AND where spitting gum to the ground can put you in prison.

I spend a lot of time in Singapore. This is a rumor. Police presence in Singapore is practically non-existant. I thought liberalism frowned upon judging yet you're cool with judging a society vastly different than yours for making its own decisions. At least they're not a culture where bought and paid for lobbyists rule with an iron first; whereas, in the US, Wrigley Gum hired lobbyists to push for chewing gum imports into Singapore.

Way to make a real point.

Yeah, because income inequality is a HUGE problem in places like Switzerland and Denmark.

It may be a police state, but it is a place where economic freedom can be felt... Sometimes local politics are put aside...

Have you been to Singapore? I've spent weeks at a time and barely seen the police. The guy who sees that you're white and reminds you not to drink on the subway every week or so is as nice as can be. Contrast this with the United States where police harass anyone, especially immigrants, basically for kicks. Whatever they say goes. They walk around cities like NYC with automatic weapons like they're stormtroopers. But, yeah, Singapore is the problem. Maybe it's their having the world's most stable bank that you object to.

Except the United States isn't really that free any more, and other countries deliver more freedoms for far less money. I feel more free in Lithuania, Mexico, Hong Kong, even China than in the US. You can say those are backwater third world countries but that undermines the whole liberal "all sovereign nations are equal" argument... which I agree with.

Oh, and you can download and read the entire study here:

http://www.heritage.org/index/download

Yeah, except that when government spends wildly they end up taking your freedoms. Do you think Nanny Bloomberg cares if you drink a big soda? No, he just doesn't want the social system his ilk has put in place to have to pay for it. No social spending, no loss of liberties.

None of them have this incredible military either.

Well... Denmark still has conscription. And another Nordic country, Sweden, is known for having purchased the most high-tech vessels on earth for their navy. And they (had) conscription, but suppressed it to encourage young Swedes to study...

Canada is lowering taxes. Chile is doing almost everything right and encouraging entrepreneurship and immigration. Mauritius has a flat 15% tax on all entities and no capital gains, inheritances, etc. taxes. (Heck, even Belgium doesn't tax capital gains and taxes things like patents very lightly)

Or their poor ranking in the survey proves your emotional rhetoric wrong.

I have moved and have lived in some of those places. Since I agree with the concept of economic freedom, does that mean I'm full of it, too? Or do you have a different argument - that I'm a traitor, perhaps?

Well, some people place the economy as the top reason for choosing a country to live in. I do know some people who have left the US for Denmark, and even in one case Mauritius. That's the main result of globalization. You can roam freely throughout the world in search of a home, employment and even more. No one can change that, sadly.

Yes, Chile's economy was designed by the boys from Chicago, and as Naomi Klein's outstanding book "The Shock Doctrine" describes it, it was horrific for everyone---except the elites at the very top. Depression-level unemployment, costs for basics like food, clothing and housing soaring to levels unaffordable for major segments of the population, and nationalized industries sold off to the elites for a fraction of their true value. The elites then did what they always do, screw up those industries so badly in an attempt to squeeze every penny out of them that they destroyed them, and had to get taxpayer-funded bailouts to rescue them. When the right talks about economic freedom, they are talking about the freedom of corporations and their rich owners to rape the workers and citizens. They want the freedom to be robber barons like their 19th century ancestors.

we are political and economic refugees.... from the US.

Were they legal?

Most likely if they have money they are legal, that's all it takes.

Enjoy all the freedom money can buy.

So Vincent, are you saying freedom of movement is a bad idea? You rather us all be placed under house arrest?

Yes, some of us value economic freedoms. I may wish for marriage equality or legalization of drugs, but if I'm not gay or a drug user, why would I search for a place that values those freedoms?

Your first two senteces make no sense whatever. I presume you're trying to say that Singapore and Taiwan, because of limited government, have prosperous economies? You do realize, don't you, that a "prosperous economy" does not necessarily mean that the prosperity is widespread?

Your entire second paragraph, while it might win plaudits from a Randian, falls to pieces unless everyone was completely self-sufficient and only "traded" if they felt like it. Or is your argument that the government, through taxes, takes money away from you that you then cannot spend however you wish? Tax return that bad, eh?

As the conclusions reached in your third paragraph depend entirely on...something, you, sir, have won tonight's trifecta! Three paragrpahs, not one of which is in contact with reality!

Or is it that you believe the word "freedom" itself serves to prove whatever it is you're trying to write, whether it makes any sense or not?

PS: I'm going with the last...

No I'm not trying to say that. I was simply pointing out that there are two diffenret types of freedom when one talks about political theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#Other_multi-axis_models . I was not trying to say that they are great places to live, but simply that their economies are the most free in the world and also very effective. They are considered by every economics professor and political science that I have to have the strongest economy in the world.

