Talk:Economic freedom/Archive 1

NPOV: Citing one study for "numerous empirical studies"

"Numerous empirical studies have found that, among other beneficial effects, economic freedom promotes economic growth and poverty reduction." I'm concerned about this line for two reasons. First of all, the subject is "numerous empirical studies," but there's only one citation. Secondly and more importantly, it is non-neutral and overly simplified; it represents a point of view. --aciel (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Source (OECD yearbook) says: "Ongoing work, by those involved in the economic freedom project and outside researchers, shows that economic freedom promotes economic growth and poverty reduction. These findings are now relatively uncontroversial and have been published in leeding peer-reviewed journals, such as the American Economic Review." Listing number of studies and then saying "numerous studies say..." could be classified as original research, this is not. It doesn’t represent a point of view. Studies have really shown that economic freedom promotes economic growth and poverty reduction, that is a matter of fact, not of opinion. -- Vision Thing -- 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could qualify the statement? Economic freedom MAY promote economic growth and poverty reduction, perhaps. For example, economic freedom for American coffee companies could promote American economic growth and poverty reduction--but what about in Central American countries? It might increase poverty there as well. The point is that it all depends upon how you define/qualify economic freedom. Thus, oversimplification. --aciel (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If the general economic freedom increases in the USA, incomes of American consumers increase and they will buy more high quality coffee and so incomes of Central American farmers would increase. Economic freedom for American coffee companies is just too narrow concept, please look at the broader picture. --Doopdoop (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The OECD yearbook isn't a very good source. It has a "a series of commentaries from leading figures in policy, business, labour, research and civil society". The reference in question is in a commentary by FredMcMahon, from the Fraser Institute, who is clearly not a neutral source. And the commentary itself doesn't mention any specific articles, just that studies have been published. I don't doubt it's true, but this source isn't a great one. Cretog8 (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article, in the version I just found of it, appears a pure propaganda piece. It also seems badly sourced at first glance. I've tried to change things starting with the opening paragraph, however I haven't gone into the detail of the rest of the article and don't really have the time to do so. I'd ask others to try.Nwe (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more precise, apart from the last piece of the introduction you removed appropriatly, I don't see what you refer to. You can't say that you haven't even read the article and add a POV tag. Without any proper arguments, the tag will be removed soon. --Bombastus (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The notion that it is "embodied by" something generally provides an automatic POV slant. The claim that it is "characterized by....freedom of economic initiative" is also very biased". That such a catalogue of biases could persist in the opening paragraph is likely to imply that the rest of the article will be biased, particularly since it seems to follow a structure similiar to that laid out in that very opening paragraph.Nwe (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Marcuse

I dont have the knoledge to write a peice but shouldnt a counter point be introduced considering economic freedom as freedom from the economy aka One dimensional man and other works (im sure it was an earlier notion though) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.11.186 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Our object is the economic freedom of the producing classes; this ultimate goal will be attained after a long and bitter struggle; therefore, our primary task is to organize the masses and lead them in the struggle for economic freedom.

M N Roy, On Non-Violence and the Masses (1923)

I would rather someone else write it and will leave time for that but there does need to be a discussion of this alternative leftist view of economic freedom. eg Freedom from work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.11.186 (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reinserted NPOV tag

For many of the same reasons as Nwe mentioned above. This entire article is pure propaganda, with sources culled from hack think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation. J.R. Hercules (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pure propaganda- can you try to be a bit more specific please? Larklight (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why socialists and communists would disagree with the way this article is written. However, it is important to note that their viewpoint (that economic freedom does not equal prosperity) is in the minority at the present time, according to the academic literature. Hence, it is not propaganda to assert that evidence overwhelmingly favours greater economic freedom (i.e. rule of law, enforcement of contracts & protection of private property) if some mention is made of Marxist economists, who deny all the available empirical evidence. Readers should be made aware that disagreement persists. I would say the same thing if this were a global warming article (there are sceptics out there). Mookrit (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific with your objections. Only thing sourced to the Heritage Foundation is its Index of economic freedom, so that isn't a valid objection. -- Vision Thing -- 15:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had read my comment above, you would have found that I cited Nwe's earlier comment as explanation. As for my own, extra objections: 1) "economic freedom" isn't an academic term, and has no accepted meaning. As such, the term requires the use of quotation marks around it, as well as a qualifier which points out that it is an expression used by proponents of laissez-faire capitalism; 2) the sentence, "Empirical studies have found that, among other beneficial effects, economic freedom promotes economic growth and poverty reduction., is POV because it is a) based on one single study; and b) the study was funded by private think tanks whose very reason to exist is to propagate the tenets of neo-liberal and/or laissez-faire capitalism. When I earlier added a qualifier to that sentence, pointing out the very simple fact that the study came from a private think tank, another editor removed the qualifer with the absurd explanation that "pointing out sponsers (sic) is petty and irrelivant (sic)."

"Economic freedom" is in fact an established term in the economic literature. Please read de Haan (Eur J Pol Econ, 2003) for an overview of the literature. NB: Johnson, Kaufmann, and Zoido (Am Econ Rev, 1998), with over 300 citations, Blau (J Polit Econ, 1987) with over 300 citations, Scully (J Polit Econ, 1988) with over 300 citations, Weingast (J Law Econ Organ, 1995) with over 300 citations, Easton and Walker (Am Econ Rev, 1997) with over 100 citations, Sen (Eur Econ Rev, 1988) with over 100 citations, Dechert and Nishimura (J Econ Theory, 1983) with over 100 citations, Brenton, Di Mauro and Lücke (Empirica, 1999) with over 100 citations, La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes and Pop-Eleches (J Polit Econ, 2004) with more than 20 citations per year, Heckelman (JAE, 2000), Islam (AEL, 1996), de Haan and Siermann (Public Choice, 1998), de Haan and Sturn (Eur J Pol Econ, 2000), de Haan and Sturm (Eur J Pol Econ, 2003), Boockmann and Dreher (Eur J Pol Econ, 2003), Gwartney and Lawson (Eur J Pol Econ, 2003), Dawson (Eur J Pol Econ, 2003), Ayal and Karras (J Dev Areas, 1998), Caudill, Zanella and Mixon (J ECON DEV, 2000) and many many more... Hope this helps clarify things. Bagsc (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not petty or irrelevant to do one's job when editing an article, which is, namely, to provide facts.

In short, I will continue to do what I can to make sure this -- and other economics articles -- are not hijacked by the Milton Friedman/von Mises/Hayek crowd. J.R. Hercules (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two sources for claim about empirical studies. One is OECD yearbook which says "Ongoing work, by those involved in the economic freedom project and outside researchers, shows that economic freedom promotes economic growth and poverty reduction. These findings are now relatively uncontroversial and have been published in leading peer-reviewed journals, such as the American Economic Review." Other is to list of numerous other studies. Both sources also refute your claim that "economic freedom" is not an academic term. -- Vision Thing -- 18:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

+1 Vision Thing. The academic litterature quoted here is more than enough but I strongly doubt Hercules' will to accept it. As he himself recognizes, he is in a crusade against an hypothetical 'Milton Friedman/von Mises/Hayek crowd". I let you judge the neutrality of this attitude.. --Bombastus (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrator review is necessary for this article

As the NPOV tag keeps getting removed, and no substantive changes to the article have been made to counter the NPOV, it's now necessary for some official oversight on the matter. J.R. Hercules (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem? All your points have been refuted above. Economic freedom is defined in the article as: (a) property rights, (b) enforcement of contracts (c) rule of law. You can talk to a left-wing economist like Paul Krugman and you will get the same answer - economic freedom and free trade generally promotes growth/prosperity. This article is uncontroversial because it does not delve into genuine areas of disagreement in economics (like whether health and education should be provided publicly or privately) but focuses on the basics. Here is a link to a paper that notes that economists overwhelmingly support free trade: http://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/sofiwp/2006_006.html Mookrit (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

One obvious POV point is the section regarding a constitutional amendment to protect "economic freedom". Not only does it portray such proposals as uncontroversial, it fails to even mention that such an amendment would essentially bar all government regulation of the economy. It's a radical fringe concept that's being painted by this article as mainstream and essentially unopposed. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Which index?

