The top ten freest countries in the world

[DriftWood]

The top ten freest countries in the world, according to Heritage Foundation.

Take it with a pinch of salt, but its still very interesting. US is in the top 5 (but it might not in the future, with all this populist protectionism and public spending politics going on. Ron Paul would take it to number 1, if they'd only let him). Chile at number 8 is a bit of a surprise. China is way down at 126 so it got some ways to go still, if its economy is going to catch up with that of Hong Kong and the US.

Hong Kong 1 [90.3]
Singapore 2 [87.4]
Ireland 3 [82.4]
Australia 4 [82.0]
United States 5 [80.6]
New Zealand 6 [80.2]
Canada 7 [80.2]
Chile 8 [79.8]
Switzerland 9 [79.7]
United Kingdom 10 [79.5]

Top 10:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/topten.cfm

The whole List:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

Cheers

[newyearsrevolution08]

I wonder what their definition of free is then.

[DriftWood]

I wonder what their definition of free is then.

They brake it down into..

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countryfiles/charts/Unitedstates_Chart2.gif

Check out how US scores:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Unitedstates

Its still a bit subjective.. I agree

Cheers

[american.swan]

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/faq.cfm

Read the FAQ

This is mostly a ranking of business issues and having a higher score might show less involvement in business and labor issues by government.

That's just my take.

[DriftWood]

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/faq.cfm

Read the FAQ

This is mostly a ranking of business issues and having a higher score might show less involvement in business and labor issues by government.

That's just my take.

Yeah, if you ask me.. economic freedom is the most important of all freedoms. You don't get political freedom without economic freedom. In fact i think if people have economic freedom they are able to buy political freedom.

Cheers

[newyearsrevolution08]

minimize government size and it will all work out. Less government would equal free trade rights since WE would be running things for the most part.

[szczebrzeszyn]

Yeah, if you ask me.. economic freedom is the most important of all freedoms.

Really? So you'd accept UK's big brother anytime? They are in the top 10.
BTW. My country is "mostly unfree" :)

[RainbowsChild]

The Heritage Foundation is talking about freedom for businesses, not people. You cannot have freedom while government authorities fire machine guns at you, burn your house down, and brutally murder your innocent children like they did in Waco.

According to the new Global Peace Index (GPI), the Top Ten Most Peaceful Countries In The World are:

1 Norway
2 New Zealand
3 Denmark
4 Ireland
5 Japan
6 Finland
7 Sweden
8 Canada
9 Portugal
10 Austria

http://www.visionofhumanity.com/rankings/
http://www.visionofhumanity.com/gfx/map-GPI-RYB.gif

[tangent4ronpaul]

Hong Kong 1 [90.3]
Singapore 2 [87.4] - fairly poor human rights record, IIRC
Ireland 3 [82.4] - last I heard they were trying to restrict or ban knives...
Australia 4 [82.0] - massive gun control / nanny state
United States 5 [80.6] - in mid flush...
New Zealand 6 [80.2] - massive gun control / nanny state
Canada 7 [80.2] - lot of gun control / nanny state / eminent domain problems, etc.
Chile 8 [79.8]
Switzerland 9 [79.7] - would have thought they and Austria would have been at the top of the list.
United Kingdom 10 [79.5] - total nanny state / surveillance society - don't they have something like a surveillance camera for every 10 citizens or something?

If these are the 10 "Freest" countries in the world - the world is in SERIOUS TROUBLE!

[Primbs]

Isn't Hong Kong under Communist Chinese Rule?

[DriftWood]

Really? So you'd accept UK's big brother anytime? They are in the top 10.
BTW. My country is "mostly unfree" :)

I work in the UK, its not too bad. I prefer it to Sweden and Finland where I lived before, where much of ones wages are lost in taxes. Obviously UK could be better with a smaller govt.

When it comes to all those security cameras.. Hmmm.. i dont really have that big of a problem with 'em. They are all in public spaces and as such im not sure that they violate my privacy.

Look at it this way, a private shop keeper has the right to film his shop and the private property that he owns. It would be in his right also to sell the image feed from his shop to some big private enterprice that also has access to most of the other private camera feeds in the country. This private big brother could sell this info, as a service to 3rd parties. Say to a big private security firm. There would be nothing wrong with this from a libertarian perspective. And what if the govt payed the private big brother for its services? Does that make it wrong. Yes, but only because taxpayer money is being spent. Not because someones privacy is violated. I mean we do not have a right not to be seen in public. We have a right to own private property and we can make sure that we are not seen or recorded there by keeping our windows shut.