The second paragraph is the simple individualist vs. collectivist argument. If one is not allowed to receive the full result of production then they are lacking in economic freedom. And although I never said that I wanted to put this into practice I do have an answer. As Bastiat stated: there's nothing wrong with taxes, as long as they go to the direct needs of the citizens instead of to what politicians think might be good for society. Taxes are necessary for government to exist, but they should be as low as possible and the invisible hand of economics should handle the rest.

I don't understand any qualms that could be had with the last paragraph. Socialism is the lack of the means to individually produce. Most common forms of socialism (state, democratic, libertarian, arnarcho) exist as collectivist states and do not allow for economic freedom of any sorts. If you don't agree, the simplest argument is: Do you own your body? If the answer is yes then you agree with me, if you say no then... well ok.

Economic freedom is a very common concept and it doesn't just apply to "Randians." Also nowhere in my first comment did I say anything I even consider debatable, I didn't throw in my opinions only what people much smarter than I came up with. I do think that limited government is a good thing but, I'm open to discussion on that whereas the other points I made are simple facts.

I'm sorry that MSNBC lies to you.

First, "economic freedom" means whatever the person saying wants it to mean and most usually, it's used solely to mean less environmental regulations. Or health/safety regulations; you can, I'm sure, see where I'm going.

Regulations aren't put into place merely to harass our vaunted "job creators", they're there to protect everyone else from the consequences of said "creators" greed. There is nothing stopping any CEO from plowing the majority of that corporation's profits back into the company; it's employees and the fabric of the business. In insuring that the company doesn't pollute the air and water. Nothing except greed.

Because, and this is the most important part, that CEO did not create those profits all by himself. If that were the case, then why have employees? Yet employees are considered to be a "liability", the fewer the better. The less spent on employees, where they work and the conditions of that space, these are to be applauded? In the name of economic freedom? Sorry, no.

So fine, the CEOs won't do it, then the government, Federal, state or local can and will.

In your second post you wrote: "The second paragraph is the simple individualist vs collectivist argument", yet deny being a Randian? You conclude it with "Taxes are necessary for government to exist, but they should be as low as possible and the invisible hand of economics should handle the rest."

Really? We're to bow down to the new deity, "Economics"? Unchanging, ineffable and forever unknowable? Been there, done that.

By the way, socialism is where the state owns such things as mines, transport networks, factories and store chains. Usually the nationalisation of a concern depends on the number employees; arbitrarily set, true. It may also include television and radio, but that isn't always the case. Rarely does a socialist government own farms. Under communism, on the other hand, everything is owned by the government, clothing and personal effects excepted. Amazingly enough, there have been several recorded instances of democratic countries voluntarily voting socialist governments into power - and later voting them out. The same cannot be said of communist governments; they either collapse of their own dead weight or morph into whatever one considers China to be.

"Do you own your body?" as a sign of whether or not one is an "individualist" or a "collectivist"? Really?

You are in Middle School; c'mon, admit it.

Economic freedom has one meaning, and most usually it is used incorrectly. It is never solely used to talk about environmental regulations. But it always comes down to either price fixing (your environmental example) or taxing. I never said all regulations were bad but simply that they led to less freedom.

There is nothing that drives anyone to do anything except for greed. Evolution has formed us to have self-interest, If you truly think that you’re not greedy then why are you not giving away 80% of your income.

And I don’t understand why you go on and talk about CEOs, but I’m assuming it’s just because you dislike rich people. Economic freedom refers to all people and all transactions not just rich CEOs and certainly not to companies. There is something you learn about on the second day of Macro: (it’s funny later that you call ME a middle schooler, but you have no knowledge of econ) called the supply and demand graph. It shows how price fixing by the government hurts the economy; it always leads either to a surplus or a shortage. Why would a company purposely want to have a bad business model?

But anyways I’ll sum up everything above by saying economic freedom is for everybody not just CEOs. Don’t think every capitalist is evil because every time you interact with someone you are participating in trade with them of some sort.

I do agree with some views of Ann Raynd, but I have never followed her ideas because she isn’t a scholar just an author. And I don’t understand how you can doubt the market. It is the most efficient way to trade. What other option would you propose: Merchantilism or State Planned Econ? Prices guide the market into best supplying what consumers want. What’s wrong with that?

Now with socialism you are just wrong. Socialism is defined as an economy where the means of production are owned by the citizens as a group. What you are talking about is called state socialism which is one of just many different forms of socialism. The problem with state socialism especially is that the three main questions of economics (who produces, what quantity, and for whom) are answered by government guesswork instead of the market. This leads to very inefficient uses of labor and other forms of capital. “ Rarely does a socialist government own farms” I mean in state socialism the government does not own anything, but the collective people do and the gov just distributes it. In all forms of socialism ownership can never be given to pure individuals.