Since it seems that the Economic Freedom of the World index is used more in academic studies, wouldn't it be better to focus on that in this article than on the Index of Economic Freedom? Also, it would be a (small) step toward alleviating POV concerns, since the Heritage Foundation is a wide-ranging activist conservative organization, while the Fraser Institute is (at least) quieter.Cretog8 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think using the EFW index table is better than using the IEF table. I think the table coming from the same data as the map is helpful, since they present the data in different ways. The section refers to data/studies based on indices, but in fact all that data relates only to the EFW index. Including the IEF data then is confusing.

I do agree that the IEF table looks better than my EFW table, and I welcome repairs to the EFW table to make it line up better (at my scratchpad). However, the reason the IEF table lines up so well is that they made the strange decision to give different ranks to countries with the same score. I don't know what to make of that; I'd be tempted to correct it in any case, but fortunately I didn't have to correct it for the EFW index. Cretog8 (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Section is called Indices of Economic Freedom, not Economic Freedom of the World. Results of both indices should be represented. While I agree it is helpful to have the same data presented in both the table and the map, that is the task for the main articles. Section here is just the brief summary of the main articles and it can't be all encompassing. -- Vision Thing -- 06:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's true that's the section's title, but in fact everything after the first sentence refers to the EFW. Having a huge IEF table in the section is misleading, giving the impression the text refers to the data in the table. Cretog8 (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Proper solution for that is to add more content from IEF, not to remove all material from it. -- Vision Thing -- 12:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be one solution. I think adding much more material would make the section too big, and I've said that the EFW is a better index to focus on, since it's used much more widely in academic studies. In any case, until such material is added, the the IEF table with the current text is misleading. Cretog8 (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like our last edits to that section may have overlapped. If you're going to add some IEF content, I'll wait before switching tables again. Cretog8 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, still not sure that presenting the IEF in a table and the EFW in a map is the way to go, but the note about the World Bank using it certainly ups the IEF's relevance. Cretog8 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag again

Is the NPOV tag undead? Or just a Weeble? This article does have POV problems. So I'm putting the NPOV tag back. I don't think it's a bad article, but it will take some of work to make it NPOV. The POV runs throughout the article, but here's some specifics:

• The term "economic freedom" needs qualification. For instance, many people would say that strong unions and weak intellectual property rights are important parts of economic freedom, but the Heritage Foundation index, at least, considers both of those negatives. So, there needs to be some way to deal with the fact that there's different ideas of what economic freedom is. The problem carries through the whole article, where it's treated as if everyone agrees on what constitutes economic freedom.
• It relies too heavily on Hayek and Friedman. This might actually cause it to look more POV than it really is. Hayek and Friedman both did great economics, but both also pushed policies which remain pretty far out of the mainstream, and both are strongly associated with extreme libertarian economics. Similar points could come from other people, and that would help the real or perceived POV. Without that, this article comes across as stuff which should be chopped up to include in the Hayek and Friedman articles.
• The less emphasis put on the Heritage Foundation the better, since they are well-known as an activist conservative group.
• The text of the article flows so that cited opinions and uncited assertions run into each other. For instance:
  • "Milton Friedman sees property rights as "the most basic of human rights and an essential foundation for other human rights."[12] With property rights protected, people are free to choose the use of their property, earn on it, and transfer it to anyone else, as long as they do it on a voluntary basis and do not resort to force, fraud or theft. In such conditions most people can achieve much greater personal freedom and development than under a regime of government coercion."
  • "Friedman has commented that centralized control of economic activities was always accompanied with political repression. In his view, voluntary character of all transactions in ::::::::::a free market economy and wide diversity that it permits are fundamental threats to repressive political leaders and greatly diminish power to coerce. Through elimination of centralized control of economic activities, economic power is separated from political power, and the one can serve as counterbalance to the other. Economic freedom, embodied by impersonal market forces, also protects people from discrimination in their economic activities for reasons unrelated to their productivity, and because of that Friedman feels that economic freedom of competitive capitalism is especially important to minority groups, who could otherwise be too easily affected by the hostility of the majority."
• Section "Economic and political freedom"--There's definitely mixed evidence on this. It's not necessarily the responsibility of those who like this article's POV to fill in that contrarty evidence, but it does exist.
• Section "The constitutional protection of economic freedom" is unnecessary (at least as written), and a temptation to POV. The first paragraph is largely restating stuff from the "Rule of Law" section. The Friedmans' proposal is pretty far-out, and not particularly notable except that it came from the Friedmans, and this isn't an article on him/them. Everything from their quote down is speculation.

Anyway, that's a start on why the article deserves a POV tag. Cretog8 (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Cretog8 does a much better job of articulating some of the problems with the article as it stands than I ever could and I thoroughly endorse his comments above. I would add that in my view it is quite spurious to suggest that criticism of "economic freedom" is limited to a few far-out Marxist economists and the like. "Economic freedom" is a loosely defined and highly controversial topic at the best of times, something completely ignored by the massive over-reliance on populist economists such Hayek and Friedman in this article. The most charitable thing that can be said about this article in its current form is that it thoroughly fails to address any controversies around the concept (see, for example, privatization of public companies, the World Trade Organization, and the voluminous mass of books on the economic effects of unregulated free trade and globalization), different conceptions about what the term actually means, issues concerning the possible limits of economic freedom (for example, in a world entirely devoted to the concept of economic freedom there would, presumably, be no restrictions on prostitution, or even arguably someone entering into a contract to sell him or herself into slavery), and equity and associated problems of coercion and imbalances of power in a marketplace of unregulated contracts. The point at which one limits some of the more extreme effects of unregulated economic freedom is, in fact, the subject of extensive debate both academically and in the popular press. There also appears to be an implicit assumption in some of the comments above that somehow the world has largely bought-in to this entire "economic freedom"-thing with the fall of the Soviet Block. In fact, "economic freedom", especially as it is practiced in the West, is extremely tightly regulated with almost every country incorporating significant restrictions on "economic freedom" through various levels of taxation, welfare, corporate regulation and government intervention in the economy, much of which would be in direct contravention of a pure economic libertarianist agenda. There are also issues that should be at least briefly mentioned concerning the use of the term "economic freedom" in political discourse, particularly in the United States, as well as issues surrounding the place of private property and economic rights in the context of a global environmental crisis (see, for example, The Tragedy of the Commons). Debate 木 06:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV is very specific about what deserves a mention: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If you can't do neither then those views don't belong to this article.

• I don't know how you can say that this article relies too heavily on Hayek and Freidman. Both of them are among the greatest economists of the 20th century, and they have studied economic freedom more than any other economist.

• While I don't agree with you statement "The less emphasis put on the Heritage Foundation the better", in the article almost no emphasis is put on them. They are mentioned only in Indices of Economic Freedom section, and might I remind you that they created Index of Economic Freedom together with The Wall Street Journal, one of the most respected international newspapers.

• What you underline as "uncited assertions" is sourced to Friedman.

• If there is notable and reliable evidence against link between economic and political freedom feel free to add it in. -- Vision Thing -- 12:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

VT--I don't feel I need to address your points within 2 minutes of you bringing them up to retain a NPOV tag. After all, I don't see how it is that you can unilaterally decide that there is no POV dispute. Nonetheless, I will answer some of your points here. I then request that (if someone else hasn't done so before you), YOU put the NPOV tag back. Otherwise, I have to ask how to proceed? Edit war? Dispute process? I'd be happy to hear what method you'd prefer.

• Hayek and Friedman: I believe I explained myself already. Hayek and Friedman are lofty economists. However, they both are strongly identified with the extreme libertarian side of economic thinking. Both pushed views which are well out of the economic mainstream. Therefore, relying so heavily on those two economists gives a very strong POV flavor to the article.
• Heritage/Index/WSJ: The Index of Economic Freedom is a part of the short lead, plus nearly an entire section of a short article. That's significant. While the WSJ is a respected paper, the IEF project by all appearances is conducted by the opinion/editorial side of WSJ operations, which is well known as right-wing.
• uncited assertions: I'm curious how in reading a paragraph, I'm supposed to know which statements are "cited" opinion, and which are supposed fact. Possibly my putting in my own quotes was confusing, so here is one of the exerpts without any extra quotation marks:

Milton Friedman sees property rights as "the most basic of human rights and an essential foundation for other human rights."[12] With property rights protected, people are free to choose the use of their property, earn on it, and transfer it to anyone else, as long as they do it on a voluntary basis and do not resort to force, fraud or theft. In such conditions most people can achieve much greater personal freedom and development than under a regime of government coercion.