Well thats my take on it.

Cheers

[christagious]

Chile at number 8 is a bit of a surprise

Not sure if you're surprised that it's on the list or that it's not more in the top 5. If the former, Ron Paul mentioned Chile's economic policy in his book. If the latter, then I agree with you

[Kalifornia]

this ranking is bullshit. Economic freedom is less than half of the equation.


What about freedom to own and deploy the tools to defend yourself?
What about freedom to speak/assemble?
What about freedom of religion?
What about privacy rights?
What about property rights?
Freedom of dissent?
Freedom to put what you want into your own body?
Freedom to raise your kids without .gov interference?
the list goes on and on.

A fascist state could do quite well on the ranking in the OP.

[DriftWood]

The Heritage Foundation is talking about freedom for businesses, not people. You cannot have freedom while government authorities fire machine guns at you, burn your house down, and brutally murder your innocent children like they did in Waco.

According to the new Global Peace Index (GPI), the Top Ten Most Peaceful Countries In The World are:

1 Norway
2 New Zealand
3 Denmark
4 Ireland
5 Japan
6 Finland
7 Sweden
8 Canada
9 Portugal
10 Austria

http://www.visionofhumanity.com/rankings/
http://www.visionofhumanity.com/gfx/map-GPI-RYB.gif

Well the one thing about this issue that was a real eye opener for me.. was a short description in the the book "Wealth of Nations" (i think). It descibed how the feudal lords owned the life of the pesants that worked on their land. The peasants actually voluntarily gave away all their freedoms in exchange for protection from the violence of other feuadal war lords, and in exchange for getting fed once a day. They had to work hard and could be killed without reason if the feudal lord felt like it. But it still was better than the alternative, it was a mutually benifital deal. The peasants grew food for themselves and traded it among themselves when the lord was not looking. The lord could not stop this and instaed raided the farmers and merchants once in a while collecting money from them. The peasants and merchants started expecting this and instead of waiting to getting raided and beaten they voluntarily gave some money to the lords once a week or something. The lord just had to sit back and receive a fixed amount of money at his doorstep every week. This was protection money, or the taxes to keep the lord away. It was better for the merchants as they did not get raided anymore.. and they could keep more of the money for themsleves without the lord knowing about it. Ther war lords where free to do what they did best, that is go to war with other lords. The more time went on, the richer the merchants got, and the smaller the share of the money they gave the lord. Thats how the peasants got their freedoms back from the lords. They simply bought their freedoms back.

So what has that got to do with anything? Well it shows how economic freedom leeds to political freedom. I also think that its a good story to show what the proper role of govt is. The govt is the king and he makes sure that no other king starts stealing his land and destroying his property or killing his people. The people will pay the king protection money or taxes to get this service. The king might be a brutal dictator, but in the long run he will loose power to the people because he can not stop them from looking out for their own interests first and foremost. A individual will work harder for himself than for his king, thats just human nature. People get richer, wealth equals more power. People get richer and the dictator becomes more benevolent. The king becomes dependent on the money given to him by the people. He makes sure to be nice to the people so that he does not bite the hand that feeds him. People anywhere, given enough time will become free. The path to political freedom leeds thru economic freedom. The proper role of the king/govt is to protect the people from the violence of others.

Trading and wealth building cant happen in war and anarchy. Peace is what happens when one side wins and there is a monopoly on violence.

Anarchy->Dictatorship->Trading->Freedom

Cheers

[DriftWood]

this ranking is bullshit. Economic freedom is less than half of the equation.


What about freedom to own and deploy the tools to defend yourself?
What about freedom to speak/assemble?
What about freedom of religion?
What about privacy rights?
What about property rights?
Freedom of dissent?
Freedom to put what you want into your own body?
Freedom to raise your kids without .gov interference?
the list goes on and on.

A fascist state could do quite well on the ranking in the OP.

Well property rights surely falls under economic freedom. The right to property is a fundamental right that all other rights you mention originate from. Any state that has these economic freedom, given enough time will become free in the political sense as well.

Economic freedom will brake any fascist or authoritarian state. Economic freedom is like water, given enuough time it will cut thru the hardest rock.

