7 ms·

US Economic Liberty Has Been Sinking for Sixteen Years

63 points by andrenth 10y ago

wNk6A23YB 10y ago
Any time I hear someone talking about liberty I presume they're a nut. It's unfortunate that word has been so wholly owned by crazy self centered people.
asquabventured 10y ago
Land of the free
autokad 10y ago
its hard to take seriously any indicator that's lead by island nations and city states.
- wyager 10y ago
  Why? Those are often quite free.
  - autokad 10y ago
    because its just a measure for exactly that, city states.
  - JDDunn9 10y ago
    Small city-states can use strategies that don't scale. Being a tax haven essentially leeches businesses from neighboring countries, but if everyone was a tax haven, then no-one would be. Economies based on tourism or oil also are not duplicatable.
    - autokad 10y ago
      exactly. i started to type reasons why but then i considered they'd have to be data blind to not see a problem with it, and would argue over semantics and exceptions, etc etc.
    - wyager 10y ago
      > but if everyone was a tax haven, then no-one would be. But there's a good chance that the world would be more productive as a whole. Governments typically trade economic productivity (by increasing friction) for ostensible social benefits (via tax-funded programs). Of course, it's not clear if this tradeoff always works out, because governments may spend sub-optimally or divert funds towards things like war.
      - JDDunn9 10y ago
        Your hypothesis seems to be that companies in low-tax countries have a higher growth rate than higher-tax countries in the same industries. If that were true, then companies in those countries would eventually dominate the world's market share. Instead, it's companies in higher tax countries that are the largest. Governments often increase productivity. Try investing in a country with no laws, education, or infrastructure. They can also help make an economy more efficient by maximizing positive externalities and minimizing negative ones. Social benefits can also be beneficial economically as an externality. Companies don't have the incentive to keep someone from starving or to educate them from kindergarten, but having a larger, more educated work force certainly benefits the economy as a whole.
        wyager 10y ago
        >then companies in those countries would eventually dominate the world's market share. Has "eventually" happened yet? US tax policy has gotten worse in recent years; give it some time. >Instead, it's companies in higher tax countries that are the largest. The biggest companies are in the US, which is a huge country with lots of historical capital. There are hundreds of reasons big companies tend to be here, and you haven't demonstrated that excessive taxes are one of them. Interestingly, many young tech companies like Google have their EU HQs (and sometimes global HQs) in Ireland for tax reasons.
    - refurb 10y ago
      Offering a more friendly business climate is leeching? So if I open a store and sell you a computer for less than the next store over, am I leeching from my neighbors?
      - JDDunn9 10y ago
        If those countries were so business friendly, why aren't companies started there? Where is the Silicon Valley of Ireland or Singapore? Those businesses were built and grew because of the quality of infrastructure and supports provided by taxes. A better comparison to your computer analogy would be a company that sells knock-offs and counterfeit products. Trying to just reap the rewards without doing the hard work to get there.
- sbuttgereit 10y ago
  After all, we only want to look at good, how shall I say it... civilized countries... now don't we?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
skybrian 10y ago
Before panicking, perhaps ask what's the criteria for the these ratings.
wyager 10y ago
One remarkable thing that most Americans don't seem to know; the US is one of two countries (the other being Eritrea) that takes income tax on income earned while living outside the US. While there are some tax credits that lessen this burden, the only way to free oneself of US income tax is to renounce citizenship. Renouncing citizenship requires a fee of over $2000 and several years of extensive tax records at the IRS's request.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  I did know that. But what's the connection you're making...?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - joelrunyon 10y ago
    I think the connection is that taxing you based on where you were born rather than where you live is not very "economically free"
- JDDunn9 10y ago
  You can exclude the first ~$100k of your income when working abroad. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
  - brobinson 10y ago
    You still have the filing burden, though. More annoying than that is that it's extremely difficult to open a bank account overseas because of FATCA. It's less costly to deny Americans service than to comply with the US' reporting requirements.
    - MandieD 10y ago
      And the irony is, while foreign banks will figure out how to deal with an American who wants millions handled, my middle-class retirement account is not worth the hassle. I'm just thankful to still have a current (checking) account so I can receive my pay.
surfmike 10y ago
In many ways I found Scandinavian countries more economically free than America when I lived there. A strong social safety net is not necessarily incompatible with an economically free country.
- jacobolus 10y ago
  A strong social safety net is incompatible with “freedom” when the Koch brothers and their billionaire buddies are paying for the word’s definition. In particular, “freedom” here has been defined to mean low taxes, weak government, lack of regulatory oversight of industry, and lax controls over the movement of capital. Consider this report an ideologically motivated propaganda piece rather than a serious analysis.
