Originally Posted by
mxz
My point is that we have different definitions of freedom. What Baroness, jobadass and I call liberty/freedom is probably better defined as a belief in Natural Rights. A good illustration of this is that we believe people are born with arms - they have the right to swing those arms around as they wish. That right stops in the few inches between their arms and my nose. To us, being able to swing your arms around recklessly and merrily, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights is freedom. This has never been well understood by majorities in many other countries.
The European version of freedom is a Positive Rights view. That is, that you are a subject of society and that the government gives you any rights you may need. So, the government may give you the right to own a weapon, but one does not get rights simply be being born (a very stark difference from the American definition). This is coupled with the belief that freedom is the ability to vote.
The problem, in my view, is that any majority can decide which rights any group of citizenry should be granted or taken away at any time. Going back to your example - Germans, by the British/European definition were free. They voted for their leaders and representatives just as British, French, Spanish, etc.. peoples did. Yes, even Jews were considered to have freedom.
There's nothing to prevent a similar vote for the Final Solution (which was legally passed my a majority in the legislature and signed into law by their head of State) in any of those countries. I'm not suggesting it would be done (mostly on morale grounds). However, American definitions of freedom explicitly prevent the government by doing so via rights to self-expression, practice of religion and probably the greatest asset: the right to self-defense (or bear arms, as it is expressly written). It's hard to imagine American soldiers roaming the streets executing members of a minority group (especially a group that is well armed).