• So, how am I supposed to know that the citation after a quote on the first sentence means that the following two sentences are also statements of Friedman's opinion, rather than statements of fact?
• economic freedom: You didn't address the overall issue which is that different people have different notions of economic freedom. To me, this is a no-brainer. Even Friedman acknowledged that intellectual property was a tough call. Nonetheless, it is fair for you to ask for references to that effect. It is not fair for you to insist the references turn up immediately.
• constitutional protection: You didn't address the concerns about the "constitutional..." section. I'll assume that means you don't object to removal of that section, but I'll give you time to respond before doing so.

Cretog8 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Saying that Friedman is out of the economic mainstream only shows how far out of the economic mainstream your own views are.

• Wikilink can be changed to Indices of Economic Freedom or it can be left out altogether, that is not an issue. Section is about Indices not Index. Also, article should reflect views of majority and when someone talks about measuring level of economic freedom it almost always talks about one of these two indices.

• Well, if you want to go philosophical, there are no statements of fact, only opinions. See for example recently featured article on Moe Berg. In the lead it says: "Although he played 15 seasons in the major leagues, almost entirely for four American League teams, Berg was never more than an average player..." Is the statement that he was never more than an average player an opinion or a fact? According to best Wikipedia standards it’s a fact. According to your standards it's an opinion. Maybe you should put a POV tag on that article or take it to FA review.

• Ok, I will give you a week to find reliable references from notable sources.

• I have a divided opinion on that section, but I don’t think it deserves outright removal. Maybe some of its content can be incorporated into other sections. -- Vision Thing -- 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't say Friedman was out of the economic mainstream, but perhaps I should have phrased it more carefully as "Both pushed some views which are well out of the economic mainstream." Someone coming to this article would not be unreasonable to suspect that when the material is based so much on Friedman and Hayek, that these might be such views.

• I think that's fine for the indices. I think (as I mentioned before) concentrating on the Fraser index (on which Friedman was influential) is a better idea, both because of its source (though still a source with an agenda) and because it's used more in the academic studies. I'll see about pulling over Fraser EFW stuff soon.

• I wasn't trying to be philosophical. "In such conditions most people can achieve much greater personal freedom and development than under a regime of government coercion" is opinion, as stated. The question is, are we supposed to read it as Friedman's opinion, or are we supposed to read it as fact? Given that it's unclear, apparently unclear to you as well since you first said it was attributed to Friedman and you now seem to be saying it's fact, it (and others like it) need to be clarified or removed.

Cretog8 (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in what someone might suspect, but what the fact is. And the fact is that both Hayek and Friedman won the Nobel Prize in Economics, and that their views shaped much of what is today considered mainstream. Without them we wouldn't have this article because economic freedom would be some obscure term.

• WP:V states that: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." Since Wall Street Journal, one of the most respected mainstream newspapers, publishes and it is involved in the creation of Index of Economic Freedom, Index is one of the most reliable sources on economic freedom. Also, annual results of the Index are regularly covered by a host of other newspapers and sources throughout the world. So your attempt to degrade it in this article is not in line with Wikipedia policy.

• NPOV requires that articles treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the appropriate academic field. In economics when somebody says "economic freedom" in 99% of the cases he refers to economic freedom as treated in this article. There is no debate on positive vs. negative economic freedom.

• However, there is one debate and that is between those who prefer economic freedom and those who prefer economic equality. Section on relationship between these two concepts is the only major thing that this article lacks. Hayek's view on this issue, which is already present in the article, could go into that section. -- Vision Thing -- 09:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Friedman & Hayek-I doubt we'll get anywhere in this debate. I'll note one last time that both are seen as strongly ideological.

• I'm willing to trust that the Heritage Foundation and the WSJ aren't making up facts when building their index, and therefore have no problem citing their facts. I also recognize that both have strong ideological POV's, and so their opinions should not be taken as neutral.

• There is a debate:

  The content of freedom has been a subject of such controversy over the centuries that it would be extremely foolish to expect to resolve all that [here]. It would be equally a mistake to look for one "authentic" characterization of the basic idea of freedom. (Sen, Rationality and Freedom p.9)

  Mixing blame with praise is, in general, fairly inescapable in evaluating the market mechanism, and a freedom-based assessment need not be radically different in that respect. (Sen, Rationality and Freedom p.503 "Markets and Freedoms")

There's more where that came from. Sen isn't prone to pithy quotes, so including his views will take work on paraphrasing. He does discuss various aspects of freedom (particularly "process" and "opportunity"), which he relates to the notions of negative and positive freedom. So, here is another Nobel-prize winning economist who has spent much of his career working on issues of freedom, and disagrees (while mentioning Friedman and Hayek admiringly).

• It's possible that a freedom vs. equality section would be useful, but I think it's premature until we've dealt better with economic freedom itself. Cretog8 (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Judging by the quotes, Sen talks about freedom in general, not about economic freedom in particular. It is possible to have disagreement on general concept, and agreement on some of its specific components. -- Vision Thing -- 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Naturally, there's significant intertwining of the ideas of economic freedom and other kinds of freedom. This shows up in Sen as well as just about everyone who writes in the area. If the sentence about "the market mechanism" and freedom isn't enough to make you believe he's speaking of economic freedom, I suppose I'll have to ask you to trust me or read the source (or wait until I can figure out how to encapsulate the dry wordy stuff into something that's appropriate for a WP article). Cretog8 (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware of fallacy of division. If A is true for B, and C is a part of B, drawing conclusion that A is true for C is fallacy of division. In our case A is disagreement about definition, B is freedom, and C is economic freedom.

In an overview of a book containing papers by selected contributors, including Sen and Stiglitz, and published by the World Bank I found following claim: While it is widely accepted that economic freedom, as ensured by the operation of the economy according to market or laissez-faire principles, is a critical determinant of development, the role of political freedom, as ensured broadly by the practice of democracy, is less well understood. Of course that doesn’t necessarily mean that Sen isn't talking about economic freedom, but I will ask you to provide quotes where he specifically talks about "economic freedom" or "economic liberty". -- Vision Thing -- 20:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you do some poking around online, you'll find supporters of your preferred notion of economic freedom explicitly responding to Sen, acknowledging that there is disagreement. I don't think Sen focuses purely on economic freedom, because it doesn't appear that he recognizes a strong distinction between economic freedom and other kinds of freedom. In that regard, he's in the company of nearly every economist who's addressed the topic.

Please excuse the poor refs:

We need to explore different aspects of individual freedom and their links, if any, with the nature of competitive market equilibria (p.502)

In some respects the freedom-based approaches are more ancient than that of "economic efficiency"...(p.504)

In fact, the market mechanism has a role in protecting "autonomy of decisions" as well as "immunity from encroachment." In a competitive market, the levers of decision and control are in the hands of the respective individuals, and in the absence of particular types of "externalities"...they are left free to operate them as the choose. (p.512)

I am not discussing here the extent to which I accept the exact analysis of markets to be found in the public choice literature. This is not the occasion to go into that substantive issue, but if I were to do so, I would complement my support for the need for markets and the importance of "economics-as-exchange" ... with some serious qualifications about the need to address the question of inequalities of substantive opportunities and freedoms, including poverty and deprivation [here he gives kudos to Buchanan] (p.641, "Process, Liberty and Rights").