Cheers

[DriftWood]

Isn't Hong Kong under Communist Chinese Rule?

Wikipedia...

"The Government of Hong Kong is responsible for its own legal system, police force, monetary system, customs policy, immigration policy, and delegates to international organisations and events. [...] Hong Kong operate with a high degree of autonomy until at least 2047".

Hopefully by that time China will have become just as free as Hong Kong. China is on the right track but its got lots of catching up to do.

Cheers

[DriftWood]

Not sure if you're surprised that it's on the list or that it's not more in the top 5. If the former, Ron Paul mentioned Chile's economic policy in his book. If the latter, then I agree with you

I have not had a chance to read the book (Im in the Philippines at the moment and no bookshop has it). I found this interesting fact about Chile that might explain the high ranking.. We all know that Ron Paul is into the Austrian school of economics. The Chicago School of economics (Milton Friedman) is very similar, and apparently the ideas influenced a lot of Chilean economists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys

Chile is a young country, in the sense that its not that long ago that they gor rid of their dictator Pinochet. Their economy is booming and the politics are improving fast. Just look at how fast they are climbing the rankings in many other economical an political institutions lists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile#International_rankings

Seems whatever chile is dooing. Its working.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?ID=Chile

Cheers

[Primbs]

Wikipedia...

"The Government of Hong Kong is responsible for its own legal system, police force, monetary system, customs policy, immigration policy, and delegates to international organisations and events. [...] Hong Kong operate with a high degree of autonomy until at least 2047".

Hopefully by that time China will have become just as free as Hong Kong. China is on the right track but its got lots of catching up to do.

Cheers

The more I research china the worse it looks.

[Danke]

Let's see.

Singapore has bans on chewing gum and spitting.

The Netherlands sends 10 cops to arrest a cartoonist for insulting people. (I wonder how many more would have been sent if he were an animator…?)

Yep, they should be high on those lists. :rolleyes:

[Sir VotesALot]

Canada, Switzerland, and Australia are NOT 'free'. When you receive a prison sentence for questioning the "holocaust" you are not 'free' no matter how much economic prosperity you have.

[DriftWood]

Let's see.

Singapore has bans on chewing gum and spitting.

The Netherlands sends 10 cops to arrest a cartoonist for insulting people. (I wonder how many more would have been sent if he were an animator…?)

Yep, they should be high on those lists. :rolleyes:

Okay, what countries would have at the top of the list? Netherlands and Singapore seemed pretty free when i visited, no country is perfect. I would not mind working there. Looking at the list, the countries that seem most out of place are some African counties that are ranked in the first half of the list. Botswana is at 36, while China is at 126. I actually wouldnt mind working in China as i think its the future.. but i would think twice before working in Botswana. So yeah, the list is not perfect. But it makes you think.. and if im correct that economic freedom leads to political freedom then in 50 years these places shouldl be good places to live. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Cheers

[DriftWood]

Canada, Switzerland, and Australia are NOT 'free'. When you receive a prison sentence for questioning the "holocaust" you are not 'free' no matter how much economic prosperity you have.

Yeah, i agree that law is an anti-freedom law. But then there are anti-freedom laws in the US also. Positive Discrimination, Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Anti Abortion, Gambling,.. and all kinds of special interst subsidies. No country is perfect, but compared to the rest of the world I think Canada, Switzerland, Australia and the US are fairly free.

Cheers

[apc3161]

Yeah, if you ask me.. economic freedom is the most important of all freedoms. You don't get political freedom without economic freedom. In fact i think if people have economic freedom they are able to buy political freedom.

Cheers

I'm not sure if I agree with that. Look at Singapore, it is arguably the most economically free country in the world (there with HK). But they don't have free speech, the right to free assembly, they have a draft, etc etc. I have a few friends from Singapore, and it seems like politically it's not a great place to live, but economically it is wonderful and hassle free.

[apc3161]

I have not had a chance to read the book (Im in the Philippines at the moment and no bookshop has it). I found this interesting fact about Chile that might explain the high ranking.. We all know that Ron Paul is into the Austrian school of economics. The Chicago School of economics (Milton Friedman) is very similar, and apparently the ideas influenced a lot of Chilean economists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys

Chile is a young country, in the sense that its not that long ago that they gor rid of their dictator Pinochet. Their economy is booming and the politics are improving fast. Just look at how fast they are climbing the rankings in many other economical an political institutions lists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile#International_rankings

Seems whatever chile is dooing. Its working.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?ID=Chile

Cheers

Milton Friedman was one of the main economic consultants for Chile under Pinochet. He got a lot of shit for it at the time from many "peace groups" because he was considered a brutal dictator. But Friedman said that any step in the right direction was good, so he gave them advice saying that in the long run other freedoms will follow economic freedom. Looks like he was right.

