The problem with measuring freedom... Share This:





One major problem with libertarians is the tendency to use right-wing slurs -- for instance attributing a statist position to automatically being socialist or communist. The real lunatics might call their local paper The Daily Marxist but, of course, politics is more complicated than that. Statist they may be; socialist they may not be. And communist or Marxism is entirely something else.



What people assume is that Sweden is socialist. That is not technically true. In some ways Sweden doesn't regulate economic issues any more than many other countries. The Swedish welfare state is not socialist, it truly is a third way. By not understanding the actual manner in which Swedish statism works our side can sound silly. It can also mean we are fighting the wrong thing and not watching for the actual programs of the Swedish state.



Sweden did not socialize production. What their system does is socialize consumption. That is very different and very insidious. What this means is that they tax the hell out of individuals (business gets off light in comparison to individual tax rates). This puts the bulk of your income in the hands of the state. Then the state sets up programs which will allow you to reclaim your own money along the way. But to do so you have to adjust your consumption patterns in ways that are approved of by the bureaucrats.



Traditional socialism attempted to control business and production. The Swedish "third way" controls individuals and their consumption giving business more freedom than they give the individual.

Heritage Foundation, being conservatives, tends to be more biased in a US direction and their numbers always make the US appear much better than the other survey does.



Of course the key to remember is that such surveys only measure some aspects of economic freedom. And the ranking of the the top is only means the top ten -- much like being the smartest man in Congress doesn't actually say anything about one's intelligence. One can be in the top ten and still be unfree if all the others are in even far worse shape.



Also such surveys neglect social freedom and foreign interventionism. The US would rapidly plunge down the list if foreign policy were included. Ditto for social freedom. In many ways Canada is more socially free than the US -- they don't tend to pander to religious fanatics the way Republicans in the US love to do. The UK ranks far too high when we consider issues like state surveillance of individuals -- where they are actually more tyrannical than Zimbabwe (which simply can't engage in such work as they don't have the resources). If we included these other issues neither the US nor the UK would be in the top ten. Canada might still be there. Singapore would drop on social freedom.



What is still needed is a combination of these surveys, combining economic freedom with the various surveys on press freedom and censorship, the surveillance state, foreign interventionism and miilitarism, recognition of equal rights for their citizens, etc.



Add in all the measures that libertarians find important and I would guess the US would be well down in the "partially free" category and not far off from being "not free". Back to category overview Back to news overview Older News Newer News



Heritage Foundation, being conservatives, tends to be more biased in a US direction and their numbers always make the US appear much better than the other survey does.Of course the key to remember is that such surveys only measure some aspects of economic freedom. And the ranking of the the top is only means the top ten -- much like being the smartest man in Congress doesn't actually say anything about one's intelligence. One can be in the top ten and still be unfree if all the others are in even far worse shape.Also such surveys neglect social freedom and foreign interventionism. The US would rapidly plunge down the list if foreign policy were included. Ditto for social freedom. In many ways Canada is more socially free than the US -- they don't tend to pander to religious fanatics the way Republicans in the US love to do. The UK ranks far too high when we consider issues like state surveillance of individuals -- where they are actually more tyrannical than Zimbabwe (which simply can't engage in such work as they don't have the resources). If we included these other issues neither the US nor the UK would be in the top ten. Canada might still be there. Singapore would drop on social freedom.What is still needed is a combination of these surveys, combining economic freedom with the various surveys on press freedom and censorship, the surveillance state, foreign interventionism and miilitarism, recognition of equal rights for their citizens, etc.Add in all the measures that libertarians find important and I would guess the US would be well down in the "partially free" category and not far off from being "not free". Printer Friendly Wendy McElroy - Saturday 21 February 2009 - 08:11:26 - Permalink A reader from the U.S. responds to yesterday's blog post "US more socialist than Sweden?" J. writes,One major problem with libertarians is the tendency to use right-wing slurs -- for instance attributing a statist position to automatically being socialist or communist. The real lunatics might call their local paper The Daily Marxist but, of course, politics is more complicated than that. Statist they may be; socialist they may not be. And communist or Marxism is entirely something else.What people assume is that Sweden is socialist. That is not technically true. In some ways Sweden doesn't regulate economic issues any more than many other countries. The Swedish welfare state is not socialist, it truly is a third way. By not understanding the actual manner in which Swedish statism works our side can sound silly. It can also mean we are fighting the wrong thing and not watching for the actual programs of the Swedish state.Sweden did not socialize production. What their system does is socialize consumption. That is very different and very insidious. What this means is that they tax the hell out of individuals (business gets off light in comparison to individual tax rates). This puts the bulk of your income in the hands of the state. Then the state sets up programs which will allow you to reclaim your own money along the way. But to do so you have to adjust your consumption patterns in ways that are approved of by the bureaucrats.Traditional socialism attempted to control business and production. The Swedish "third way" controls individuals and their consumption giving business more freedom than they give the individual.