After all that, it is quite evident to me that regardless of the relative appeal of their ideas, it is no surprise that Hayek and Friedman are more widely read than Sen. Cretog8 (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you're looking for quotes which exactly use the words "economic freedom" in direct sequence? If so, we have deeper disagreements to talk about. Cretog8 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, otherwise we would be engaging in original research. -- Vision Thing -- 09:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's silly. I'll pick this up again after a few days or a week. Cretog8 (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the OR argument is wrong per WP:Dicdef - articles are about the concepts the words denote, not specific names, titles or phrases. If two commentators talk about the same concept, even if they use different words to describe it, both nonetheless belong in this article. Debate 木 10:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If I understood Cretog8 correctly he is talking about concept that is differently defined than economic freedom as discussed in this article. If that concept is differently defined and it is not called "economic freedom", than it doesn't belong here, but in a different article. -- Vision Thing -- 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This article suffers from horrendous POV, and its problems are twofold:

• First, it does not separate opinion from fact. It lists several factors that are considered important elements of economic freedom, and then randomly adds a few libertarian arguments at the end of each paragraph (Hayek's argument about equality at the end of the rule of law paragraph, for example, and De Soto's argument at the end of the property rights paragraph). Random tangential arguments are strewn throughout the article, including Alan Greenspan's views on the gold standard - which are not shared by the Indices of Economic Freedom, by the way. It will be necessary to separate fact from opinion, and move all the arguments to a new section entitled "Arguments about economic freedom" or somesuch.
• Second, "economic freedom" is a vague term that has been used by more than just economic liberals. As it stands now, the article only presents the liberal view. It will be necessary to add alternative views as well. Many different ideologies claim to support "economic freedom." -- Nikodemos (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I'm actually not sure this article can be saved in anything like its current form, but I'm trying a gradualist approach to see. The biggest problem I see is this: once alternate ideas of what constitutes "economic freedom" are taken into account, then the rest of the article's blanket statements about economic freedom fall apart because they only strictly apply to the given notion of EF.

I'm really not sure how it can be handled. I don't want the material (well, most of the material) in this article to get lost. Much of it is useful. But how to present it? One possibility is to move it over to the Indices of economic freedom article, which is currently nothing but a disambiguation page. Cretog8 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We could put all the existing factual material into a section entitled "Liberal conceptions of economic freedom", and turn all existing sections into sub-sections of it. Then we could create other sections to deal with the other conceptions of EF (the socialist and the nationalist come to mind), and at the end we could have a final section for arguments and opinions. -- Nikodemos (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, something like that might work. I hate the word "liberal" because it means too many different things. Possibly "Laissez faire conceptions of economic freedom". Of course, at least the intellectual property aspect of the stuff discussed here is not laissez-faire. I'd probably prefer something like "Market oriented economic freedom", but that might be getting a bit WP:OR of me. Cretog8 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm lagging at updates here. I still hold the the article has serious POV problems, most of which haven't been addressed adequately. But it's probably unfair of me to hold onto the tag while I don't do anything. I'll let others decide whether the NPOV tag should be removed. The trick is that I do intend to get back to this, and if my edits cause POV argument, then the tag's likely to come back. So, y'all can think about whether the tag should stay now, or possibly come back later or what. Cretog8 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of tags is to attract the attention/feedback of other editors to a potential problem so you aren't forced to do all the work on your own, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort after all. If anything, it's more important that the tag stay when you aren't working on it than when you are. Debate 木 00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

On June 30th I agreed to give you a week to find notable alternate definition of economic freedom form reliable sources. Since then more than two weeks have passed and you have failed to do that. If there was a notable alternate definition of economic freedom two weeks was more than enough time to find it. -- Vision Thing -- 17:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

constitutional protection of economic freedom

We'll probably have to address NPOV points a little bit at a time. Here's one which I hope would be relatively non-contentious. How about getting rid of the "constitutional protection of economic freedom" section? It really doesn't add anything to the article. Cretog8 (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Certainly that bit thoroughly fails WP:UNDUE. Debate 木 —Preceding comment was added at 07:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you failed to address points I made, I will remove POV tag. If you think that constitutional section violates NPOV, feel free to add POV-section tag until your concerns are addressed. -- Vision Thing -- 18:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

VT, I ask you to please be collaborative. I know that this is a contentious article, and I saw that other folks' NPOV mentions earlier had been dismissed as lacking substance. Therefore, I carefully laid out some substance. I did this on the talk page in an effort to work things out, rather than going straight to the article to make changes. My concerns are still there, and I (naturally) think they're well expressed. You disagree. Let's work on that. So, I will put the NPOV tag back shortly (unless someone else beats me to it).

Regarding the constitutional section, specifically, that existence of the section is a WP:UNDUE problem, so I propose to remove it. Cretog8 (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I suggested this because, as I said, I figured it would be one of the less contentious parts. If you'd rather argue a different point, I can move on to something else for a while. Cretog8 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your points were replied to. As I see it, you are not proposing anything collaborative. -- Vision Thing -- 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "constitutional protection" section. If there's material worth saving, I encourage anyone to retrieve it to work that material back into the article. Cretog8 (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that, per WP:UNDUE, any editor who feels that the content of "constitutional protection" is worthy of retention would be best advised to create it as a separate article, rather than as a section in this one. Debate 木 23:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted text:

"The separation or structural-functional differentiation of the economy and the polity under basic law is equivalent to (say) the constitutional separation of organized religion and the state. It is also analogous to the division of powers within the state between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. A superior court will prevent the public authorities from assaulting economic rights and freedoms in the same way that it stops them from curbing freedom of the press or undermining judicial independence and the rule of law (etc.).

In America, liberal political economists such as Milton Friedman have proposed various amendments to the US Constitution and US Bill of Rights not only to better protect basic economic rights and freedoms from official assault but also to prevent the authorities from abusing their monetary and fiscal economic power – and so ensure continuing low inflation (etc.). Specifically with regards to protecting freedom of prices and wages – vital for the efficient functioning and maintenance of a market economy – Milton Friedman and Rose D. Friedman have argued that:

“We need here the exact counterpart of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of sellers of goods or labour to price their products or services.”

Essentially, the case for the more effective constitutional legal protection of economic rights and freedoms is that this will boost economic growth and prosperity, democracy, and civil rights and freedoms generally in society. This applies to Britain and other countries as much as to the United States. In the UK, the basic (constitutional) legal protection of economic rights and freedoms under a new British Bill of Rights might entail prohibiting elected politicians and bureaucrats from:

• engaging in business enterprise;

• planning or dictating economic output;

• imposing taxes as an instrument of extra-judicial regulation;

• restricting labour market entry;

• curbing rights of independent economic contract-making in general; or

• curtailing free enterprise and markets in various other specified ways.

However, the introduction of a new indigenous Bill of Rights comprehensively upholding economic rights and freedoms in the UK would almost certainly entail British withdrawal from the European Union – because of the numerous official restrictions on free trade, markets, and business enterprise inherent in EU bloc membership."

negative / positive freedom

I'm not strong on this kind of philosophy, so I'm going to solicit help. My strong impression is that this article (in its current form) equates freedom with what's sometimes called negative freedom (and Amartya Sen calls "process" freedom), to the neglect of positive freedom (which is kinda like what Sen calls "opportunity" freedom). These notions go well beyond the details of "economic freedom". While I don't know much about what philosophers have said on the subject, I know it's been worked on A LOT. So maybe the philosophers can help us. Cretog8 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Liberty, Freedom (philosophy), and Freedom (political) have relevant stuff, although they look kinda like a mess that should be merged. Liberty looks the best in the current state. Cretog8 (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Rule of law POV?