[jbuttell]

Sad how this thread really just says - freedom really isn't readily available anywhere. We have a lot of work to do - and no place to run.

[DriftWood]

I'm not sure if I agree with that. Look at Singapore, it is arguably the most economically free country in the world (there with HK). But they don't have free speech, the right to free assembly, they have a draft, etc etc. I have a few friends from Singapore, and it seems like politically it's not a great place to live, but economically it is wonderful and hassle free.

Okay, i did not know that. I was there just two and a half weeks ago (just traveling a year). I never saw any govt interference and the city seemed super moder, fully westernized, multi cultural, safe and tolerant. Almost to the point of being boring. The only thing i did notice was at the border, they scanned my fingerprints. But then again i think US does that to foreigners also.

I'm going to say something I'm probably going to regret.. but if a country has full economic freedom for individuals then maybe the political freedom is not that important. I mean if the government is small, takes few taxes and has little or no public spending. That is, if its a perfect laissez fair society, then whats there to vote about? If there is no bag of taxes for the govt to spend then what is there for companies to lobby about? The problem with democracy is that the majority keeps passing these laws on populist whims and lobbyist behalf that end up helping one group and hurting another. Like the subsidies to farmers. Politics is a game where special interest groups win or loose special treatment from the govt. Maybe its better scrap politics.

Its like Ron Paul says, democracy is not such a good thing. The idea is to limit the laws that the majority is allowed to pass. In US the limits are (supposed to be) the constitution, in Singapore maybe the limit is the laissez fair society. If Ron Paul had his way and changed the country back to follow the constitution then there would not be a lot left to do for politicians to do. There would not really be that much for people to vote about. The constitution would be the law, and the constitution would already be perfect so not much point in changing it. Washington would pretty much be on auto pilot.

So even if i don't think that voting is that important if the society is already "perfect". I do think that any laws that limit freedom of speech and a draft are unacceptable and people should protest and fight any way they can to have them removed. Voting is not the only way to change society. Civil disobedience might just do the trick.

Cheers

[RonPaulVolunteer]

As a New Zealander, I can't believe the US is ABOVE New Zealand. Having lived in both countries equally the last 10 years, there's no way the US is more free'er than NZ. Just not possible.

One of my favorite parts about NZ is that you don't have to build good credit. Everyone starts off with perfect credit until you ruin it, here in the US it's the exact opposite, guilty until proven innocent.

[Rhys]

I've been thinking of moving to Hong Kong for a couple years to check it out.

Hong Kong is left alone by the communists like Singapore is. One China, Two Economies. That's their motto.

[CasualApathy]

Jeez, my country of Denmark has the mother of all big governments ...


Fiscal Freedom - 35%

Denmark has a very high income tax rate and a moderate corporate tax rate. The top income tax rate is 59 percent, and the top corporate tax rate was cut to 25 percent from 28 percent in 2007. Other taxes include a value-added tax (VAT) and an excise tax. In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 50.4 percent.

Freedom from Government - 19.8%

Total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, are very high. Government spending has been marginally decreasing and in the most recent year equaled 51.7 percent of GDP. Most industry and business is now in private hands.

[jbuttell]

As a New Zealander, I can't believe the US is ABOVE New Zealand. Having lived in both countries equally the last 10 years, there's no way the US is more free'er than NZ. Just not possible.

One of my favorite parts about NZ is that you don't have to build good credit. Everyone starts off with perfect credit until you ruin it, here in the US it's the exact opposite, guilty until proven innocent.

It's kinda silly to use credit as a means to demonstrate a countries Freedom, but hey, lets roll with it.

If I were a lender, I don't see how it would be practical to consider everyone being on the same playing field right off the bat. With that you're saying - being that everyone starts off with the same "Perfect" credit... Perfect implies that it can't get any better. A 40 year old man with a house, a history of uninterrupted employment history etc would be seen the same as an 18 year old man? I find that very very difficult to believe.