  - jernfrost 10y ago
    Hehehe isn't freedom defined by the rich in America as the freedom to fail and be poor.
- zanny 10y ago
  I'd argue the only way you get maximal economic liberty is with a strong safety net. The most significant "lawful" forces that hurt economic liberty are regulations, price fixing, and certification. They vary in intensity from having to put ingredients on the bottle to outright banning incandescent lightbulbs, from corn subsidies to fixed rates in medicare, and from getting a drivers license to getting an MD. But they are all barriers to economic participation and malleability. But they exist for reasons - to reduce exploitation in the system. Those social safety nets, that in theory could be taking an economically uniform portion of productivity and thus have their minimal impact, also reduce the ability for people to be exploited. Loan sharks and get thin quick schemes are modern, legal forms of exploitation, but historically bad food products, dangerous housing and machinery, and outright extortion were all exploitation schemes the regulation machine reduces. But if you have a strong enough safety net to keep people out of the desperation trap of needing money or resources to sustain their livelihood you can also eliminate swathes of the regulation that restricts markets without negatively harming those at most risk for being taken advantage of, because the state institution provides a floor on what the worst possible outcomes can be. It is very similar to how easy credit creates business opportunity. Without credit, you cannot have a foundation to start out on if you have nothing in the first place. In the same way, either Scandanavian style socialism or the UBI proposals floating around can provide the foundation to enable more general economic freedom above it. It is impossible to feel free when you are restricted to the bottom of Maslow's heirarchy. Maximal freedom comes from the top, where you have access to the full breadth of your potential. But any time you slip down to the bottom rungs again you are forced to contend with those, because survival trumps self-actualization. If you want to maximize for personal liberty of all forms, including economic, you need to make sure nobody is getting trapped down there.
rch 10y ago
> The full data set, including all of the data published in this report as well as data omitted due to limited space, can be downloaded for free at http://www.freetheworld.com http://www.freetheworld.com. The data file available there contains the most up-to-date and accurate data for the Economic Freedom of the World index. Actually that site sends me to another site [-] which asks for an email (over plain http). That's as far as I'm willing to take it, but I'm curious to know if anyone is able/willing to pull the dataset. - http://efwdata.com/ http://efwdata.com/
steveax 10y ago
Consider the source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fraser_Institute http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fraser_Institute
- johncole 10y ago
  What should we be considering here?
  - steveax 10y ago
    I happen to think that who funds an organization is often indicative of their agenda i.e.: follow the money. I also understand this belief is not universally shared.
  - refurb 10y ago
    If a study forms a conclusion you don't agree with, then you look at the source and automatically assume it's biased. If it's something you agree with, then no need to check and see who did the work. It stands on its own.
    - dash2 10y ago
      How do you know he doesn't consider the source of reports he agrees with also?
- dcgudeman 10y ago
  It's a libertarian think tank... so? Also the link you just posted is bordering on garbage. Why wouldn't you just link the wiki?
ap22213 10y ago
What does this even mean? When I think of 'Liberty' I think of freedom of movement and action. But, over the last 16 years, I have not noticed any changes in how I can move or spend my money. And, I have a lot more than I used to have. Or, is this only relevant to the very rich? Or, is it similar to how Fox News characters talk about 'freedom'? (that is, much different than what I think of freedom).
mrtree 10y ago
What does economic freedom even mean?
- dcgudeman 10y ago
  too hard to google? Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom
millstone 10y ago
Here's what "economic liberty" apparently means: size of government: expenditures, taxes, and enterprises legal structure and security of property rights access to sound money freedom to trade internationally; and regulation of credit, labor, and business And, reading further, buying into this means you agree that a large "size of government" is inherently bad, that "inflation is a a monetary phenomenon," and that all regulations reduce freedom. This is of course a libertarian point of view. Personally, I have found that Obamacare subsidies have given me the freedom to start a business without putting my family at risk, that inflation can be rooted in technological supply-side or demand-side shocks, and that regulations like nutritional information requirements make me more free by giving me more information. With this understanding, the USA is more "economically free" than at any point in my lifetime.
- olalonde 10y ago
  The colloquial "freedom" you refer to is subjective and can be used to mean anything. Robbing a bank would give me the freedom to start a business without putting my family at risk. Going to jail would make me more free by not having to worry about food. Microsoft Windows gives me more freedom to get my work done because Linux has poor support for Word documents. Freedom or liberty has to be defined negatively (e.g. absence of constraints) and precisely to have any objective meaning at all.
