Via the Fin, I learn that Australia now comes in 10-th place on the Economic Freedom Index ahead of the US at 12. This is, perhaps not surprising, as I’ve previously observed that big government is good for economic freedom, at least as measured by the EFI. I don’t think this is entirely a spurious feature of the Index. A strong state can achieve its ends with less interference in individual freedom (economic and personal) than a weak one. For example, a volunteer army, paid for by high taxes, is less intrusive on freedom than systematic conscription which in turn is less intrusive than a press gang, or the kind of backdoor draft now being imposed in the US.
But if we are going to have international league tables, I’d much prefer that we continue the competition of the past few weeks, to see who can give the most generous, and effective assistance to the poor people of the world. There’s some more on this topic over at 52nd state. As is so often the case, I have a big post on this topic planned, but haven’t had time to write it.
John Quiggin 
FYI:
http://www.markarkleiman.com/
archives/_/2005/01/defending_the_freedom_to_steal.php
Just reposting Tim’s link in HTML as a test. Obviously there are some problems here. Can anyone give me a hint on what’s going wrong?
You don’t appear to be distinguishing between intrusion and freedom. While intrusion is depriving people of freedom in a visible way, it’s not the only way. As Philip the Great is reputed to have remarked, “Fraud before force, but force after all”.
“Fraud” is easier to get away with, but leaves loose ends. That’s what I have against the social democratic ethos – it gets as much as it wants the easy way, then claims justification in coercing holdouts because it is doing it democratically (carefully ignoring the fact that this is one of the areas where liberty and democracy pull in different directions). In fact it is merely using less force, and the mixed approach makes it a cost effective strategy where force alone might not be, particularly as it would build up back pressure. But in the end it’s just a softly softly approach to remaking people to fit the Procrustean bed.
Or look at it another way. There’s the recent criticism of Australia’s “high” position in educational rankings, because the rankings were designed to leave out certain things that used to be regarded as important in education.
You’re leaving out any encroachment on freedom that isn’t actually visibly forcible in its nature.
PML, whether or not the social-democratic ethos involves encroachment on liberty depends on whether one conceives of the free individual as an autonomous, self-sufficient, fully formed subject prior to his engagement with others and with social collectivities, and whose liberty is violated by any relationship which he doesn’t enter into voluntarily; or whether one conceives of the individual self as something which comes into being in the course of relations with other persons, relations with social collectivities beginning with the family, and relations with the natural world, in which case there is no individual prior to and apart from such relations, and her self and her freedom exist in dynamic tension with, yet at the same time because of, these relationships, many of which she will not have freely chosed, at least initially. If one accepts the latter conception, then social democratic (or democratic socialist, or radical democratic, or Green) measures which will be seen simply as encroachments of individual freedom under the former conception, will be seen as part of the negotiation and renegotiation of the realm of freedom-within-relationships which a democratic community is entitled to engage in, and indeed must as a condition of its survival and development.
John, I’m not sure why the URL wasn’t automatically hotlinked in Tim’s comment, but the reason it’s mangled in your re-post is that it was split over two lines. If you remove the line-break from the URL it should be fine.
Thanks Rob, that works fine now. One more problem I don’t have to worry about!