The idea, with my limited understanding of the systemm, is that you demonstrate that you have the means to pay back your lender (or at least miniumum payments) so that it's a worthwhile investment to the lender. The more established the credit history, the more capable an individual is to aquire larger loans, better rates etc.

How could everyone in NZ just all start out with 'perfect' credit? And the US has the exact opposite of "perfect' as in flawed? So a person who has had a bankruptcy has an equal credit record to that of someone who just got their first credit-card? Please explain, because that makes no sense.

[apc3161]

Okay, i did not know that. I was there just two and a half weeks ago (just traveling a year). I never saw any govt interference and the city seemed super moder, fully westernized, multi cultural, safe and tolerant. Almost to the point of being boring. The only thing i did notice was at the border, they scanned my fingerprints. But then again i think US does that to foreigners also.

I'm going to say something I'm probably going to regret.. but if a country has full economic freedom for individuals then maybe the political freedom is not that important. I mean if the government is small, takes few taxes and has little or no public spending. That is, if its a perfect laissez fair society, then whats there to vote about? If there is no bag of taxes for the govt to spend then what is there for companies to lobby about? The problem with democracy is that the majority keeps passing these laws on populist whims and lobbyist behalf that end up helping one group and hurting another. Like the subsidies to farmers. Politics is a game where special interest groups win or loose special treatment from the govt. Maybe its better scrap politics.

Its like Ron Paul says, democracy is not such a good thing. The idea is to limit the laws that the majority is allowed to pass. In US the limits are (supposed to be) the constitution, in Singapore maybe the limit is the laissez fair society. If Ron Paul had his way and changed the country back to follow the constitution then there would not be a lot left to do for politicians to do. There would not really be that much for people to vote about. The constitution would be the law, and the constitution would already be perfect so not much point in changing it. Washington would pretty much be on auto pilot.

So even if i don't think that voting is that important if the society is already "perfect". I do think that any laws that limit freedom of speech and a draft are unacceptable and people should protest and fight any way they can to have them removed. Voting is not the only way to change society. Civil disobedience might just do the trick.

Cheers

There is probably some truth to that I'd say. Singapore is a good example I think of a "benevolent dictator" type society. You don't have political freedoms, but the government doesn't abuse it's power and does a wonderful job, so it's not the end of the world.

Personally, I think Singapore can get away with that because it's a small city state. There isn't potential for a lot of political or economic "abuse". I think of the same thing with places like Ireland, NZ, HK, etc. I think the smaller the country, the less opportunity there is for corruption and other abuses. It is because of this, I think Singapore is a functioning example of a "benevolent dictator" type government. In larger countries where there is more to gain, and the government has much more power and its discretion, this "good government" benevolence starts to break down because too much power corrupts. That's just my personal opinion.

[Danke]

Singapore is a good example I think of a "benevolent dictator" type society. You don't have political freedoms, but the government doesn't abuse it's power and does a wonderful job, so it's not the end of the world.


Benevolent dictator:


"More than 400 prisoners have been hanged in Singapore since 1991, giving the small city-state possibly the highest execution rate in the world relative to its population of just over four million people."




Reuters
April 12, 2002
SINGAPORE

By Amy Tan

IN the quiet pre-dawn hours of a Friday, someone could be on their way to the gallows in Singapore's Changi prison. But no one knows for sure.

Capital punishment in the tiny island state has long been shrouded in silence, with little public debate about the issue and even less information on how the process is carried out.

"We do have a general policy not to give any information on the death penalty," a prison official told Reuters.

Even the families of those facing the gallows receive scant notice, and any information about the Friday hangings are typically released only after the deed has been done.

"Families are in a state of complete anxiety and lack of knowledge until very, very late in the day," said Tim Parritt, a spokesman for human rights watchdog Amnesty International. The system came under international scrutiny when a German woman last month found herself facing the death penalty after being charged with trafficking in slightly more than 500 grams of cannabis -- a drug now decriminalised in some parts of Europe. Julia Suzanne Bohl escaped the gallows after a Singapore court reduced the charges against her, but the 22-year old still faces a lengthy jail sentence.

Tough drug laws enacted in 1975 made the death sentence mandatory for trafficking in more than 15 grams (half an ounce) of heroin, 30 grams of cocaine or 500 grams of cannabis.