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    “Economic freedom” per the Kochs and their network of libertarian think tanks means your freedom as an industrialist to bring government soldiers in to help you forcibly suppress worker strikes. It means your freedom to dump whatever you want into the local river, without pesky interference from the EPA. It means your freedom to create propaganda venues masquerading as news with no accountability. It means the freedom to force all dispute resolution out of a publicly accountable court system into private arbitration. It means your freedom to funnel money secretly to university-affiliated “scientists” to publish bogus studies casting doubt on climate change or the harmful effects of particular products. It means the freedom to secretly donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns, and make sure the law supports your hiring politicians and government officials at high salaries after they leave public office. Etc. The “robber barons” are their heroes and their dream is a return to the Gilded Age. Labeling this “freedom” is a pretty cute bit of rhetorical gymnastics.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
vacri 10y ago
The UAE at #9? It's a modern-day slave state, that entices workers from the subcontinent, takes their passports, and then forces them to work without pay. Not sure how that is 'economic liberty'.
- jernfrost 10y ago
  Yeah, I noticed how my home country Norway is way below such an authoritarian regime. Just shows how ridiculous the whole notion of economic freedom is. I guess if freedom is determined in terms of freedom to economically exploit, then the slave owning southern states of old would have been at the very top of this index. After all putting in restrictions, like you can't own people, is restricting economic "freedom" in some way :-D It is a they say, economists know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
mikaeluman 10y ago
The word "freedom" refers to freedom _from_ coercion. This is why a big government, that takes your income, inherently reduces economic freedom. Consider the opposite. "Now with free education and free golf lessons I have so much more freedom". This is essentially nonsensical. This concept of "freedom" can be taken to mean anything you like, and deliberately hides the other side of the transaction. Namely, the tutors who are coerced to teach you math and golf. Or, if they are paid, the people who are taxed to pay for your "freedom" while receiving no benefit whatsoever. The same goes for social safety nets and the rest. It is telling that these basic moral concepts are not spread in our society today. This year US may well get Trumped. Next time it will be Berned (literally).
- lazaroclapp 10y ago
  Free education means free as in price, not as in freedom. It is also understood by almost anyone who suggest it to not be free to society at large, but free to the person receiving it and paid for by society at large, same for health. At the level of a society, it makes sense because you want to live in a more educated capable society, which increases your own opportunities and standard of living regardless of what you do, given that society is interconnected. At the most individualistic level, you can consider the benefits to yourself of receiving free education when you are young, then paying for it in the form of taxes over the future and realize that public institutions tend to work better for this case than for profit loans in most cases. Regarding the whole freedom from coercion argument. My question would be: isn't private property itself essentially enforced by government coercion? How is the freedom to not pay taxes any more sacred than the freedom to not being stopped by police if I steal from someone else? Taxation is constitutive of the concept of a modern state. Now, we can discuss the pro's and con's of specific programs, the amount of taxation needed to fund them, how progressive such taxation needs to be and whether the benefits are worth the costs. I can say that I think socialized education is definitely worth it, and you can tell me that you don't believe it is, and tax policy results from democratic compromise among many such points of view. But the whole "taxation is morally wrong because it implies state coercion" argument is absurd, private property implies state coercion too and I have seen few libertarians suggest it should go away (in that sense, I believe full-on Anarchists have a more self-consistent view, even if I still don't agree with it).
jernfrost 10y ago
Do these kind of rankings even say anything meaningful relevant to this world. I notice my own country Norway being far down, below countries like Romania, Jordan Qatar etc. Countries I know have far less effective governments and private property rights. It is not unknown that people the swindled away from their property in Romania due to the rife government corruption. On paper economic freedom is rather pointless if you got a poorly managed government and buried in corruption and incompetence. All the money Norway has sent to Romania to deal with the roma people has disappeared in a big black hole. How long does it take to start a business in these countries? It takes twice as long to do it in Romania and United Arab Emirates than in Norway. I suspect these sorts of rankings is just made to further a libertarian agenda.
Poorboyrise 10y ago
Maybe related: //hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/problems-unsolved-and-a-nation-divided.pdf
gumby 10y ago
I always like ratings like this that put Singapore near the top of the list. It feels like the raters have never been there. It's a very controlling society (not authoritarian at all, but very controlling). Personally I wouldn't want to live there any more but I think the government generally has the support of a large majority of the population and it's definitely raised the standard of living dramatically and sustainably. It's easy to look at its free port tax regime and say "liberal!" But it's economically very illiberal.

