| | Somewhat-compulsive nit-picking, by yours truly ...
-----------
"Taxes are not everything."
Do they NEED to be "everything" in order to be an "important, objective measure" of freedom?
-----------
"So, the bottom line for me is that what makes a country "libertarian" is the choices open to me."
This is too subjective for a thinker such as I - one who'd rather unveil objective principles underlying the socialist human tragedy that has taken over much of the world.
As a retort, I can picture all elite statists and tyrants saying your very words. I cannot, however, picture a tyrant declaring that individuals must always retain 85-90% of the values that they produce or have produced. That would be one potential "bottom line" for me.
There is no valid reason, whether philosophical or strictly empirical, that that maxim should ever be broken. It is precisely the existence of invalid reasons and reasoning, accepted by those who've embraced subjectivity, which has led to the current socialist tragedy in the first place.
-----------
"The US is the only country in the world (that I know of) where people have rights AND those rights are natural ..."
If this is true, then it is all the more an indictment of US policy - and should properly lead to all the more outrage against socialist trends in this nation.
-----------
"Since the "Progressive" era began in the 1890's, the US has been on the road to socialism, but still has yet to achieve a 50% total tax rate (last I heard, it was still 47% as Harry Browne describes in his book, and I don't think the Bush tax cuts are going to amount to anything in the long run) while many other industrialised nations have 70% tax rates and did not even take a fraction of that time."
Again, this does nothing but to further indict the US trend as not only had we acknowledged the objective existence of natural rights, but we have also seen the tragedies which have taken place in other national "experiments" with statism.
-----------
"TOC's 'Navigator' has insisted repeatedly that New Zealand is the freest country on earth."
By what objective measure, or standard, do these otherwise-intelligent, otherwise-objective thinkers stake their claim on? If they cannot answer this question of mine, then they do not deserve intellectual regard on this matter.
-----------
"Ed - you shouldn't read too much into official inflation rates when they are based on government prohibition of prices moving overall upward beyond a certain level."
Linz, regarding reading "too much" into inflation rates - I don't. This is precisely why I asked you for further numbers (because inflation doesn't tell the whole story).
I have created a 4-pronged approach toward evaluative economics which gets around previous limitations in perspective, such as reading "too much" into one rate. The other prongs in my approach will pick up statist forces with unprecedented triangulation. In this case, the effect of price controls, which you mentioned, will show up by examining the 3 numbers (revenue, GDP, trade deficit) which I asked of you, Linz.
I have created a sort of triangulating measure of statist trends. I have done this so that sinister statists such as Clinton, who self-righteously declare that the era of Big Government is over, will be caught and found guilty of their crimes against humanity - ie. guilty of violating the unalienable, natural rights of individuals. Clinton's 8-years of anti-human programs would've been red-flagged by my objective benchmarks of statism - and most of the wrong trends in statism can be proven beyond reasonable doubt in less than 4 years.
Obviously, cultural change is a pivotal aspect to the goal of the progress of Reason, Freedom, etc., but my efforts to objectively quantify trends in statism will serve useful nonetheless. Think about it Linz, there has to be a measure of progress at some point, there has to be - or else we're all flying blind, subjectively "believing" or "dis-believing" political euphemisms such as: "the era of Big Governement is over."
We, informed by objective measures which triangulate statist forces, will be able to objectively ascertain if and when this "era of Big Government is over" (or whether we're getting better or worse over time).
-----------
"But I think you're mistaken attempting to use a statistical measure of freedom. There are many restrictive laws and regulations apart from taxation. For that reason it's hard to say which countries are more free than others. Which laws are worse?"
First of all Philip, thank you for the objective numbers. As to your objections to "using" them, I see an "insight" that is prevalent from Joe, Linz, and yourself; which runs something like this:
Don't read too much into statistical measures of Freedom! Freedom is a much more complex animal than that which your statistical "microscope" can observe!
I understand your caveats. I understand that I've lost some of the heart-warming precision that we all long for (by focusing on trends, and not on the here and now); and I understand that I've lost some of the scrutinizing attention to heart-felt details which we feel compelled to investigate - regardless of a broader, economic perspective (by focusing on "critical mass" observations).
But please understand that I've lost these by aiming to be 100% accurate - ie. by aiming to be "100% right" about trends in statism. I've deliberately upgraded my intellectual considerations to an unimpeachable level - where folks no longer bicker about whether it "feels" like freedom is winning ("The era of Big Government is over." "Taxes are not everything." "So, the bottom line for me is that what makes a country "libertarian" is the choices open to me."), but instead, must give intellect ascent to the brutal fact of objective trends.
Ed
|
|
