Sort of. Emigration probably has a lot to do with economic opportunities, too, so I don’t think that emigration rates is a particularly grand method of determining relative freedome rates.
We’ll first of all, 11 out of 200 something countries is still pretty good, even for an imperfect rating. Especially when you compare the upper 10% with the lower 10%.
Sweden 38
Denmark 38
Netherlands 37
Austria 36
Finland 36
France 35
Germany 35
Canada 34
Switzerland 34
Australia 33
United States 33
Maybe someone from the top 10 could lend some insight to the additional freedoms they enjoy that we don’t.
So are the restrictions of having to eat and sleep and obey the laws of gravity. Unless you’ve invented a system where people don’t have to work for a living, your statement doesn’t make much sense.
However I do agree that the workplace is becoming a more opressive environment.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/navigator/articles/nav+rdonway_lands-of-liberty-2001.asp
This has some fairly reasonable analysis.
Now, in terms of access to socialised medicine etc: Surely because it requires the enforced removal of one persons property for the support of another, it cannot be considered an enhancement to freedom
Here is a link to a site rating countries by economic freedom: http://cf.heritage.org/index/indexoffreedom.cfm
The criteria are:
Trade, Fiscal Burden, Government Intervention, Monetary Policy, Foreign Investment, Banking, Finance, Wages, Prices, Property Rights, Regulation, Black Market
The list is: (lower score means more free:)
1 Hong Kong 2003 1.45
2 Singapore 2003 1.50
3 Luxembourg 2003 1.70
3 New Zealand 2003 1.70
5 Ireland 2003 1.75
6 Denmark 2003 1.80
6 Estonia 2003 1.80
6 United States 2003 1.80
9 Australia 2003 1.85
9 United Kingdom 2003 1.85
11 Finland 2003 1.90
11 Iceland 2003 1.90
11 The Netherlands 2003 1.90
11 Sweden 2003 1.90
15 Switzerland 2003 1.95
16 Bahrain 2003 2.00
16 Chile 2003 2.00
18 Canada 2003 2.05
19 Austria 2003 2.10
19 Belgium 2003 2.10
19 Germany 2003 2.1
The top two countries: Hong Kong, and Singapore are less politically free than the US and I don’t know much about the others, so the US comes out very well in this measure.
Well, if we combine the economic freedom with the UN’s political/social freedom looks like Denmark comes out on top. Tied for first in social/political, tied for sixth in economic.
Bravo to Denmark.
Well, no, it is not, since [nitpick but relevant]no country on earth gives free access to quality health care[/nitpick but relevant]. All health care is paid for somehow. Whether you do so thru taxes or a mix of public and private health care does not alter the fact that no health care is free.
My take on the “freedom ratings” is that if whoever puts together the ratings finds that the US comes out on top, they will alter the ratings so that doesn’t happen.
Regards,
Shodan
Free enough for me baby.
Even though I am a red-blooded patriotic American, who strogly things we ARE living in “the Land of the Free”- I do not see how that does not mean some small nation can’t be marginally more “free”.
I have never been to Denmark, but I have a freind from there, and from talking to him, it would seem like they are slightly more “free” than us. Of course, he moved here because of not enough opportunities for “high tech” jobs in Denmark, not to mention a crushing tax burden (he laughs when Americans complain about high taxes, and even harder when we complain about high gas prices) (But maybe that’s why they are only #6 in economic freedoms! 
). He still loves his native land, though, and plans to go back.
So- “Most free”? Maybe- maybe not. But certainly in the top ten, and the differences are minor, and rather subjective. I’d say anyone on the “top ten” list can claim their nation is “most free” without being guilty of anything more than a tiny bit of “puffery”.
Neurotic:
Yeah, economic opportunity is a lot of it, but isn’t that a good part of freedom? That economic opportunity isn’t something growing on trees, but is part of the whole “freedom” package.
Here’s another take: Total freedom (anarchy) isn’t a desireable condition (for most people). Some restrictions are needed for a civilized society. So, the country with the highest ratings on the emigration/imigration scale has struck the best balance of freedom. Not sure I even agree totally with that, but it’s something to think about.
