Also, Jeffrey Sachs claims that there is no correlation between economic freedom and economic growth. I think he’s right. But it seems I left some things out, but Miller’s conclusion does not contradict mine: “So it seems that the Index of Economic Freedom in practice tells us little about the cost of abandoning free market policies and offers little proof that government intervention into the economy would either retard economic growth or contract political freedom.”

I agree with the author that conservatives’ arguments about freedom divert attention from dangers posed from the concentration of wealth and power, and that conservatives’ arguments focusing on the government’s negative impacts on its people’s freedom is a prime example of the diversion.

I like the part in which the author showed that economic freedom isn’t the primary cause of overall freedom. However, according to Freedom House, economic freedom and political freedom are significantly correlated to each other.  I wonder what the author’s response to the claim is.

I also like where the author points out that taxes and government spending are only two of many factors in determining economic freedom.  Heritage Foundation used eight other factors to determine economic freedom.  These ten factors are averaged equally into a total score.  I wonder how appropriate weighting equally all the factors is.

According to John Miller’s 2005 article in ‘Dollars & Sense’, Heritage Foundation’s the Index of Economic Freedom, measures government spending/size as the change in government spending instead of its actual size (as % gross domestic product). Miller also points out that the Index of Economic Freedom gave a lower score to the US’s government spending/size than those  of Sweden and Denmark because the index uses the change in government spending in spite of the US’s smaller size of government spending as % gross domestic product. He also notes regulations, including requirements for transparency in corporate accounting, environmental ones, regulations of job-related health and safety lower the country’s ranking. Miller also states that Heritage Foundation’s Index doesn’t properly measures tax burden because the index doesn’t measure effective tax rates which are conditional on what part of corporate profits and personal income are taxed.

I’m curious about the trend in the rule of law in the US as well as those in other countries.  I also wonder how transparency of the government affects overall freedom.

It is true that, “The controversial point is which State activities enhance economic productivity and which detract from it.” The debate that follows is often over-simplified and particular interests are often framed in general terms, as in the saying, “What’s good for X is good for America,” where X would be any corporation lobbying for more “economic freedom.”

I believe that experience has shown that, State activity may either enhance the prospects for economic productivity or detract from it. The controversial point is which State activities enhance economic productivity and which detract from it. This is where most of the arguments take place. Government policies and regulations influence economic growth positively and negatively.

In my opinion, one of the reasons that healthcare reform is still being debated is because it was pushed through without obtaining consensus for it, and left most of the implementation to regulators. Few Americans (including legislators) understood what was in the bill before it was passed, and its nature is being shaped as bureaucrats promulgate regulations. Had a different political process been used, there may have been less uncertainty about it, how it is going to work and what’s its impacts are likely to be. Uncertainty tends to lead to gridlock as far as decision-making is concerned.

It seems to me that for decades we have been empowering an Imperial Presidency supported by a massive bureaucracy led by appointed regulators, and taking power away from the other branches of government. Considering the relatively low turn out in most elections, there is also a disconnect between many citizens and their representatives. I think that this is problematic.

Hypotheticals like the one you put forth about Texas can also be said about the US— in theory we can support ourselves, in THEORY. But the world is not a simple place.

Not true that most Republicans tend toward libertarianism—- old school Republicans do not.

And no revolution came out Hitler— mass murder does not always ties to revolution.

And I think you raise a very good point: “The problem is getting to the point where we have both economic freedom and economic vitality.” Many countries have been able to find a balance between the two. However, in the United States it has become a zero-sum game: “More freedom for you, means less freedom for me.” One of the solutions I believe is a sense of “common sacrifice.” If you’re going to have a nation that isn’t a fascist state, where it’s winner take all, then you should take the concept seriously. But Americans are really having a difficult time coming to a consensus on who should sacrifice what. “Culture wars” and “class wars” don’t help matters much. They erode trust.

Freedom is a relative thing. I’m sure that most Germans in the 1930s felt relatively “free” as they were enjoying their economic boom. Freedom in the midst of poverty is no better because a hungry man doesn’t put a high premium on economic freedom when his belly is empty. The problem is getting to the point where we have both economic freedom and economic vitality. One doesn’t have to be an Einstein to realize that the situation in the United States today is going to destroy our way of life. Paying people to be unemployed is not the solution.

I would concede that the minimum wage does not appreciably affect the unemployment figures as numerous studies have looked at this and concluded the impact is miniscule.

There can be little doubt, however, that benighted concoctions such as Obamacare are hamstringing business with rules and regulations that hold down employment. If we had a truly free market of medical care it almost certainly restrain costs. Where we ran off the rails was after WWII when employer paid medical care was offered as it was, at that time, relatively inexpensive. Today it is eating us alive. And the reason is quite simple. It is paid by someone else and not the actual recipient of the medical services. No one values freedom that much when they are in serious medical problems or hungry.

I say all this because it seems that almost everything we are doing is the wrong thing. If it could be established another nation had a better way to provide for its citizens why didn’t we simply adopt their way of governance and not reinvent the wheel?

Bottom line is that freedom is a devalued currency when our economy is in the toilet. And from most indications we are decidedly heading in the wrong direction. I truly believe that a revolution is entirely possible within this decade. We barely survived without one during the Great Depression. That is a historical fact.