63 points by andrenth 10y ago

Any time I hear someone talking about liberty I presume they're a nut. It's unfortunate that word has been so wholly owned by crazy self centered people.

asquabventured 10y ago

Land of the free

autokad 10y ago

its hard to take seriously any indicator that's lead by island nations and city states.

wyager 10y ago
Why? Those are often quite free.
- autokad 10y ago
  because its just a measure for exactly that, city states.
- JDDunn9 10y ago
  Small city-states can use strategies that don't scale. Being a tax haven essentially leeches businesses from neighboring countries, but if everyone was a tax haven, then no-one would be. Economies based on tourism or oil also are not duplicatable.
  - autokad 10y ago
    exactly. i started to type reasons why but then i considered they'd have to be data blind to not see a problem with it, and would argue over semantics and exceptions, etc etc.
  - wyager 10y ago
    > but if everyone was a tax haven, then no-one would be. But there's a good chance that the world would be more productive as a whole. Governments typically trade economic productivity (by increasing friction) for ostensible social benefits (via tax-funded programs). Of course, it's not clear if this tradeoff always works out, because governments may spend sub-optimally or divert funds towards things like war.
    - JDDunn9 10y ago
      Your hypothesis seems to be that companies in low-tax countries have a higher growth rate than higher-tax countries in the same industries. If that were true, then companies in those countries would eventually dominate the world's market share. Instead, it's companies in higher tax countries that are the largest. Governments often increase productivity. Try investing in a country with no laws, education, or infrastructure. They can also help make an economy more efficient by maximizing positive externalities and minimizing negative ones. Social benefits can also be beneficial economically as an externality. Companies don't have the incentive to keep someone from starving or to educate them from kindergarten, but having a larger, more educated work force certainly benefits the economy as a whole.
      - wyager 10y ago
        >then companies in those countries would eventually dominate the world's market share. Has "eventually" happened yet? US tax policy has gotten worse in recent years; give it some time. >Instead, it's companies in higher tax countries that are the largest. The biggest companies are in the US, which is a huge country with lots of historical capital. There are hundreds of reasons big companies tend to be here, and you haven't demonstrated that excessive taxes are one of them. Interestingly, many young tech companies like Google have their EU HQs (and sometimes global HQs) in Ireland for tax reasons.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Offering a more friendly business climate is leeching? So if I open a store and sell you a computer for less than the next store over, am I leeching from my neighbors?
    - JDDunn9 10y ago
      If those countries were so business friendly, why aren't companies started there? Where is the Silicon Valley of Ireland or Singapore? Those businesses were built and grew because of the quality of infrastructure and supports provided by taxes. A better comparison to your computer analogy would be a company that sells knock-offs and counterfeit products. Trying to just reap the rewards without doing the hard work to get there.
sbuttgereit 10y ago
After all, we only want to look at good, how shall I say it... civilized countries... now don't we?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