This “freedom index” looks to be a good way to compare general categories of freedom, but using it to determine which nation is number one, which is number two, and so on, is futile. I could probably manufacture a reasonable list that bumped the US back to number one, if I so chose. Add in freedom to own firearms, somehow figure in lower taxes, axe the penalty for capital punishment, and that’ll bump the US up a few notches right there.
As a means of pointing out that, say, Germany is freer than Cuba, it’s a good tool. But trying to use it to say, “Nyah nyah, my country is two slots higher than your country,” is just silly.
And I might add that the fact that firearm ownership doesn’t figure in there shows a remarkable bias in the development of that scale. You can argue all you want about whether or not gun ownership is a good thing, but can anyone credibly claim that banning the ownership of something makes a place more free?
Jeff
I see little relevance when it comes to freedom. It’s quickly becoming a fact that gun-ownership has little or no impact on crime prevention(if anything it makes the crimes committed more bloody.)
I can see how banning something may be seen as a limitation on personal freedom. But then again, the very same argument could be used advocating narcotics or personal bomb-ownership.
Personally, i feel all the more free, knowing that i won’t be shot for mistakingly trespassing or getting into a fight.
For the record: In Denmark (and the rest of Europe) it’s very much legal to own pretty much any kind of weapon as long as you can document a legit use for it (such as target practice or hunting).
Reporting from Denmark, Land of the free
Exactly. If you imagine a nation exactly like ours, only it allows people to build their very own personal nukes, that place would be more free than here. Better? No. But certainly more free. I suppose you could talk about the “freedom from being scared”, but that’s highly subjective, and not the sort of thing that can really be quantified. Typically, that’s the sort of freedom that comes from the judicious application of other, more quantifiable freedoms, along with a few well-placed restrictions on freedom.
Jeff
*“These statistics are shattering to those who believe that greater individualism and less government somehow produce better societies. And they should serve as a wake-up call to every American that this country is headed in the wrong direction.” * ~ (conclusion from the stupid UN report)
What idiot robot wrote this?
Is it not apparent that semantical congruity requires that individualism be the essence of freedom. Geez!
But yes, Greater Government can indeed produce Better Societies… theirs.
Why, for God’s sake, after the fall of the USSR, must we refight won wars. Why won’t that dead dog stay dead?
Maybe, maybe not. There’s more economic opportunity in China right now than in say Germany but I don’t think you can really say that China is more free than Russia right now.
A country could be very economically and politically free, but not have the resources, population or geography to take advantage of it to create economic opportunities. And often societies that are economically free are not politically free - see South America during the 60s, 70s and 80s.
Is economic freedom the only thing that matters?
I submit that universal access to health care (like socialized medicine) would make me personally more free. With the current employer-based system, my boss has power over me. There are a limited number of jobs I can choose if I want to be able to see a doctor without fear of bankruptcy, health insurance blacklisting, etc. If the United States had universal health care, I would be more free to pursue my artistic endeavors or start a small business. As it is, I am stuck choosing only jobs that offer health benefits. Therefore, my right to the “pursuit of happiness” is infringed.
Not as I see it. You have the right to pursue happiness, yes, but not the right to have it of necessity.
My point though is this: ya cannae acheive freedom at the cost of someones elses freedom.
Vibro:
Universal access to 4 star restaurants would make me more free. Care to pay for that?
Nuerotik:
I said economic freedom was PART of the whole package, not the whole package. Anyway, looks like we disagree on this.
Not being given a yacht is REALLY violating my right to the pursuit of happiness.
Kindly explain the similarity between dining in a four star restaurant and going to the doctor.
In a system with socialized medicine everyone is forced to pay for it and the doctors are forced to accept the rates that the government dictates and people are forced to go to a specific doctor. In a system like the US, doctors can charge what they feel like charging and people are free to either pay that cost or find another doctor.
I’d be a lot more free if I didn’t have to worry about where my next meal was coming from, but I don’t think that the country as a whole would be more free if everyone was forced to pay for my meals and the restaurants were forced to accept a set amount for the meal.