TexasCHLforum.com

Whoops! U.S. Slipped in Four Freedom Rankings This Year.

Link the to Reason article (the links to the actual reports can be found in the article).

I don't know much about the various organizations that performed the rankings, but it makes me sad to see the US ranked below so many other countries in various "freedom" rankings. A preview:

Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom: US slips from Free to Mostly Free

Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom: US ranked #17, behind Canada, Australia, and the UK

Also two other orgs issue warnings on Freedom of the Press and Freedom of the Internet after the NSA, Benghazi, and other recent .gov incidents.

You gets what you votes for.

Purplehood wrote:You gets what you votes for.

So very true!

Chas.

Purplehood wrote:You gets what you votes for.

Not me. I didn't vote for any of them.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Purplehood wrote:You gets what you votes for.

Not me. I didn't vote for any of them.

Me neither. But a whole lot of others (living and dead in my mind), did. And that is my real point.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Purplehood wrote:You gets what you votes for.

So very true!

Chas.

Quoting the OP:

Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom: US ranked #17, behind Canada, Australia, and the UK

Anyone who believes that Canadians, Australians, and Brits have more individual liberties than an American citizen has poached his brain. They lack in many respects that most fundamental of all human rights: that of self-defense. The right to access unlimited porn in the internet doesn't mean much if you're dead (or in jail) because you had the audacity to hope that you might protect yourself, and then acted on that hope.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Purplehood wrote:You gets what you votes for.

Not me. I didn't vote for any of them.

....as discovered the libertarian voters of Virginia, who were duped into supporting a candidate whose libertarian credentials are suspect, and who was well-funded by Obama's biggest campaign contribution bundler. . . . .because they could not bring themselves to vote for the republican candidate.

In that particular election, McAuliffe (the carpetbagger) beat Cuccinelli by 2.5 points (48%/45.5%), while the democrat financed libertarian candidate got 6.6% of the vote (SOURCE). It goes without saying that if they had thrown their votes behind Cuccinelli, he wins by 52.1% to McAuliffe's 48% . . . . or, a fairly convincing win.

Look, I am a libertarian leaning independent myself, so I am sympathetic to a lot of the libertarian party's platform; but I can't help but recognize that there is a certain naiveté on the part of large numbers of libertarian voters who refuse to accept that their votes actually help to elect democrats. The thing is, there is a growing libertarian movement within the republican party. If libertarians (and libertarian-leaning independents like me) were to get involved in the republican party again, it might accomplish two things: 1) accelerate the shift of the party in that direction, and 2) increase the overall republican vote to the point where they could handily defeat democrat challengers.

That said, I personally feel burned by the republican party, and destructive old dinosaurs like Sen. Mitch McConnell are doing nothing to win me back into the fold. But if I see the libertarian movement within the party keep gaining traction to the point that it can dictate terms to the party leadership, I could rejoin.

For the party to advance, it has to always stand first for human liberty, ahead of all other values. What that looks like, I'm not wise enough to know all the answers. All I know is that the opposite has not served the cause of conservatism very well in the long run. Even Ronaldus Maximus knew what fights to pick, and when to pick them. He wasn't just lucky, he was really smart. . . . .a trait lacking in the party today, on both sides of the intra-party divide.

Purplehood said "You gets what you votes for." Obama rephrased it when he said, "Elections have consequences."

Vote accordingly.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... rug-search" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

philip964 wrote:http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... rug-search

Quoting the article:

Kennedy filed a motion for summary judgment Oct. 24, asking the court to rule on the facts of the case, which she says are not disputed. She says defendants responded by expressing interest in resolving the case outside of court.

I'll just bet they have that interest. If I am him, I'm not so inclined.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Anyone who believes that Canadians, Australians, and Brits have more individual liberties than an American citizen has poached his brain. They lack in many respects that most fundamental of all human rights: that of self-defense. The right to access unlimited porn in the internet doesn't mean much if you're dead (or in jail) because you had the audacity to hope that you might protect yourself, and then acted on that hope.

The reports focus on very specific areas, economic freedom, freedom of the press, freedom of information. I don't believe that the UK, Australia, or Canada have more freedom from an overall perspective. I can, however, believe that we are starting to drop in regards to economic freedom.

From the Fraser Institute report:

Throughout most of period from 1980 to 2000, the United States ranked as the world’s third-freest economy, behind Hong Kong and Singapore. [...] By 2005, the US rating had slipped to 8.21 and its ranking fallen to 8th. The slide has continued. The United States placed 16th in 2010 and 19th in 2011. [...] the reductions have been largest in Legal System and Property Rights (Area 2), Freedom to Trade Internationally (Area 4), and Regulation (Area 5).

I agree with the report. Between regulation, property rights, and international trade - we are economically less free than many other countries now.

I wonder how our embargoes on trade with Iran, Cuba, N. Korea, etc. factor into our economic freedom ranking (Area 4). Many countries trade freely with countries we refuse to do business with.

G26ster wrote:I wonder how our embargoes on trade with Iran, Cuba, N. Korea, etc. factor into our economic freedom ranking (Area 4). Many countries trade freely with countries we refuse to do business with.

From the Fraser report (the one I read the most thoroughly):

4. Freedom to Trade Internationally
A. Tariffs
(i) Revenue from trade taxes (% of trade sector)
(ii) Mean tariff rate
(iii) Standard deviation of tariff rates
B. Regulatory trade barriers
(i) Non-tariff trade barriers
(ii) Compliance costs of importing and exporting
C. Black-market exchange rates
D. Controls of the movement of capital and people
(i) Foreign ownership/investment restrictions
(ii) Capital controls
(iii) Freedom of foreigners to visit

I suppose Trade Embargoes factor into B(i).

In order to get a high rating in this area, a country must have low tariffs, easy clearance and efficient administration of customs, a freely convertible currency, and few controls on the movement of physical and human capital.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Quoting the OP:

Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom: US ranked #17, behind Canada, Australia, and the UK

Anyone who believes that Canadians, Australians, and Brits have more individual liberties than an American citizen has poached his brain.

Honestly, when it comes to economic freedom, anyone who believes otherwise isn't paying attention.