natural course of history is for liberty to yield and government to gain, should the people be complaicant, regardless of a peace of paper called the constitution. And sure enough, in the US, liberty has been greatly, greatly curtailed and simultaneously liberty has gained across the world in many countries.
Thus, presently, in many areas the US is better than others and in some it is worse. Slogans are irrelevant, facts against this one simple matrix are what matter.
Thus, for example, the US healthcare system as a whole has less individual freedom than that of Canada for example, despite the slogans. This is because government has laws instituted that greatly curtail individual choice for one side, consumers, while preserving that choice for the other side, the suppliers, this to allow usury profits. The results are as expected. The best choice is not Canada's, the best choice is removing laws that limit individual choices.
My current post on lack of transparency is another case in point. It is a bad choice to seed power to a few individuals to dispense trillions. However, when that is the reality, the next best choice is to ensure transparency to increase individual freedom. When there is transparency, there is freedom to access the information, to take people to court, to vote crooks out, to prevent similar future problems. Lack of transparency = less individual freedom.
It means that a few think that in their grand wisdom they know better to decide the best for the rest.
A few say, we will decide how to dispense trillions and we do not need to tell you who we are giving it to, cause trust us, we know better. Ya right! That is = great curtailing of individual liberties.