Singapore law assumes a person to be trafficking if they are found in possession of a certain quantity of drugs, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the accused.

Singapore caused a diplomatic storm in 1994 when it ignored Western appeals and hanged a Dutchman for trafficking heroin.

HIGH EXECUTION RATE

The prosperous city-state of four million, ruled by the People's Action Party for four decades, has had capital punishment for murder since its days as a British colony.

Those found guilty of kidnapping, treason and certain firearm offences could also face the gallows, although local civil rights group the Think Centre says about 70 percent of hangings are for drug offences. The government revealed recently, only in reply to a question in parliament, that 340 people were hanged between 1991 and 2000.

In a response to a Reuters query, it also said 22 people were executed for drug trafficking in 2001 and 17 in the year before.

Singapore has one of the highest execution rates in the world relative to its population, Amnesty's Parritt said.

The highest outright number of executions were carried out by China, the United States, Iran and Saudi Arabia, Amnesty said.

"(The) concern Amnesty has about Singapore is the lack of information issued on executions, the number of executions and the processes...which might feed a public debate and a higher level of public scrutiny about what is actually happening," Parritt said. Local activists say the lack of exposure and education about the death penalty has lead to scant public debate.

"The whole education (system) doesn't touch, from very young, on human rights at all," Think Centre president Sinapan Samydorai said.

Some 110 nations have abolished capital punishment in law or practice as of November 2001, while another 85 retain it. "The whole trend in the world right now is to re-look at the death penalty... If these things get highlighted too much it's also quite negative on Singapore," Samydorai said.

"It's a very sensitive issue (for the government)."

Western critics point to the "right to life" as a fundamental reason to abolish the death penalty, but Singapore has shrugged off such notions and looks unlikely to scrap it anytime soon.

"The basic difference in our approach springs from our traditional Asian value system which places the interests of the community over and above that of the individual," Singapore's Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew said in a speech.

"In criminal law legislation, our priority is the security and well being of law-abiding citizens rather than the rights of the criminal to be protected from incriminating evidence."

LOW CRIME RATES

Amnesty says the death penalty is not a deterrent to the drug trade as runners, rather than the kingpins, are most at risk of facing the gallows.

But Singapore's low crime rates and general state of law and order has been held up as good reason to keep capital punishment. "There is widespread belief amongst lawmakers and the public in Singapore that the death penalty has worked," said National University of Singapore law professor, Michael Hor.

"Abolition would send the wrong message to criminal actors who might interpret such development as the government going soft on crime."

Amnesty has called on Singapore to commute the death sentence into long jail terms but chances of the public interest and debate needed to fuel such action seem remote.

"No government wants to take on Singapore because they are trading here too. They keep quiet except when their own nationals are arrested," Samydorai said.

"Nobody makes noise when a local is being hung."

[apc3161]

I'm not going to defend them, but let me tell you this.

My girlfriend has lived in Singapore for roughly 5 years during her life. Last summer she was there for a few months working for citigroup. I remember once she called me up at 4 o'clock in the morning from downtown. I'm from Miami, so I was like, "are you crazy, you are in downtown all by yourself at night?". And she said don't worry about it, that nothing ever happens.

Apparently Singapore also has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. If you want to walk into dark alley ways at 3 am, you can do so knowing that nothing will happen. As long as the crimes themselves are correctly classified, I don't have a problem with tough punishments. Just as long as everyone knows the rules ahead of time.

But there is something to be said about having a crime free city.


Benevolent dictator:


"More than 400 prisoners have been hanged in Singapore since 1991, giving the small city-state possibly the highest execution rate in the world relative to its population of just over four million people."

[Danke]

I'm not going to defend them, but let me tell you this.
...

But there is something to be said about having a crime free city.

Someone pinch me. Am I on a Ron Paul forum?

[apc3161]

Someone pinch me. Am I on a Ron Paul forum?

What I'm saying is this. I don't agree with what they have chosen to make illegal.

But with regard to crimes such as theft, murder, assualt, etc. I understand why they have a tough stance on such things and their methods of punishment have obviously proven effective.

Now with regard to going to jail for criticizing the government and other non-violent crimes, I think they are out of line. But for violent crimes, I think they are handling it well.

[Kalifornia]

Well property rights surely falls under economic freedom. The right to property is a fundamental right that all other rights you mention originate from. Any state that has these economic freedom, given enough time will become free in the political sense as well.