There have not been governments that vote in socialism. European countries such as Sweeden and Norway have many social programs, but overall they remain capitalist because citizens have the rights to own things. I don’t know what you are trying to define socialism and communism as, but usually we like to think of communism as a fascist state of socialism. Please enlighten me If there are any countries that you know of that do not have private ownership but are not communist.

And yes “do you own your body is the major fallacy when it comes to individualism vs. collectivism. In a collective society everything that you do is for the benefit of the people which sounds good but doesn’t make sense. You would not own anything , and every single action you made would be a selfless contribution to the group. Do you own your body works like this. A woman wants to feed her baby milk, which is act of trade (her milk for well-being of baby). In a collective society she would have no right to the milk that comes out of her body and it would go to the whole group and then be distributed back to her. Socialism must be collective by definition and I don’t see how that could be supported.

Lastly. I went very far off topic to cover your points against me because I don’t feel that you were addressing my original points. My main point was to show that there are 2 different axis for freedom and that they affect everyone not only the rich. Never wanted to talk about socialism because it has little to do with that point and I’m sorry that I mentioned socialism once. I’m disappointed that you just right off anybody whose views have roots in classic liberalism as “Randian” but if you want to know who my actual influences are I would check out: Locke, Spooner, Bastiat, Hayek, Friedman, George and Mises to start. I don’t know why you called me a middle schooler, or why that would mean I was wrong but I’ll let you know I’m a college student double majoring in econ and pol sci. And finally some of your info is somewhat off and I would suggest actually reading to learn. Turning on a super biased tv news network to try to learn facts will get you nowhere, and I feel the same way about Fox.

P.S. About greed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A . Of course employees are important but they are not liabilities, the only way for a company to expand is to hire more employees, but when the government steps in and does something like minimum wage they cannot do that so they run into shortages. Now I’m not saying that the government should never try to protect the safety of the workers, but keep in mind that every time they do it hurt the company and either the consumers or employees.

Well, you are correct to underline that Taiwan and Singapore don't have a lot of social freedoms. Freedoms that DO exist in the US. In your opinion, should the US restrict some social policies to achieve the economic competitiveness of Taiwan and Singapore (which does represent the main advantage of their systems)?

I would propose a few things to increase our economy and our citizen’s economic freedoms. There are obviously some regulations that would be necessary, so I don’t think we could catch those countries but it wouldn’t hurt to try.

First I would argue for tax reform. I really do not like the income tax because it discourages investing. I would argue for some sort of consumption tax or a VAT because consumption only affects short term economies but has little effect on long term growth. A lot of people would say that this could lead to a bigger gap between the rich and poor, so I would offer these two options: Either offer vouchers to those who are below the poverty line so they aren’t hurt by a consumption tax; or mix a progressive income tax (33 % of taxes) with a consumption tax (66 %.) This would lead to a much better means for long term production. I would also call to abolish corporate income taxes because corporate taxes are just paid by the customers, employees, and shareholders.

Next I would argue for less government involvement is private business. Many environmental regulations could be replaced with a land tax. A land tax would be a tax that essentially pays for the exclusion of other from the land, but could also be used for air and water pollution. Getting rid of subsidies and minimum wage laws could also be very helpful. Many economists think that minimum wage is one of the major causes of gang violence (along with drug prohibition), so it could also lead to less gun violence.

Lastly I would argue for less government spending. Less spending means less money needed from taxpayers. Right now almost 30% of our GDP is from the public sector and we could easily get that down to 10% through privatization. I would cut defense spending by at least 50 % and entitlement spending would be reserved for only the direst of situations. The poor wouldn’t be left out on the street but would actually benefit from more jobs, (minimum wage reform) a better economy (deregulation) and better housing situations (getting rid of department of housing.)

I’d be open for anything heading in the right direction. I offered 3 different types of possible tax alternatives but would be willing to hear any others out. I just want less spending and less taxes.

Hong Kong and Singapore are run in a paternalistic manner, with economic interests taking prominence over the rest, with populations more or less accepting their situation. New Zealand is run by a former Goldman Sachs employee (not an advisor, like Monti and Papademos, for example), one who was accused as being the main cause behind the Russian crisis of the late 1990's nonetheless. Australia is run by someone who practiced law in the Union sector, so in this case it can be called socialistic rule. Denmark is run by a broad left-wing coalition, Canada and Chile are governed by conservative coalitions, Switzerland is a broad anarchy (actually the most extreme example of consensus, all parties participate in the Federal Cabinet), and I do not know for Mauritius. So, in general, it is not a wrong assumption to believe that most of the 10 most economically free societies are governed by partly socialist leaders or governments...

.