3 ms·

This is a very interesting report. I would add one anecdotal piece of information: having lived and visited all around the US, the places I would consider livin

by asolove 15y ago

This is a very interesting report. I would add one anecdotal piece of information: having lived and visited all around the US, the places I would consider living permanently (California, Washington, New Mexico, Maryland, New York) all rank as significantly less free than their neighbors. I have no idea what this means.

bhousel 15y ago
It probably means that most people can't handle too much freedom.
Steko 15y ago
This is not a freedom index. This is a freedom from government index. Apparently it's cool if you're oppressed by your neighbor playing loud music all night or the company upstream dumping toxic waste into your water supply but we've stepped over the line if the government steps in and tries to actually price negative externalities like you know Hayek[1] and Friedman[2] endorsed. [1] http://businesspublicpolicy.com/?p=1186 http://businesspublicpolicy.com/?p=1186 [2] http://www.angrybearblog.com/2007/10/friedman-externalities-and-difference.html http://www.angrybearblog.com/2007/10/friedman-externalities-...
- drewcrawford 15y ago
  All freedom can be understood in terms of the authority that is displaced [1]. The net amount of liberty, strictly measured, is always conserved [2]. Individual freedom is a restriction upon xenophobic groups; economic freedom shifts the needle in favor of those with the capital; emancipation grants rights to slaves and strips them from slaveowners. The water flows the other way too: you can talk about the "freedom" of Kim Jong Il or Stalin to murder their own people. The entire political discourse in this country (and, to some extent, HN) will be frozen until we can move past merely reciting mechanically that helping one group comes at the expense of hurting some other group. If we put half as much energy into either throughly examining the moral underpinnings of which groups should be elevated or abased[3], or empirically studying the possible utilitarian effects of this[4] as we spend reciting talking points at each other, we would have a great many of the world's problems already solved. [1] Understand that I'm trying to be morally neutral here, "freedom" and "authority" are being used descriptively, not prescriptively. Obviously a great many of us have strong opinions that slavery is bad, etc. [2] By this I mean in any individual exchange, you are taking freedom from one group and are assigning an equal amount of freedom to another group. Human perception can differ a great deal: punishing a murderer has an enormous negative burden upon an individual, but it has an equal and opposite impact to society at large, albeit amortized over a great number of people. This can be hard to see in some cases. Also, I am not claiming that a policy in the long run cannot raise all ships; that is a function of tenth-order consequences, and I (and the parent) are talking about first-order ones. [3] And by this I mean: is it right to take something from this group and give it to this other group? Under what circumstances? Is inequality bad? Is it bad in proportion to the amount of inequality? Is it still bad if everyone has a sufficient floor of resources that meets their basic needs? These are interesting questions; our current political discourse is not. [4] And by this I mean: What are some local maxima and non-local maxima for economic output as a function of regulation? If we plot creative output as a function of IP law, what will the graph look like? Can we do empirical studies to confirm or refute the underlying basis for legislation (controlling phenylephrine reducing methamphetamine production, for example)? These are elevating questions that inspire us to learn about our world. We are nowhere close to having this kind of conversation.

by asolove 15y ago

bhousel 15y ago

It probably means that most people can't handle too much freedom.

Steko 15y ago

This is not a freedom index. This is a freedom from government index. Apparently it's cool if you're oppressed by your neighbor playing loud music all night or the company upstream dumping toxic waste into your water supply but we've stepped over the line if the government steps in and tries to actually price negative externalities like you know Hayek[1] and Friedman[2] endorsed. [1] http://businesspublicpolicy.com/?p=1186 http://businesspublicpolicy.com/?p=1186 [2] http://www.angrybearblog.com/2007/10/friedman-externalities-and-difference.html http://www.angrybearblog.com/2007/10/friedman-externalities-...

drewcrawford 15y ago
All freedom can be understood in terms of the authority that is displaced [1]. The net amount of liberty, strictly measured, is always conserved [2]. Individual freedom is a restriction upon xenophobic groups; economic freedom shifts the needle in favor of those with the capital; emancipation grants rights to slaves and strips them from slaveowners. The water flows the other way too: you can talk about the "freedom" of Kim Jong Il or Stalin to murder their own people. The entire political discourse in this country (and, to some extent, HN) will be frozen until we can move past merely reciting mechanically that helping one group comes at the expense of hurting some other group. If we put half as much energy into either throughly examining the moral underpinnings of which groups should be elevated or abased[3], or empirically studying the possible utilitarian effects of this[4] as we spend reciting talking points at each other, we would have a great many of the world's problems already solved. [1] Understand that I'm trying to be morally neutral here, "freedom" and "authority" are being used descriptively, not prescriptively. Obviously a great many of us have strong opinions that slavery is bad, etc. [2] By this I mean in any individual exchange, you are taking freedom from one group and are assigning an equal amount of freedom to another group. Human perception can differ a great deal: punishing a murderer has an enormous negative burden upon an individual, but it has an equal and opposite impact to society at large, albeit amortized over a great number of people. This can be hard to see in some cases. Also, I am not claiming that a policy in the long run cannot raise all ships; that is a function of tenth-order consequences, and I (and the parent) are talking about first-order ones. [3] And by this I mean: is it right to take something from this group and give it to this other group? Under what circumstances? Is inequality bad? Is it bad in proportion to the amount of inequality? Is it still bad if everyone has a sufficient floor of resources that meets their basic needs? These are interesting questions; our current political discourse is not. [4] And by this I mean: What are some local maxima and non-local maxima for economic output as a function of regulation? If we plot creative output as a function of IP law, what will the graph look like? Can we do empirical studies to confirm or refute the underlying basis for legislation (controlling phenylephrine reducing methamphetamine production, for example)? These are elevating questions that inspire us to learn about our world. We are nowhere close to having this kind of conversation.