OK, looking for common ground. Although there's different interpretations of "rule of law", and different beliefs about its implications, I think broadly speaking, just about everybody agrees that rule of law is part of economic freedom (for that matter, part of political liberty in general). At least, I haven't come across any disagreements so far. So, if anyone does, let us know, please? Cretog8 (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not POV per se, but the relationship to economic freedom for this purposes of this article is pretty tenuous. It's certainly one of the paragraphs that makes this entire article read a bit like a university essay. In terms of how it relates to this article, we don't even mention economics until one unreferenced assertion about halfway through: "Absence of such changes is highly important for the efficient running of a free society and economic coordination." This is then followed by a reference which only indirectly supports that contention, and only then through a pretty broad opinion attributed to Hayek: "For example, prominent economist and political philosopher Friedrich Hayek had argued that the certainty of law contributed to the prosperity of the West more that any other single factor." After that, we only get back to economic freedom in the last couple of sentences, which simply reports Hayek's opinion that rule of law is important for economic freedom, draws further unreferenced conclusions from that, and overall is far too weak a reference in my view for the purpose of effectively supporting the substance of the section. Overall, this entire section is long on commentary and extremely short on facts, and entirely attributable to only one economist's opinion. Debate 木 23:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the section doesn't need work. The thing is that it's easy to find arguments that varying degrees of limitations on private property rights and the freedom to contract are beneficial to economic freedom. Not so easy to find counter-arguments for rule-of-law. I'm not sure what should be done with this section, but if there's going to be an "economic freedom" article at all, something like that belongs if only because it's been very important in the field of development economics. (this article in The Economist is a nice read on it.) Cretog8 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant article. It'll be a crime if it doesn't at some stage end up in the reference list. Debate 木 00:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hayek section

For the moment, I'm moving some of the more non-sequitur bits of Hayek to their own section. I know it's ugly, but I figure during transition, it's better than outright deleting them. We can figure out later whether they're keepers. (Might follow-up with the same for Friedman, not sure.) Cretog8 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Indices section

OK, in principle that was easier than I expected. Others might want to go through and tweak the wording. But anyway, I re-worded the "Indices of Economic Freedom" section so that it says all the same stuff without actually saying that the indices *do* measure economic freedom. Cretog8 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Development as Freedom

Interestingly, Development as Freedom, which was removed as a bit of future reading, is cited favorably in this essay from the Heritage Foundation on economic freedom. Cretog8 (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I didn't remove "Development as Freedom" from further reading section because of some bias, but because it doesn't talk about economic freedom. His book should be listed in further reading section in general article about freedom and international development, not here. -- Vision Thing -- 16:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith. It's been some years since I read DaF, but I recall it being very much about economic freedom, and I included it because it's a better read for the general reader than Rationality as Freedom or such. I'll assume you've read it more recently and/or have it at hand, and so I won't put it back until I can re-check. Naturally I'm concerned that your argument may be circular, that you think that there's a single specific definition of economic freedom, and that Sen was speaking of something else, therefore Sen wasn't talking about economic freedom. Cretog8 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide quotes where he is talking about economic freedom? -- Vision Thing -- 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Vision Thing, I cannot help but notice that while you demand precise quotes from anyone trying to add new information to the article, you have not applied the same standards to your own sources and references. -- Nikodemos (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And what is disputed? -- Vision Thing -- 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

definition of economic freedom

Popping in, unfortunately probably briefly before several more days away. And starting a new section, since indents are getting out of hand. Here's the trouble. "Economic freedom" can be treated in either of two ways:

1. One way is to take it at face value. In that case, it presumably means something like "freedom in an economic context", and will inherit most of the challenges in nailing it down that "freedom" in general has. I believe that's what we're working with. Honestly, since I believe that's what we're working with, I don't feel that having an article on economic freedom adds anything except being the intersection of economics and liberty. I do think there's worthwhile material in this article, but I don't really feel it belongs here. If there is going to be this article, then the full mess that is the intersection of economics and liberty needs to be treated. If this is the appropriate way to treat the article, then any discussion which is identifiably about that intersection is about "economic freedom", just as the sentence, "It is important that journalists be able to report critically on those in positions of power" is clearly about freedom of the press without using the phrase.
2. The second way is to take "economic freedom" as a formalized concept. If we're looking to restrict attention to those who use the precise phrase, then this is what we're talking about, and it raises various troubles.
   1. First, I don't believe that this is the way it's been treated by those who write about it. As such, treating it this way would be OR.
   2. First-and-a-half, from what I've seen, folks who write about defining and identifying economic freedom (distinct from those who apply a given measure of it), treat it in a common-sense way. As such, they identify economic freedom as whatever they think of freedom being applied to economics. The disagreements essentially arise from disagreements about the "freedom" part. Which makes sense, because economists consider economics as permeating life, so narrowing in on "economic freedom" would be problematic. Not to mention the general social/political/economic philosopher bent of those who get into this area.
   3. Second, if it is possible to identify a strand in the literature which makes "economic freedom" a very specified concept, then the article needs to treat it as such. Just as "rational" doesn't mean the same thing to an economist as in common speech, this would not mean "economic freedom" in common speech, and would need to be identified as jargon.

My preferred "solution" to this overall problem is to take the very interesting material on the indices of economic freedom, and make sure it's covered, either in the indices individual articles or in the indices of economic freedom article, and to simply abandon this one. I think that's best but I suspect it will be hard to get consensus on killing this article. My second-best solution is to assume the article is the "intersection" as above, and to work with it until it is less POV. Cretog8 (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I need to stop using "as such" so much, ugh. Cretog8 (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR is quite clear: "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research". -- Vision Thing -- 19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

VT, do you see "economic freedom" as (1) or (2) or something else? Cretog8 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My personal views are irrelevant. -- Vision Thing -- 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your personal views about the definition "economic freedom" are very relevant if you want to exclude certain material you don't feel meets that definition. I think it's clear from the context of the question that's it's not a "forum" kind of question, but related to the material in the article. I'm going to work with (1) unless material is presented that it is in fact (2), in which case, the article can change to reflect that it's merely a technical definition. Cretog8 (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, my personal views about the definition of "economic freedom" are totally irrelevant. Only relevant thing here is that Wikipedia policies forbid original research in which you are engaging in. -- Vision Thing -- 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New lead?

It's possible the lead isn't the place to start, but I figure doing so can help create the context needed for the rest of the article. Here's my first attempt:

Economic freedom is freedom in economic activities. As with political freedom, economic freedom is defined differently by different economists and philosophers, however most economists agree that economic freedom is greatest in a market or mixed economy. Indices of economic freedom try to measure economic freedom, and empirical studies based on some these rankings have found it to promote economic growth and poverty reduction.

Disagreements about economic freedom are similar to those about political freedom. These include questions of whether government activity promotes or diminishes freedom and the place of powerful non-governmental actors such as labor unions and corporations. Particularly important for economic freedom is the question of whether promoting equality increases or decreases freedom. There is also debate about the proper trade-offs between freedom and other goals, such as equality and economic development.

The rest of the existing lead I think can go at the top of the "Institutions of economic freedom" section. What I have here might give undue weight to disagreements, since I think there's more agreement than disagreement, but as I say, first attempt.

Feedback appreciated.Cretog8 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And your sources for this lead are...? -- Vision Thing -- 20:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the proposed first sentence. It is tautologous. Be concrete and descriptive. I don't think you need a source per se to say that economists and philosophers define economic freedom differently; you need sources when something is likely to be contested, and I don't see how VT could contest that statement. For the last statement, you need a source on that debate. I think mentioning that these concerns exist is important, and a source should not be hard to find. I'll keep an eye out for one. II | (t - c) 21:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He needs a source to say that economists and philosophers define economic freedom differently. For one, I'm not aware of any philosopher, that is not economist at the same time, that deals with economic freedom. -- Vision Thing -- 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your lead violates all three Wikipedia's core content policies. By your own admission it violates WP:NPOV because it gives undue weight to disagreement. It violates WP:V because it's not properly sourced and at the same time it violates WP:NOR because you are conducting an unpublished synthesis. -- Vision Thing -- 16:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Jacoby ref, quote from page 166, "History reminds us that collective action has been essential in our struggle for freedom. It also reminds us that collective action invariably threatens individual liberties, that to act collectively is to attempt to bind individuals." Perhaps I should take off the page ref because these issues run throughout the book. Cretog8 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And how that quote can be source for: Disagreements about economic freedom are similar to those about political freedom. These include questions of whether government activity promotes or diminishes freedom and the place of powerful non-governmental actors such as labor unions.? Where he compares economic freedom to political freedom, or, for that matter, where he speaks about government activity? -- Vision Thing -- 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As for page numbers, they are mandatory per WP:V: The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. -- Vision Thing -- 19:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the info. Cretog8 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

causality

I get tired of the "correlation is not causality" criticism. It's too easy, and kind of empty. It can also be right. Most of the studies I've looked at on economic freedom (as currently defined in this article) are about correlation rather than causation. Some (at least one I've seen) do try to look at causality (such as Granger causality). If the causality/"promotes" line is going to be used, it should be with a better source than Adam Jolly's commentary. Cretog8 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the quote from a book published by the World Bank that I mentioned earlier a better source?

