Difference between revisions of "Economic Freedom and Political Freedom"

Revision as of 14:44, 2 November 2014

Let's play a game

- before we get into the article. We'll set up a scenario of two alternatives and you vote twice for which you would prefer to live in - once now and once after reading through the article. We expect that few votes will be changed by the article, but it seems an interesting thought exercise nonetheless. We don't have a convenient way for you to record your votes. But, if you are so inclined, you can leave a comment on the "Discussion" page for this article by clicking on the tab at the top of the article to tell us how you voted.

Here is the scenario: The United States splits into two countries - the states on one side of the border retain the political and economic arrangements of the U.S. as it is today (as-is). On the other side of the border there is a new U.S. that adheres to a policy of maximum economic freedom. The focus in this game is on economic freedom with political freedom playing a supporting role only as needed. We haven't yet talked about what "economic freedom" means, but you likely have an idea of it's meaning. Use that for the time being. Don't try to think about how it splits geographically. That is unimportant to the game.

Alternative 1: The new US:

• In the "new" US, economic freedom is pursued as an end in itself.

It is too difficult to describe everything that entails. Much of it is listing government requirements, regulations, and special tax arrangements that exist in the "as-is" US but will be absent in the "new" US. We can't list everything and want to be brief,so we'll provide just enough list to give you the flavor.

A thing to notice is that we are silent on welfare expenditures. Welfare is not a restriction of the economic freedom of the recipient. For example, food stamps do not restrict the economic freedom of the recipient.

While it might be argued that welfare restricts the economic freedom of those who pay the compulsory taxes to fund it, we treat that as a separate issue.

• No one is required by law to contribute around 10% (or any amount) of their income to a retirement program that is administered by the federal government.

(i.e., no Social Security taxes or benefits)

• No one is required by law to contribute part of their income to purchase old age health insurance.

(i.e., no Medicare taxes or benefits)

• No commercial corporation, company, or group is singled out for special tax or regulatory treatment.

(i.e., no crony capitalism whatsoever)

• Farmers are not regulated in how much of a certain crop they can produce.

Nor do farmers receive federal subsidy or price controls for any agricultural product.

• There are few government regulations restricting trade.

In the "new" US, you can buy a foreign product or sell to foreigners with the only restrictions relating to national security.

• In the "new" US, business entities face minimal regulations. There are few regulations that set mandatory standards for the administration and financial reporting of private entities outside of providing sufficient information to calculate relevant taxes.

Examples: Sarbanes-Oxley does not exist and Dodd-Frank does not exist

• Licenses are not required to participate in any occupation (though people are allowed to form groups that adopt voluntary certifications)

Examples: cab drivers, barbers, doctors, lawyers

• The government takes no role in determining minimum pay for any employee of a private enterprise nor does it regulate comparable pay between occupations or groups of people. (example: there is no minimum wage)

Alternative 2: The as-is US:

• The starting point is a snapshot taken in the fall of 2014 about the time of the 2014 mid-term election. (As this is written, the results of the election are unknown and shouldn't matter to the game.)
• In the as-is US all of the examples of programs and regulations that are noted above as absent in the "new" US, are present in the as-is US.

Consider the two alternatives and decide which you would prefer to live under.

Now let's get on with the article:

Is it possible that economic freedom and political freedom can exist in isolation from one another in the sense that any political arrangement can be coupled with any economic system? It is believed so by some, and usually by two types:

1. "Socialist democrats" believe that a state run, centrally planned economy can be run by a government that guarantees individual freedom through political policy; and
2. Totalitarian governments who seem to believe that, by allowing a limited amount of economic freedom, that their population will be sufficiently comfortable to endure single authority rule.

Those who believe in the first of these usually consider "material" considerations to be beneath them and of little importance. Such a view is often held by the intellectual class (who considers intellectual pursuit on a higher plane) and seldom by the working middle class or most other folks.

The premises embedded in this article are long held views of the CW sponsors. However, many of the ideas in the writing of the article have been guided by the writings of a few economist / social scientist thinkers - primarily: [Milton Friedman], [F.A. Hayek], [Charles Murray], [George Gilder], [John Kenneth Galbraith] and [John Maynard Keynes]. References are provided in some instances. But some supporting arguments are taken from these authors without providing specific reference. We admit to freely and frequently using their ideas and arguments. CW claims no economic expertise of a technical nature.

The reader may conclude that we are influenced more my some than by others, or positively by some and negatively by others. We state that we are influenced by a reverence for freedom of individuals, which is what it used to mean to be a liberal. Our starting point is that freedom is a virtue to be strived for and use the writings of the referenced authors accordingly. Our definition of freedom is presented in the article: Freedom