skybrian 10y ago

Before panicking, perhaps ask what's the criteria for the these ratings.

wyager 10y ago

One remarkable thing that most Americans don't seem to know; the US is one of two countries (the other being Eritrea) that takes income tax on income earned while living outside the US. While there are some tax credits that lessen this burden, the only way to free oneself of US income tax is to renounce citizenship. Renouncing citizenship requires a fee of over $2000 and several years of extensive tax records at the IRS's request.

paulddraper 10y ago
I did know that. But what's the connection you're making...?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- joelrunyon 10y ago
  I think the connection is that taxing you based on where you were born rather than where you live is not very "economically free"
JDDunn9 10y ago
You can exclude the first ~$100k of your income when working abroad. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
- brobinson 10y ago
  You still have the filing burden, though. More annoying than that is that it's extremely difficult to open a bank account overseas because of FATCA. It's less costly to deny Americans service than to comply with the US' reporting requirements.
  - MandieD 10y ago
    And the irony is, while foreign banks will figure out how to deal with an American who wants millions handled, my middle-class retirement account is not worth the hassle. I'm just thankful to still have a current (checking) account so I can receive my pay.

surfmike 10y ago

In many ways I found Scandinavian countries more economically free than America when I lived there. A strong social safety net is not necessarily incompatible with an economically free country.

jacobolus 10y ago
A strong social safety net is incompatible with “freedom” when the Koch brothers and their billionaire buddies are paying for the word’s definition. In particular, “freedom” here has been defined to mean low taxes, weak government, lack of regulatory oversight of industry, and lax controls over the movement of capital. Consider this report an ideologically motivated propaganda piece rather than a serious analysis.
- jernfrost 10y ago
  Hehehe isn't freedom defined by the rich in America as the freedom to fail and be poor.
zanny 10y ago
I'd argue the only way you get maximal economic liberty is with a strong safety net. The most significant "lawful" forces that hurt economic liberty are regulations, price fixing, and certification. They vary in intensity from having to put ingredients on the bottle to outright banning incandescent lightbulbs, from corn subsidies to fixed rates in medicare, and from getting a drivers license to getting an MD. But they are all barriers to economic participation and malleability. But they exist for reasons - to reduce exploitation in the system. Those social safety nets, that in theory could be taking an economically uniform portion of productivity and thus have their minimal impact, also reduce the ability for people to be exploited. Loan sharks and get thin quick schemes are modern, legal forms of exploitation, but historically bad food products, dangerous housing and machinery, and outright extortion were all exploitation schemes the regulation machine reduces. But if you have a strong enough safety net to keep people out of the desperation trap of needing money or resources to sustain their livelihood you can also eliminate swathes of the regulation that restricts markets without negatively harming those at most risk for being taken advantage of, because the state institution provides a floor on what the worst possible outcomes can be. It is very similar to how easy credit creates business opportunity. Without credit, you cannot have a foundation to start out on if you have nothing in the first place. In the same way, either Scandanavian style socialism or the UBI proposals floating around can provide the foundation to enable more general economic freedom above it. It is impossible to feel free when you are restricted to the bottom of Maslow's heirarchy. Maximal freedom comes from the top, where you have access to the full breadth of your potential. But any time you slip down to the bottom rungs again you are forced to contend with those, because survival trumps self-actualization. If you want to maximize for personal liberty of all forms, including economic, you need to make sure nobody is getting trapped down there.