[...] it is widely accepted that economic freedom, as ensured by the operation of the economy according to market or laissez-faire principles, is a critical determinant of development [...] -- Vision Thing -- 18:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a little better (just based on that quote), although that quote says it's "widely accepted" which is very different from saying "empirically shown". And the World Bank isn't quite an impartial source. I think for a strong statement like causality, you'd need to go to a more formal paper, although there might be a good survey paper. When I come back to this article later, I'll try to provide a better ref (unless someone else fills the gap first). Cretog8 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

EFW report page numbers

The EFW reports are essentially small books. Where they're used as ref's, they need page numbers. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Along other lines, generally the EFW reports should be used as a source for what the Fraser Institute says--they promote a particular notion of economic freedom and measure it with their index, so they aren't a neutral source. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So, the Fraser Institute aren't a neutral source, but their publications are.
Economic freedom is made up out of whole cloth. The index, more so. Anarchangel (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The publications aren't a neutral source, no. But they can be used as a source for what Fraser says. And their index (as well as the IEF) does get used in some analysis and a lot of political discussion, so it's worth including in the article. I'm trying to make sure that the article doesn't actually say the indices truly do measure economic freedom.

Also, it's trickier when their publications cite other sources (as in the happiness bit). I'm not sure what to do with that. I'm willing to treat the Fraser publication then as a secondary source, and let it stay. CRETOG8(t/c) 13:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias report

This article is biased capitalist bullshit. It doesn't even mention trade unions. How can the right to exploit other people be considered freedom?

A lot of discussion (including a little bit about unions) has been moved to the archive. Check that out. I encourage you to fish up good, referenced stuff on unions and economic freedom. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There are huge problems here with WP:WEIGHT. The presentation of the free market view is well written, but has big NPOV difficulties with lots of statements of a particular opinion presented as fact. I've redone the intro to make clear the controversial nature of the term and made a start on alternative views with Roosevelt (certainly a figure whose views on this topic deserve at least much as weight as those of Hayek). A lot more to do to make this a good article, though.JQ (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

F. Roosevelt was a politician and American president, just like G.W. Bush. I don't see how relevance of his views on academic economic subject could even begin to compare to those of Nobel laureate in economics. Also, you seem to have wrong idea about meaning of Wikipedia's undue weight policy. Maybe you have overlooked this sentence: "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." When talking about economic freedom reliable sources almost exclusively talk about economic freedom as defined in this article, and this article's structure and content should reflect that. -- Vision Thing -- 14:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for accidental deletion of your comment. - not sure what happened there. As regards your claim, I don't agree at all, but even if you think that the WSJ/Heritage view deserves more weight than that of FDR, that doesn't justify suprressing alternative viewpoints and denying their existence as your edits are doing.JQ (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are legitimate alternative views on economic freedom, they could be placed in a separate section (legitimate in Wikipedia sense – sourced, notable and non-synthesised). You wikilinked Four freedoms, but according to that article Roosevelt was talking about economic security, not economic freedom. Security and freedom are two different things. Also, even if he was talking about economic freedom, there is a question of his expertise. Although Roosevelt is a notable figure, that by it self doesn't make all his views notable enough to be discussed in articles that are not directly related to his political career. -- Vision Thing -- 22:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

He called it freedom, so your suggested justification for censoring his views is itself WP:SYN. As regards notability, Roosevelt had more influence on economic freedom in the US (however you define it) than anyone else in the history of the country. To suggest that he is not a notable figure here is risible. And none of this justifies a lead which denies the point, obvious from discussion here, that this is a highly controversial and contested term. JQ (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked through his speech and I didn't find where he called it an "economic freedom". If his views on economic freedom are as notable as you say, you shouldn't have a problem finding reliable secondary sources on economic freedom which discus his views. Also, I will once again direct you to WP:V: "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." Same goes for controversy. -- Vision Thing -- 08:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the revert of my edit and the deletion of other material, it looks as if this article has problems more with WP:NPOV than with WP:WEIGHT. Some fairly radical changes are needed, starting with a more co-operative approach to the presentation of all points of view. JQ (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cretog, I removed your changes in intro which say they there is a controversy about a concept of economic freedom because you sourced it to a work from 1955. That was before Friedman and Indices on economic freedom. However, we could introduce a History section and use Bronfenbrenner's work as a source for some of the content there. I don't have an access to his paper but if you are willing to give it a try please do. -- Vision Thing -- 08:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be clear that the idea that an article in which any viewpoint other than that of the political right in the US is excluded is not acceptable. The approach most consistent with WP:WEIGHT would be to delete the vast majority of the existing text, and start from scratch, but, given the work that has gone into the article so far, this would be an unfortunate outcome. I suggest you take Cretog's draft as a starting point and work from that. JQ (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Let us see what WP:WEIGHT states: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." To best of my knowledge, when reliable sources talk about "economic freedom" in great majority of cases they talk about economic freedom as presented in this article. So far you haven't been able to produce enough reliable sources for composing one subsection on alternative definitions (and no, I'm not counting in a 50+ year old study as a valid source for this). -- Vision Thing -- 17:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bronfenbrenner is old, which isn't ideal. Of course, a lot of Hayek's stuff is older. Bronfenbrenner is good because it very explicitly addresses different notions of economic freedom, and without taking a side. It's a source to help frame the other stuff, that there is disagreement. This is an alternative to listing things like freedom from want in the same line as freedom of contract, which would muddy the free market definition of EF. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Hayek's stuff" in the article is from secondary sources, or in one case from The Road to Serfdom which was last time reprinted in 2007 and today is still used as a point of reference. Work once published in 1955 and now dug up by you can't be used to describe modern meaning of economic freedom, or to indicate wide disagreement about usage of the term. If you believe that Bronfenbrenner is a high quality source, then you should use him in History section to describe meaning of "economic freedom", or disagreement about usage of the term, prior to 1960s or at maximum 1970s. -- Vision Thing -- 17:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cretog, can you please quote relevant passage from Sen's "Rationality and Freedom" about economic freedom? -- Vision Thing -- 20:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You can see it in the archive. You weren't satisfied then. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I failed to explain properly where problem lies with using it as a source. Sen says: "The content of freedom has been a subject of such controversy over the centuries that it would be extremely foolish to expect to resolve all that [here]. It would be equally a mistake to look for one "authentic" characterization of the basic idea of freedom." This means that he makes a comment about controversial nature of freedom in general. You interpret that as a licence to use it here as an argument that nature of economic freedom is controversial too. As I noted earlier, that is a fallacy of division. By same logic you could go to article on Freedom of speech to say that it is a controversial term and that, as a freedom in general, it has no universally accepted meaning. Do you see a problem with doing that? -- Vision Thing -- 22:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your broad argument I address below, I think. Your specific argument with regards to Sen is just tiring to me. There are other quotes in the archive which make it clear Sen is talking about EF. If you prefer one of them, or to fish up your own, then I doubt I'd object. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then quote him where he says "Economic freedom is..." or "Economic freedom is controversial term...". -- Vision Thing -- 09:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

VT, I think you'll understand that I don't want to put in the effort to quote at length on the talk pages for you, since that effort hasn't been rewarded in the past. You can look up the references, or ask for the opinions of others. CRETOG8(t/c) 11:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All references that you have provided, except Bronfenbrenner's paper, are not defining economic freedom. -- Vision Thing -- 12:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I was looking here to see if anyone else had mentioned how anti-Economic Freedom this article seems to be! It really is full of too much criticism, and not enough straight information. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

defining EF

There are two issues with giving a single definition of EF, relating to two ways we can treat the expression.

1. On the one hand, we can treat EF as a technical term-of-art within the economics profession. If we were to solely do that, then we would need to make it clear that "economic freedom" in economics means "economic freedom" in the same way that "work" in physics means "work". Even if we were to take this narrow approach, there would be some disagreement, although by creating multiple articles, it's possible we could make any given article more homogenous.
2. On the other hand, we can treat "economic freedom" as meaning what it says in the vernacular, in which case, there are obviously going to be even more ideas of what it means.

