Comments on: Cor Baby, That’s Really Free!

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:10:06 +0000

By: Anarch

Anarch — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:50:48 +0000

>> My point was that wealth’s relation to freedom should inspire men, who already seek to be wealthy, to be free. << This, to me, represents the crux of my problems with the basic libertarian position: Does a system in which each person strives to individually maximize their wealth/freedom necessarily produce an environment in which everyone is wealthy/free? [I don't buy the tendency to conflate "wealth" with "freedom", either, but that's for another time.] Libertarians, in my experience, tend to say that this is true but I don't buy that such local optimizations inevitably lead to global optimizations under any metric that I would consider "fair". [Yes, that's necessarily a value judgment.] I can conceive any of a number of dystopian situations where someone trying to maximize their wealth/freedom diminishes someone else's. I've known enough people in my time whose pursuit of wealth/freedom has curtailed others' to believe that such dystopian situations are not only possible but probable... -without- some kind of external (i.e. governmental) intervention. In short: I'm not, nor is anyone that I'm aware, "denying the benefits of freedom." What people are contesting is whether a simple granting of negative liberties produces a "fair" outcome, or whether the granting of some positive liberties to some -- and the collateral restricting of some liberties in others -- produces a "better" one. And if some positive liberties are necessary... which ones, and how much? As always, Your Metric May Vary. :) - Anarch PS: I'd also pointedly argue against "all men are inspired towards wealth". I'm not to any great degree, although I am most definitely inspired towards freedom. And I suspect that my female friends who are racking up big bucks in the corporate world wouldn't care for your assertion that the pursuit of wealth "springs from the male genetic drive for status as a means of selection".

By: Guessedworker

Guessedworker — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:42:37 +0000

Jeremy, You are making the same methodological error. Obviously, all men are inspired towards wealth. This is true in even the most basic society and, in all probability, springs from the male genetic drive for status as a means of selection. My point was that wealth’s relation to freedom should inspire men, who already seek to be wealthy, to be free. This is also the meaning of the Cato Institute’s report, I think. This, of course, is a broad point. You can quibble about the detail of the Cato Institutes five freedoms, if you like. Every good lawyer knows that’s the way to get his hooks into the opponent’s case. But the broad case stands, and that’s the end of it. I am more interested in why liberal opinion is driven to deny, deny, deny the benefits of freedom. It feels like psychopathy. Defend it if you can.

By: Shai

Shai — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:32:54 +0000

There’s something wrong with your methodology when the sultinate of Oman is more economically free than Japan.

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:40:40 +0000

>The fact that wealth and economic freedom are related should inspire all men towards freedom. You could as well say it should inspire all men towards wealth. Daniel’s point (or rather, what I took from Daniel’s post) is that “economic freedom” means little without wealth—to think that wealth will spring forth with the institution of a low-tax, gold standard regime is beyond delusory. The presence of wealth in the countries which came in at the top of Cato’s list is attributable to other factors.

By: bradley s. felton

bradley s. felton — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 02:44:19 +0000

i thought this was released by the canadian fraser institute, am i wrong? http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=551 or is fraser canadian for cato?

By: John

John — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 02:21:56 +0000

Should people really be congratulating themselves that an index composed on the basis of a set of values largely developed in England (classical liberalism, basically), is most strongly followed in the anglophone world? Wow, the English-speaking world does best in the things valued by the English-speaking world! Astonishing, that.

By: Perry de Havilland

Perry de Havilland — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 02:09:54 +0000

The whole ‘Anglosphere’ thing has very little to do with language (which is only an incidental historical marker) and if you think that post on Samizdata.net was about language, rather than culture, prehaps your should re-read it. It has rather more to do with having a civil society that is not completely dominated by the State.

By: Guessedworker

Guessedworker — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:30:55 +0000

Daniel, The Cato Institute is surveying economic freedom and nothing more. Your criticisms are predicated on the false basis that the Institute’s report is some kind of manual for poor countries to advance. But the Institute does not claim that. The fact that wealth and economic freedom are related should inspire all men towards freedom. It seems to inspire you, Daniel, only to vent your spleen. Well, if that’s your game, don’t mess with the Cato Institute. Try reading “IQ And The Wealth of Nations” by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, a survey of wealth and its causes that no liberal can afford to miss.

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:33:26 +0000

>Have I saved myself five minutes? O longer, longer.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:40:06 +0000

>>There is much to learn there, including why Lee Kwan Yu is a hero to libertarians I’d imagine it’s because he keeps income tax low and chucks communists in jail. Have I saved myself five minutes?

By: Russell L. Carter

Russell L. Carter — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:33:35 +0000

Wow! That Singapore thread is really something. The ancient desire to justify authoritarianism as the most efficient means to social stability is alive and well. I just never would have guessed that it would be described as libertarian.

By: wbb

wbb — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:25:01 +0000

Don’t be dissuaded by John James warnings about samizdata.net. There is much to learn there, including why Lee Kwan Yu is a hero to libertarians. Don’t try to follow it – just enjoy the human mind at its freest.

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:14:31 +0000

Sorry, nevermind, after I made that last post I drank my morning coffee—ought to have done so beforehand. Live and learn.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:28:01 +0000

I’m dividing 0.01 by 6.34 and getting 0.001577287. So I have already rounded incorrectly, but I can’t get 0.05%. But I have an enviable reputation for getting these things wrong; a colleague tells me that he can’t remember a single draft I’ve ever produced which didn’t have at least one major arithmetic error.