Skip to main content

A Survey of Liberty

I finally found the survey that compiled a rating for overall liberty from a variety of other surveys, such as the Random House survey (Click on the Heading for the details).

Estonia is the freest country in the world- not a shock to those of us who know her!

Then:

Ireland
Canada
Switzerland
Iceland
Bahamas
UK
USA
Cyprus
New Zealand

Of the leading EU economies, Germany is 21st (behind Latvia), Spain is 34th (behind Cape Verde), Italy is 41st (behind Botswana) and France is astonishingly 48th (behind South Africa).

Horrifyingly, Russia is 124th- even Saudi Arabia is freer than the Russian Federation.

In last place- North Korea- 122 places behind the democratic South.

Comments

Jonathan Calder said…
Cicero

I can't find an e-mail for you, but I have tagged you with one of those irritating memes:

http://liberalengland.blogspot.com/2006/08/meme-of-three.html


Jonathan
Ahem.

This 'index' makes very specific assumptions about liberty - so that low corporate taxation and small government size counts as 'liberty', but freedom to enjoy free health care apparently does not.

Hence Hong Kong comes out 19 places ahead of Sweden....
Anonymous said…
Not sure having a service provided for you comes under the definition of freedom myself. On the other hand, having the 'freedom' not to have any form of health coverage is the freedom to take a stupid gamble, so I personally wouldn't consider the tax I pay to cover the NHS entirely a 'loss of freedom', as if the NHS didn't exist I'd probably need to spend just as much money getting health cover.

The other thing that simple metrics like this don't take into account is that, for a lot of people, the organisation that most effects their freedom on a day-to-day basis is their employers, so a highly unregulated industry may well be less free to the individual.
Tristan said…
Economic freedom is necessary for any other sort of freedom.

Personally I feel that there is no such thing as 'freedom to enjoy free healthcare', there is freedom to make use of healthcare, that's a basic freedom, but 'enjoying free healthcare' is not a freedom, its a privilidge. (of course, no healtcare is free, so that makes it even more of a nonsense).

I think we need to get 'positive freedom' in perspective. Whilst its true that you cannot enjoy other freedoms if you suffer from ill health, this does not mean that free healthcare is a freedom.
What is needed there is not free healthcare, but for society to help its least well off members if they are not getting basic services (which society as a whole can afford to help them with).

With employment law: There is often a power differential between employer and employee, but much employment regulation restricts the employee's actions in the name of protecting them. Instead you should be helping shore up the individual employee's power and to enable a vibrant job market which people can get alternative employment if they wish.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...