This doesn’t really have anything to do with capitalism, nor with propaganda. This is the difference between “Freedom to” and “Freedom from” and which is valued more. Capitalism works under both systems.
“Freedom from” is a more European model, where the state is more likely to provide a good social safety net, regulate against potential harms, and more tightly curb free speech in the interest of protecting others from having to hear hateful things, or gun rights in the interest of protecting people from potential violence. “Freedom to” is a more American model where you have fewer restrictions but far fewer protections. You’re essentially on your own if someone who hates you wants to get a gun, but you’re just as allowed to get one to defend yourself. You can say whatever you want, but have to deal with well-meaning bleeding hearts defending nazis and their right to spout hate (or you did, anyway - this is changing somewhat). There are pros and cons to both systems of value, but we should probably recognize them for what they are rather than tilting at windmills.
It’s true!
Americans have more freedom to go bankrupt, get sued, get imprisoned, get shot, get robbed, get fired, get exploited and to die.
I get that you’re being flippant, but they also have more freedom to make way more money, say what they want even if they’re assholes, protect themselves when they live out in the country, do what they want with their land, start a business with less regulation, etc. You could also just as easily say Europeans are free to have more than half their income seized to pay for other people’s benefits, free to be thrown in jail for saying something mean about someone, etc.
I might agree with your specific points, but I think it’s important to emphasize to anyone who blindly reads your post and is like “Yeah!!! America sux!” that there are unquestionably costs and benefits to both systems, and just because you value one more than the other doesn’t make the other one wrong, it makes it different. If you think one is “right” and one is “wrong”, I can guarantee you haven’t fully examined the pros and cons. (As an aside, there are also tons of issues in America and Europe that make them good or bad places to live that are unrelated to this philosophical problem of what constitutes freedom.)
But there will always be people who value more freedom (freedom to) over more protection (freedom from) and vice versa. At one extreme, you have anarchy and the Purge everyday, at the other: living in a prison. Finding the right balance between safety and freedom is an ancient problem, and recognizing that the OP clearly thinks only their definition is the “right” one on a multivariate scale with many different equilibriums is the epitome of “Wake up sheeple” and assuming anyone who has different values than you is a rube.
In any event, attributing any of it to capitalism is just wrong.
This reminded me of of a documentary I watched about when east and west Germany merged and a lady from the east German side was bitching about how there were more than 2 flavors of yogurt (plain and strawberry) now.
Here is a good explanation of how they got from “freedom” to that. An important aspect of freedom is self ownership (if someone else owns you, you are not free), and:
If you use your body to pick fruit, that fruit becomes yours, even though you didn’t make it. If you use your body to land on Tristan de Cunha and plant a flag there and maybe pick some coconuts, that makes Tristan de Cunha and everything on your property and that of your heirs forever, even though you definitely didn’t make the island. And if someone else lands on Tristan de Cunha the day after you, you by right control every facet of their life on the island and they have to do whatever you say or else leave.