In practice, EF is treated somewhere between #1 and #2. I think having a single article makes more sense. If others think that the article in close to its current form should be broken off as one specific idea of EF, then that's something which could be debated. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK (and I ought to know, I think) there is no technical use of the term "economic freedom" in the economics literature, with an agreed definition, comparable to the way that say "free trade" or "free good" have generally accepted meanings. If there were, there would be no scope for political groups like Heritage or the WSJ to make up their own definitions. That's not to say that individual economists don't use the term, but they do so in the same loose fashion, and with the same range of meanings as in the vernacular.JQ (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you two are mixing economic freedom with economic justice or economic security. Unless you are able to produce quality reliable sources which unambiguously say "Economic freedom is…" you can not dispute current definition of economic freedom. -- Vision Thing -- 09:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much point in further debate for the moment. I've asked some other members of WikiProject Economics to take a look and hopefully they will bring some different perspectives. In the meantime, please be aware of WP:3RR and also avoid gaming the system. JQ (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

new bit

I'm going to add stuff here on the talk page occasionally, since adding them to the article has so far been unproductive:

Two main approaches to economic freedom come from, on the one hand the libertarian tradition emphasizing free markets and private property, and on the other the welfare economics study of individual choice, with greater economic freedom coming from a "larger" (in some technical sense) set of possible choices. CRETOG8(t/c) 11:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the second one. Welfare economics is not really closely related to the social welfare provision. It is positive, not normative. It seems like these two definitions are closely related. Also, who added it? II | (t - c) 08:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Cretog is distorting what source says. As a source for definition he took part where The Encyclopedia of Public Choice is talking about different approaches to measurement of economic freedom. However, when defining economic freedom source is clear: "Economic freedom refers to the quality of a free private market in which individuals voluntary carry out exchanges in their own interest." -- Vision Thing -- 10:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

II, I just added a {{cn}} tag at welfare economics. It seems very odd to me that it's described as "positive"--it might be that I haven't had my coffee yet, but economic efficiency is the classic example of normative economics, and economic freedom sorta building on that. I am referring to the more theoretical welfare economics rather than nitty-gritty social welfare provision, however. Haven't gotten to the nitty-gritty yet. CRETOG8(t/c) 11:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of welfare economics being described as normative. Mainstream economics thinks that all its fields are basically positive. Externalities are largely a positive phenomenon -- they happen and they inflict real damages. Even when you factor in the Coase theorem, it is still positive. The Coase theorem notes that you saying that pollution is costing you can actually impose an externality on business through restricting their right to pollute. So it says that the who makes the most money can compensate the the other one for damages for an efficient outcome. Welfare economics looks at what positively produces the most allocatively efficient outcomes. After you've assessed that, then you can insert values and decide whether you want the higher output, but more unequal outcome. That's not to say that government redistribution cannot, in some cases, produce more efficient outcomes than non-redistribution, or higher overall welfare. Then again, I'm no economist. Maybe JQ knows more. II | (t - c) 19:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Freedom House

In the early days, folks from Freedom House disagreed with those of the Fraser Institute on the definition of EF (see [3], p.100-...). I'm not sure about the current view FH takes on EF, however. I had the impression they used either the IEF or EFW these days. I'll probably figure it out, but if there was a switch, it would be particularly helpful to know when the switch took place and if there was an explicit explanation for it. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sen ref

I've been referring to Sen's Rationality and Freedom, but that's largely a collection of papers. Turns out one of the relevant papers is available online (at least at the moment): Markets and Freedoms. Thick reading. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Econlib source

I'm not sure about econlib.org in general as a source--it's something I'd like to figure out better, but that's something else. In any case, note that the econlib.org entry on EF is written by Robert Lawson of the Fraser Institute, so it seems to be redundant to the other Fraser material in the article and biased. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So, shall I take it out? CRETOG8(t/c) 09:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

FI material is used only to support claims about results of their index. Lawson talks about economic freedom in general, so it should stay in EL section unless it is used a source in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 21:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Reads like 2 different articles mashed together

This article is a bit of a mess. It reads like 2 different articles have been mashed together without proper editing to take into account each other. There's nothing wrong with accommodating both the libertarian and welfare concepts on economic freedom on this same page, but it needs to be edited so that the article is self consistent. This includes claims like economics freedoms are linked/not linked to economic growth. LK (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to reorganise as a first step towards meeting this criticism.JQ (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Introduction currently has following problems:

1. too much emphasis is given to indices of economic freedom – they should be mentioned but not at current length because this is not an article about them;
2. stating "Economic freedom is a controversial term used in economic research and policy debates. As with freedom generally, there are various definitions, but no universally accepted concept of economic freedom." is an original research;
3. sentence: "A common contemporary definition emphasizes emphasizes free markets and private property, and on the other the welfare economics study of individual choice, where greater economic freedom coming from a "larger" (in some technical sense) set of possible choices" doesn't make much sense to me and and it is not supported by given source – source talks about measurements of economic freedom, not its definition;
4. source used to support claim that economic freedom encompasses freedom to engage in collective bargaining is not talking about economic freedom.

-- Vision Thing -- 12:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's alright that I've numbered your points to make it easier to respond.

1. You're probably right, at least some of it should go into the indices section. Keep in mind we're in a "working-it-out" phase and so there will be sub-optimal composition while things change.
2. It's referenced.
3. I think that one got garbled a bit--I'll try to ungarble it. It is supported by the source.
4. Yes it is.

CRETOG8(t/c) 12:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted a slight de-garble of #3. CRETOG8(t/c) 12:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Thanks.

1. Ok.
2. Something can be referenced and still not supported by source. Pivotal problem is in this: "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research ". Sen's source does not directly and explicitly support the information as it is presented.
3. Can you direct me to a page in The Encyclopedia of Public Choice on which you are basing this sentence?
4. I looked up Laboring for Freedom p. 8 and author doesn't mention economic freedom. -- Vision Thing -- 15:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any support for your claim that you can censor views opposed to your own by the use of your own interpretation of citation requirements. I suggest that you would do better to concentrate on improving the exposition of the free market/classical liberal view.JQ (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the thing, I'm not interpreting anything, I'm relaying on what is directly and explicitly said by sources, you are not. -- Vision Thing -- 10:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'd better convince some other editors, rather than repeatedly deleting everyone else's contributions. That only leads in one direction. JQ (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I will stop deleting when you start providing quotes that directly and explicitly support deleted statements. -- Vision Thing -- 12:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Your principle is correct, but it's misapplied. Sen directly and explicitly talks about economic freedom. If you think I'm mis-representing what he says about economic freedom, then you could start by explaining what you think he says.

3. It's from a few places in p.161-163, beginning in the first paragraph.

4. I understand we disagree. If you want to explain what's wrong with the ref, I might be convinced to look for a different page.

Generally--I'm sorry VT, but we seem to be at a communications impasse. Material which is obviously relevant to me is, for one reason or another, unacceptable to you. From my point of view, I can't tell whether you're really unable to see what is obvious to me, or you're merely being obstructionist. Either way, it doesn't seem like there's much to be gained by trying to convince you. I'll go through the motions for the sake of others reading the talk page. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is, how explicit must a reference be in order to qualify for inclusion? Must it actually use the exact term "economic freedom," or can it say something along the lines of "the concept of freedom, when applied to an economic context..." ? I would argue in favour of the latter. The scope of an article is not limited to sources which explicitly use the exact term in the article's title. Clearly, any source that talks about "freedom" with reference to economic issues, is talking about economic freedom. Any source that says "freedom" could be enhanced (or harmed) by certain economic policies, is talking about economic freedom. This article should cover the relationship between economics and freedom. In fact, perhaps it should even be renamed to economics and freedom, if that would help resolve the controversy. We must certainly talk about the uses of the term "economic freedom," but I don't think we should limit ourselves to that - not unless we rename the article to Economic freedom (term). -- Nikodemos (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although I can't be sure without looking at these exact pages. This smells like wikilawyering, where VT is saying that even if Sen is talking about economics and freedom, if he doesn't have specifically "economic freedom" then we can't say he's talking about it. I've running into a similar problem at another article (started a thread over at WP:NOR/N, if anyone's curious -- I really want some uninvolved comments). Wikilawyering violates the spirit of Wikipedia. On the other hand, if Sen is actually talking about general freedom not in the context of economics, then VT has a point. Since Sen is an economist, I rather doubt that he's not talking about freedom in the context of economics. II | (t - c) 04:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As regards wikilawyering, VT has previously dismissed FDR as an unimportant source and Bronfenbrenner as "too old", justifying the inclusion of much older stuff by Hayek on the basis that it has recently been reprinted. Any excuse to keep out material VT doesn't like.JQ (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I've been scorned for using the word "censorship" in reference to what happens on Wikipedia, the word is really appropriate in some cases. We're just fortunate that in this case, we overpower Vision Thing in numbers as well as reasoning. In other cases, information isn't so fortunate. One example of this is is Nassim Nicholas Taleb. User:Sked123, an economist, added some criticism of his books from statisticians, and it has been repeatedly deleted by his fans on "BLP concerns". I recently added back the criticism,[4] and we'll see how long it sticks.

