This is on the dot. The entirety of their argument can be summed up as “I don’t want to give a shit about my neighbor”. And, “I don’t want to care for the hungry”. Or, “I don’t want to share medical costs with my neighbors”. Basically, “I don’t want to share anything”.

The US doesn’t protect positive rights (requiring the government to give you something) in the same way as Europeans.

But this case is pretty clearly about negative rights (preventing the government from doing something) which based on the original Bill of Rights is pretty clear.

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

freedom from any rights, positive or negative

[flagged]

Europeans define freedom by smugness and they lead the world in it

Considering Americans gave an estimated $617B to charity in 2025, and ranked #6 in the world in the CAF 2024 World Giving Index (ahead of any European country), I would have to disagree that Americans define freedom as "not having to give a shit about anyone else".

As an American I agree. Low taxes, let me live and make my own decisions.