Response on Freedom-BECKER

Many interesting comments, but I cannot do justice to them all- I am busy giving a series of lectures in Paris. Still, a few quick reactions. Some of you argued that economic freedom is more important than political freedom. I have some sympathy with that view, although it depends a lot on circumstances. Very poor individuals do put much greater emphasis on economic freedoms. But that weight tends to change as people get richer. That is one main reason why political freedoms tend to follow economic development. Are economic freedoms really easier to grant, as some of you argued? That is not clear to me since the world has been dominated historically by restrictions on both. Both are difficult, and yet both are in a technical sense easy to grant. In many cases, political calculation of gains and costs determine which comes first. But it is still true that economic freedoms are more likely to be followed by political freedoms than the reverse. There is ambiguity in defining both economic and political freedom, and indexes of both are imperfect. I associate democracy not with voting-as one of you claimed- but with competition among interest groups and parties for political office. The right to vote may be necessary, but is surely far from sufficient in producing political freedom-competition politically is the crucial test of democracy. Similarly, there is no single definition of economic freedom. But I believe all relevant definitions include private property and its protection, the freedom to change jobs, to be fired, to buy different goods and services, to save, and so forth. It is not difficult to classify some nations are much freer economically, and others as much less free. Some intermediate cases give greater difficulty. I am willing to be called a “Marxist” if that fits, but I do not believe the views I put forward are congenial to Marxists. They consider economic freedom to be a temporary situation on the way to socialism, where the people in some sense rule, and the state withers away. That has turned out to be an erroneous prophesy. I believe the right, although, imperfect causation is from economic to political freedom. As far as I know, Marx did not consider political freedom important.

Comments

[Anonymous]

Incredible site!

[Anonymous]

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

Great site. Keep doing.

[Anonymous]

Great site. Keep doing.

[Anonymous]

And so we also dust off the Medieval Christmas post. Medieval Christmas. http://christmasmas.com

[Christian Louboutin]

lopment. Are economic freedoms really easier to grant, as some of you argued? That is not clear to me since the world has been dominated historically by restrictions on both. Both are difficult, and yet both are in a technical sense easy to grant. In many cases, political calculation of gains and costs determine which comes first. But it is still true that economic freedoms are more likely to be followed by political freedoms than the reverse. There is ambiguity in defining both economic and political freedom, and indexes of both are imperfect. I associate democracy not with voting-as one of you claimed- but with competition among interest groups and parties for political office. The right to vote may be necessary, but is surely far from sufficient in producing pol

[red bottom]

I also follow through Google Reader!

[Steroid]

contest physique competition time build champion sport body main hyper weight overtrain general steroid rest building trophy strength early bodybuilder.