Is Freedom of Speech in Danger in the USA?

Economics is very closely related to public policy.  Freedom, as protected by our Constitution, is an essential ingredient of our high standard of living in America, and it is a sine qua non of all scientific research.

These are some of the scientific findings of economist Edward C. Harwood [1900-1980].

While building up one of the first think tanks in the U.S. (the American Institute for Economic Research), Harwood spent his whole life fighting "peanut authority."  This is the misplaced zeal of those in positions of power who believe they can force you to live a better life than you would choose for yourself.

One of the freedoms he particularly enjoyed–and had to defend with the most energy–was freedom of speech.  He went to great lengths on numerous occasions to preserve his own, and therefore ours.

And there is no rest for the weary.  Nothing should be taken for granted.  Our freedoms are constantly under siege.  For example, I have just read this article in Business Insider.

Apparently, the NSA tried to censor the sale of a T-shirt mocking the NSA.  Their justification for it was the unauthorized use of their official seal.

If you want to buy this T-shirt, go here.  It was created by Dan McCall's group at Libertymaniacs.com.  Kudos to Dan McCall.  Even if you don't agree with his sentiments, you must defend his right to express himself.

This subject ties in with the recently divulged information that anyone who makes a point of defending liberty and the Founding Fathers could now possibly be included on a list of potential terrorists, according to FEMA training manuals and training videos found through the Freedom of Information Act and otherwise.  (Here's a sampling if you don't believe this.)

The study of economics is useless without freedom. Economists: keep this in mind as you go about your business.  Be very careful what someone might want to do with what you say and write.  Don't just assume that your work will be taken at face value.  And defend freedom at every opportunity, because (1) people forget how very fragile it is, (2) the quality of your own current and future product will depend upon having it, and (3) the future of this country will hang on what we all do, or don't do, in its defense.

What Is There About an Island that Encourages Freedom?

Here we are, Americans most of us, thinking that we live in the most economically emancipated country in the world. If you are not American, and something other than British or French, you know this; if you're British or French, you contest this, because you think Britain or France is the most emancipated country in the world.

I am, of course, writing fingertips-in-cheek. For some cold, hard statistics and real scientific parameters, let's look at this article over at Cato. It makes us jump right off our high hat.

The study is called Economic Freedom of the World, and we learn that the most economically free countries are:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. New Zealand
4. Switzerland
5. A tie between Canada, the UK and the US


[Thanks to cyborlink.com for the image.]

The first four are tiny islands of a sort, if you can count land-locked Switzerland as an island in the middle of that sea of European Union members. And actually Hong Kong, too, is not just the island itself--detail that I had ignored up to this moment. The whole territory is called the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" and includes Hong Kong island, Kowloon, the New Territories, and the Outlying Islands. But you get my point.

Now I know my blog wanderings are not scientific; still, I wonder if there might be some explanation for this. Yes, the scientists are going to interrupt me in my ramblings to point out the examples that disprove my implied hypothesis. Cuba is not even mentioned in this study because it is the antithesis of freedom (a hermetic dictatorship) and therefore no data could be obtained to study it. Brunei and Bahrain are kingdoms. Japan only made number 9. But still.

So I continue. Here are the questions that come to mind.

1. Do freedom-minded people move to islands? Definitely true in the case of Hong Kong and Singapore; maybe also of New Zealand. Switzerland, no; because up until fairly recently, they were very tough on immigration, and these past few years a xenophobic minority is increasingly vocal.... But wait. How was Switzerland formed? Weren't they a mountain people able to survive by their own wits, some of whom, resenting the increasing proximity of other-minded folk, retreated higher and higher to be among themselves? There's something to this....

2. Do freedom-loving people tend to resist encroachment? Definitely true for Hong Kong and Switzerland, and maybe the other two.

3. Do people who prefer to benefit from less-free but more generous government policies tend to leave islands and move to those more generous countries, to become citizens there and vote for even bigger governments? That's too complicated to answer, but it would be fun for some geek to research it. The answer is not a given. On the contrary, it would seem that having the gumption to get up and move takes initiative, entrepreneurship and a yearning for freedom from something.

4. Do the powerful of surrounding nations find a reason to allow these small "islands" to exist in peace, for their own profit? Hmm. Definitely true of Hong Kong and Switzerland, and probably Singapore. Monaco comes to mind, but the Report doesn't include them, probably because they're almost part of France; and there are others.

I'll stop here, but you get the idea. I'd love for someone to research why other countries have done better than we have at preserving the very notions that were the basis for our creation as a nation.

Russia: Been There, Done That: 1917 To Be Repeated in 2017?

This article appearing today in French newspaper Liberation deserves to be translated for the American audience, as a reminder to all free peoples of this earth how very fragile freedom is.

Economics is always subordinated to tyranny. Healthy economics depends upon freedom. Free markets and the resultant rise in a people's standard of living both are vitally linked to democracy and its inherent control over government.


[Thanks to Reuters and Liberation for this photo.]

Read my translation:

"Our Country is Dying, But Most People Couldn't Care Less"

On the edges of Pouchkine Square, in the center of Moscow, all you had to do this Saturday at noon was to wear a tattered jacket and cry out, "Liberty!" or say "Shame!" to be arrested by the OMON, riot police harnessed up like Ninja turtles. Several hundred demonstrators, or mere bystanders who assembled with the opposition movement called "The Other Russia," were held up, sometimes gently, sometimes by baton whacks, and thrown into police cars.

The former world champion chess player Garry Kasparov, leader of "The Other Russia," was detained just as he arrived at Pouchkine Square. "The Russian police state shows its real face!" sighs an old lady on the other side of the street, not too loud so as not to be noticed by the police who were raking up the crowd all around the square. Garry Kasparov was released three hours later, while a few hundred of his partisans were gathered in front of the police station where he was being detained, crying "Liberty!"

To prevent the opposition from forming a large mass of supporters on Pouchkine Square, the Russian authorities had imagined that this Saturday there would be at least three concurrent demonstrations, and deployed several thousand policemen and soldiers to the center of Moscow. They also provided a few rabble-rousers, like that group of fellows disguised as prostitutes, filmed by obliging film crews from Russian television, gathering evidence that what were assembled here were bacchanalian "transvestites" and not the political opposition.

A small gathering of pro-Putin youths, for whom Pouchkine Square had been reserved, were allowed access to the roof of Izvestia's building, to display a banner directed at the opposition: "Salutations to the political prostitutes paid by foreigners."

Confronted by this very impressive display of force, the "march of those who are not in agreement" was quickly disbanded: bystanders and demonstrators who tried to approach the Square today at noon were taken away, or became discouraged. "The problem is that the majority of Russians stay quietly at home," admitted Louri, a retiree of 61, observing this sad spectacle. "Our country is dying, but most people couldn't care less. They say that they can't do anything about it." Nelly and Viktoria, two cute 19-year-old students, passed by the Square coincidentally on their way to the movies, admitting: "We don't agree either with what's going on in Russia today. Nobody obeys the laws. And look: We can't even demonstrate freely!" They themselves also admit that "all of this is scary..." and they scurry off to their film.

"This is all a repeat," said Waldemar, a 70-year-old veteran of opposition movements, in an attempt to console himself. "As a former ministry employee, I'm supposed to live today with a retirement income of 2,500 rubles" (about $95), he explains. "Today, people are afraid: For every demonstrator, Putin sent us 5 or 6 cops. But the revolution will come," he assures us. "At the latest in ... 2017, for the anniversary of of our 1917 revolution!"