Economic freedom will brake any fascist or authoritarian state. Economic freedom is like water, given enuough time it will cut thru the hardest rock.

Cheers


That is total rubbish, Powerchuter. China has allowed a huge amount of economic freedom, yet kills political prisoners to harvest their organs for sale. Yep, that has certainly slowed China down.

In fact, isnt one of the definitions of fascism a state where folks have economic freedom but not much else?

[Sentient Void]

fascism is misunderstood as being on the far right. it is actually on the far left, a fascist state cannot exist without a very controlling government.

Thus, fascism, despite what many people think, is on the left.

Left vs right is MOST CORRECTLY viewed and translated as more to total government (left) vs less to no government (right).

Seeing ones position on economics, social and government opinion of regulation / control is multidimensional... it's at least 2 dimensional and can possibly even be argued that it is 3 dimensional.

This is why people are confused on where they stand on elft vs right,... because of the propagation of the complete fallacy that it's a one-dimensional theme.

for a one dimension scale of left vs right... its best to equate it with mroe govt vs left govt to avoid confusion with everything else.

[DriftWood]

That is total rubbish, Powerchuter. China has allowed a huge amount of economic freedom, yet kills political prisoners to harvest their organs for sale. Yep, that has certainly slowed China down.

In fact, isnt one of the definitions of fascism a state where folks have economic freedom but not much else?

No, fascism and corporatism was big government in bed with big market. That is not economic freedom. Economic freedom is big market and small govt. China does not yet have lots of economic freedom (it was ranked 126th in that list) and it does not have much political freedom. But its has much more economic freedom today than 25 years ago. Just give it another 25 years and I'll bet that you'll see a more free society both economically and politically.

Milton Friedman, the father of economic freedom, pointed out that there is a strong relationship between economic and social and political freedom. That economic freedom is necessary for political freedom. He said that economic freedom was a necessary, although not sufficient for political freedom. So maybe I was a bit premature in my statement that economic freedom always results in political freedom. I still think it does so most of the time, given enough time. I think that living in a society that has economic freedom but limited political freedom is still a pretty good place to live, compared to living in a society without economic freedoms.

Here are some his quotes:

"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

"Freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself ... Economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom."

"Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men."

"History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition."

Also some other of his other quotes (a bit off topic)

"A society that puts equality...ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom"

"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem."

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."

"I’m in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my values system, if people want to kill themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal"

"I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible."

“Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government.”

Ron Paul is a big fan of Milton Freidman, he said:

"Milton Friedman was a strong advocate of economic liberty who opposed government intervention in both the purely economic and broader social spheres of our society. He believed not only in laissez-faire capitalism, but also the larger cause of individual liberty in the political sense.

I was proud to know Dr. Friedman for many decades, and considered him a friend. I can assure you that he was no ivory tower academic, but rather an engaging and active man who worked very hard to demonstrate the applicability of economics to everyday life."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html

Edit: I see economic freedom as basically the "American dream", the "pursuit of happiness" part of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Its the freedom of every individual to keep the money he earns, to start a business without asking govt for permission. It means that any poor person can become rich by working hard or by opening his own business and competing against others on fair terms (without the govt keeping you down, by giving other people and companies unfair advantages). Economic freedom means an individual owns his own life and property. He can work hard and become a success. I think this is the most important of all freedoms. The freedom to be allowed make it (without the govt pulling you back down).

Cheers

[qaxn]

hahahahah oh wow, I didn't realize that there were so many cryptofascists were on this board. Seriously what the hell?

[DriftWood]

hahahahah oh wow, I didn't realize that there were so many cryptofascists were on this board. Seriously what the hell?

If you are referring to me.. all I'm saying that there are different layers of freedom. And the most fundamental one is the economic freedom (you own your own labor. and other people own their labor. the govt is not allowed to get into the way). I think the levels of freedoms go something like this:

economic freedom -> social freedom -> political freedom

Edit: And below/before economic freedom, there needs to be a freedom from the violence of others. That is, there needs to be a govt that enforce laws that stop people from stealing and killing each other. I think the more fundamental and basic the freedom is the more important it is. So the freedom from violence, is more important than the freedom to vote.

I would say that anyone that is against economic freedom and for govt intervention into the economy, is no friend of freedom at all. He is the cryptofascists / cryptosocialist.

Cheers