rch 10y ago

> The full data set, including all of the data published in this report as well as data omitted due to limited space, can be downloaded for free at http://www.freetheworld.com http://www.freetheworld.com. The data file available there contains the most up-to-date and accurate data for the Economic Freedom of the World index. Actually that site sends me to another site [-] which asks for an email (over plain http). That's as far as I'm willing to take it, but I'm curious to know if anyone is able/willing to pull the dataset. - http://efwdata.com/ http://efwdata.com/

steveax 10y ago

Consider the source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fraser_Institute http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fraser_Institute

johncole 10y ago
What should we be considering here?
- steveax 10y ago
  I happen to think that who funds an organization is often indicative of their agenda i.e.: follow the money. I also understand this belief is not universally shared.
- refurb 10y ago
  If a study forms a conclusion you don't agree with, then you look at the source and automatically assume it's biased. If it's something you agree with, then no need to check and see who did the work. It stands on its own.
  - dash2 10y ago
    How do you know he doesn't consider the source of reports he agrees with also?
dcgudeman 10y ago
It's a libertarian think tank... so? Also the link you just posted is bordering on garbage. Why wouldn't you just link the wiki?

ap22213 10y ago

What does this even mean? When I think of 'Liberty' I think of freedom of movement and action. But, over the last 16 years, I have not noticed any changes in how I can move or spend my money. And, I have a lot more than I used to have. Or, is this only relevant to the very rich? Or, is it similar to how Fox News characters talk about 'freedom'? (that is, much different than what I think of freedom).

mrtree 10y ago

What does economic freedom even mean?

dcgudeman 10y ago
too hard to google? Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom

millstone 10y ago

Here's what "economic liberty" apparently means: size of government: expenditures, taxes, and enterprises legal structure and security of property rights access to sound money freedom to trade internationally; and regulation of credit, labor, and business And, reading further, buying into this means you agree that a large "size of government" is inherently bad, that "inflation is a a monetary phenomenon," and that all regulations reduce freedom. This is of course a libertarian point of view. Personally, I have found that Obamacare subsidies have given me the freedom to start a business without putting my family at risk, that inflation can be rooted in technological supply-side or demand-side shocks, and that regulations like nutritional information requirements make me more free by giving me more information. With this understanding, the USA is more "economically free" than at any point in my lifetime.

olalonde 10y ago
The colloquial "freedom" you refer to is subjective and can be used to mean anything. Robbing a bank would give me the freedom to start a business without putting my family at risk. Going to jail would make me more free by not having to worry about food. Microsoft Windows gives me more freedom to get my work done because Linux has poor support for Word documents. Freedom or liberty has to be defined negatively (e.g. absence of constraints) and precisely to have any objective meaning at all.
- jacobolus 10y ago
  “Economic freedom” per the Kochs and their network of libertarian think tanks means your freedom as an industrialist to bring government soldiers in to help you forcibly suppress worker strikes. It means your freedom to dump whatever you want into the local river, without pesky interference from the EPA. It means your freedom to create propaganda venues masquerading as news with no accountability. It means the freedom to force all dispute resolution out of a publicly accountable court system into private arbitration. It means your freedom to funnel money secretly to university-affiliated “scientists” to publish bogus studies casting doubt on climate change or the harmful effects of particular products. It means the freedom to secretly donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns, and make sure the law supports your hiring politicians and government officials at high salaries after they leave public office. Etc. The “robber barons” are their heroes and their dream is a return to the Gilded Age. Labeling this “freedom” is a pretty cute bit of rhetorical gymnastics.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

vacri 10y ago

The UAE at #9? It's a modern-day slave state, that entices workers from the subcontinent, takes their passports, and then forces them to work without pay. Not sure how that is 'economic liberty'.

