I recently spent a week in Berlin. I was impressed with the fact that civil rights are taken seriously there. I am from the USA, and I am aware that civil liberties have eroded in recent years. In the USA, of course, there were fears of terrorism that lead to the deterioration of civil rights. In Germany, when I visited various history museums, I was struck by the number of times that fears of terrorism had been invoked to limit civil rights in that country. In the 1800s, the early labor unions had many ugly confrontations with authorities, and the attempts of the workers to seek redress of grievances was often described by the authorities as unlawful attempts to end the social peace. The German government took oppressive measures against the workers, on the grounds that such measures were necessary to maintain order.

Of course, today, labor unions are accepted as a normal part of the life of Germany, their actions are at times very aggressive, and yet civil order continues to prevail in Germany. In fact, Germany has one of the lowest crime rates of the Western democracies. So, what I learned (again) was that the social order can be maintained even when groups are allowed to assemble and take aggressive actions towards the maintenance of their interests. In fact, it seems to me there is some cause and effect there - the societies that show the most concern about civil rights seem to have very low crime rates.

I can not easily say why authoritarian methods backfire, but they seem to do so often. Most Latin American countries have followed authoritarian policies towards their people, and especially against the drug trade, yet those countries remain beset with high levels of crime. I would suspect that authoritarian regimes are vulnerable to high levels of corruption - if it becomes difficult for citizens to criticize the government, then how can police officials be kept honest? If a person who reveals government corruption can be accused of giving aid and information to the terrorists, then how can government corruption be exposed? And if the police can arrest people without cause, then surely they will find it easier and safer to make a living shaking down innocent citizens, rather than going against well-armed drug criminals. The ability of citizens to push back against unlawful arrest really needs to be the starting point of any system of civil rights. Otherwise, what do civil rights really mean? If you had the assurance of a fair trial, but police were free to arrest you without cause, or with only the slightest pretext of cause, then the police could cause you very serious harassment, though those in authority could defend the legitimacy of their actions by saying, simply, "You are getting a fair trial, so why do you complain about your arrest?" But of course, the arrest itself can be used as a form of harassment, a point that has been obvious to authoritarian regimes everywhere.

While in Berlin I was astonished by the lack of crime. I live in New York City, which has gotten steadily safer since 1993. I have memories of New York City in the 1990s, and so now, in 2010, I am often surprised at how safe New York is. But Berlin is in a whole separate category of safe. I would walk through supposedly bad neighborhoods, alone, at 3 AM and never have the slightest worry. The bad neighborhoods in Berlin are much like the good neighborhoods in New York.

I would encourage my fellow citizens, in the USA, to visit some of those nations with very strong protections of civil rights. I would especially suggest a visit to Berlin, as it is a wonderful city, and something of a revelation in terms of crime.

Though the USA has traditionally called itself "The land of the free" I think a fair and objective comparison of the various Western Democracies, in 2010, does not lead to flattering conclusions about the USA.