jernfrost 10y ago
Yeah, I noticed how my home country Norway is way below such an authoritarian regime. Just shows how ridiculous the whole notion of economic freedom is. I guess if freedom is determined in terms of freedom to economically exploit, then the slave owning southern states of old would have been at the very top of this index. After all putting in restrictions, like you can't own people, is restricting economic "freedom" in some way :-D It is a they say, economists know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

mikaeluman 10y ago

The word "freedom" refers to freedom _from_ coercion. This is why a big government, that takes your income, inherently reduces economic freedom. Consider the opposite. "Now with free education and free golf lessons I have so much more freedom". This is essentially nonsensical. This concept of "freedom" can be taken to mean anything you like, and deliberately hides the other side of the transaction. Namely, the tutors who are coerced to teach you math and golf. Or, if they are paid, the people who are taxed to pay for your "freedom" while receiving no benefit whatsoever. The same goes for social safety nets and the rest. It is telling that these basic moral concepts are not spread in our society today. This year US may well get Trumped. Next time it will be Berned (literally).

lazaroclapp 10y ago
Free education means free as in price, not as in freedom. It is also understood by almost anyone who suggest it to not be free to society at large, but free to the person receiving it and paid for by society at large, same for health. At the level of a society, it makes sense because you want to live in a more educated capable society, which increases your own opportunities and standard of living regardless of what you do, given that society is interconnected. At the most individualistic level, you can consider the benefits to yourself of receiving free education when you are young, then paying for it in the form of taxes over the future and realize that public institutions tend to work better for this case than for profit loans in most cases. Regarding the whole freedom from coercion argument. My question would be: isn't private property itself essentially enforced by government coercion? How is the freedom to not pay taxes any more sacred than the freedom to not being stopped by police if I steal from someone else? Taxation is constitutive of the concept of a modern state. Now, we can discuss the pro's and con's of specific programs, the amount of taxation needed to fund them, how progressive such taxation needs to be and whether the benefits are worth the costs. I can say that I think socialized education is definitely worth it, and you can tell me that you don't believe it is, and tax policy results from democratic compromise among many such points of view. But the whole "taxation is morally wrong because it implies state coercion" argument is absurd, private property implies state coercion too and I have seen few libertarians suggest it should go away (in that sense, I believe full-on Anarchists have a more self-consistent view, even if I still don't agree with it).

jernfrost 10y ago

Do these kind of rankings even say anything meaningful relevant to this world. I notice my own country Norway being far down, below countries like Romania, Jordan Qatar etc. Countries I know have far less effective governments and private property rights. It is not unknown that people the swindled away from their property in Romania due to the rife government corruption. On paper economic freedom is rather pointless if you got a poorly managed government and buried in corruption and incompetence. All the money Norway has sent to Romania to deal with the roma people has disappeared in a big black hole. How long does it take to start a business in these countries? It takes twice as long to do it in Romania and United Arab Emirates than in Norway. I suspect these sorts of rankings is just made to further a libertarian agenda.

Poorboyrise 10y ago

Maybe related: //hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/problems-unsolved-and-a-nation-divided.pdf

gumby 10y ago

I always like ratings like this that put Singapore near the top of the list. It feels like the raters have never been there. It's a very controlling society (not authoritarian at all, but very controlling). Personally I wouldn't want to live there any more but I think the government generally has the support of a large majority of the population and it's definitely raised the standard of living dramatically and sustainably. It's easy to look at its free port tax regime and say "liberal!" But it's economically very illiberal.