To be fair, however, I can't rule out VT's comments entirely until I've seen the sources. The first page of "Economic freedom and its measurement" from the Encyclopedia is available on Google Books.[5]

As far as the Laboring for Freedom book, here is page 9. Coupled with page 8, it seems that the author may be saying that collective bargaining is a freedom, even though it's a strange freedom that allows you to impose restrictions on fellow laborers' freedoms. That one's a bit iffy. II | (t - c) 07:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously best when people can check the sources for themselves, but I know it can be hard for many. My track record with VT has made me not want to go to great lengths to quote and convince, but if others want to argue or get more details on sources, I'll be happy to provide at least some more quotes. CRETOG8(t/c) 07:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Laboring for Freedom, what you describe as a strange freedom is the essence of what he's getting at--that there are conflicting notions of freedom. Jacoby doesn't choose one of these notions as the right one, instead pointing out that they have their merits, they're in conflict, and that conflict needs to be worked out in a pragmatic manner depending on the circumstances. For instance (p.148): "Labor and the civil rights movements created alternative understandings of freedom that were largely incompatible with one another. Unions and minorities both relied upon collective identities, but here the similarity stopped. Labor required freedom for groups to combine toward a common good. Such freedom necessarily involved the ability of groups to define themselves, act together, and exclude or boycott those who did not. Minorities, on the other hand, required the freedom not to be excluded on the basis of their minority identity."

(p.166-167): " History reminds us that collective action has been essential in our struggle for freedom. It also reminds us that collective action invariably threatens individual liberties; that to act collectively is to attempt to bind individuals to their larger group interest." CRETOG8(t/c) 07:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the easiest way to solve this issue is that Cretog provides quotes from sources he uses to define economic freedom, so that we can put them on WP:NOR/N for other editors, more experienced when it comes to WP:OR, to judge. -- Vision Thing -- 09:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No original research thread

Vision thing has created a WP:NOR/N notice: Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Economic_freedom. It seems misleading. II | (t - c) 21:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I was hoping that VT would create such a thread, since having an OR tag on the article without starting a discussion doesn't seem right. As I say, I might not be able to fully participate in the discussion over the next few weeks, but we'll see how it goes. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a done deal. II | (t - c) 22:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Major clean up

Unfortunately request for third opinion on OR was not successful. So I guess we will have to work harder to achieve some kind of consensus. These are my reasons for changes I made:

1. Unless you wish to say somewhere in the lead something like: "According to Martin Bronfenbrenner [or some authors], economic freedom is a controversial term…" opening two sentences need to go. What I did is I listed different conceptions of economic freedom right away in the first paragraph so that it is clear that some people have different idea about the term.
2. I removed part that claims that the freedom to engage in collective bargaining is a special concept of economic freedom. It is explicitly encompassed by freedom from want.
3. I restored content about rule of law that was deleted without any explanation.
4. I removed claim about Hayek's predictions about policies of the British Labour Party. Hayek's view was misrepresented and I don't see what that claim has to do with economic freedom.
5. I moved content from section Criticism of indices to section Criticisms of classical liberal view, because their content is overlapping.
6. I removed claim: "Additionally, the indices currently include measures that many socialists oppose, for example, the use of corporate charters and intellectual property." sourced to [6]. Source doesn't talk neither about socialists nor indices.
7. I removed claim: "Pierre Proudhon, a socialist and founder of the mutualist movement, also attacked capitalist property, arguing that it is theft." Proudhon did argue that property is theft but he explicitly argued that property is also freedom: "In the System of Economic Contradictions, having recalled and confirmed my initial formula, I added another quite contrary one rooted in considerations of quite another order – a formula that could neither destroy the first proposition nor be demolished by it: Property is freedom." (Pierre Proudhon, Confessions d'un revolutionnaire). Btw, one of the sources used was this. Please don't use junk web sources in the article.
8. In the section Criticisms of classical liberal view I attributed and shortened John Miller's criticisms. He is fringe and not notable.
9. I removed section on Economic Freedom Index for India because it is not based on reliable source and search for "Economic Freedom Index for India" produces 8 results.
10. I removed section which present International Labour Organization as an organization that provides alternative definition of economic freedom because that claim is open to different interpretations.

-- Vision Thing -- 19:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

More precisely, you got zero support. Please don't make radical changes against consensus. RevertedJQ (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually no. Zero support would mean that users came and said that statements are not OR. -- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to address some of these points. I'm pretty overwhelemd with other things now, so my contributions are unlikely to be great.

1. Unless you wish to say somewhere in the lead something like: "According to Martin Bronfenbrenner [or some authors], economic freedom is a controversial term…" opening two sentences need to go. What I did is I listed different conceptions of economic freedom right away in the first paragraph so that it is clear that some people have different idea about the term.

It seems reasonable to me that if (a) several authors say a term is controversial, and (b) authors express disagreement, that saying something is controversial is clear-cut. To me, this seems like a good way to handle it rather than giving different meanings without preamble.

2. I removed part that claims that the freedom to engage in collective bargaining is a special concept of economic freedom. It is explicitly encompassed by freedom from want.

The relationship between collective bargaining and economic freedom is a complicated one, with different authors coming from different angles. On the whole, it appears to be more a matter of freedom of contract than freedom from want. John L. Lewis said at at least one point [7] that collective bargaining rights arise from laissez-faire principles of economic freedom--private property and freedom of contract. Jacoby's expression of economic freedom in regard to collective bargaining is tied tightly to a somewhat different notion of freedom of contract. Others consider collective bargaining with exclusivity as violating economic freedom by limiting freedom of contract.

3...

4. I removed claim about Hayek's predictions about policies of the British Labour Party. Hayek's view was misrepresented and I don't see what that claim has to do with economic freedom.

I'm not sure about his view being misrepresented--that is worth checking on. That bit has some slight flavor of WP:SYNTH, but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch--if it's a fair representation of what he said, it ties very directly to what he says about the connection between economic and political freedom.

5. I moved content from section Criticism of indices to section Criticisms of classical liberal view, because their content is overlapping.

Some compression like that is probably appropriate. There should be a brief mention in the indices section to make it clear that the EFW and IEF measure only particular ideas of EF. Also, because the broad ideas are somewhat abstract, and the indices use empirical instruments, there might be things which it makes more sense to address in the indices section.

6. I removed claim: "Additionally, the indices currently include measures that many socialists oppose, for example, the use of corporate charters and intellectual property." sourced to [8]. Source doesn't talk neither about socialists nor indices.

I agree that ref, at least alone, isn't adequate. It needs better support.

7...

8. In the section Criticisms of classical liberal view I attributed and shortened John Miller's criticisms. He is fringe and not notable.

If I'm looking at the right revision, I'm fine with your attribution. In the limited field of left-wing popular economics magazines, Dollars & Sense is pretty prominent, so an article in there is notable for this topic.

9...

10. I removed section which present International Labour Organization as an organization that provides alternative definition of economic freedom because that claim is open to different interpretations.

I'm not sure what your objection is to this. If it's open to different interpretations, that just means we should be careful about interpreting it, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be included.CRETOG8(t/c) 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've responded as you posted, in a list, but to continue the conversation it might be worth breaking these out into separate threads. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Claim that economic freedom is a controversial term is a matter of opinion, not of fact. In minds of many there is nothing controversial about economic freedom. Most sources that talk about economic freedom don't say that it is a controversial term. Also, because of that placing claim about controversy right at the beginning of the article gives it an undue weight.

2. I agree that relationship between collective bargaining and economic freedom is a complicated one, but just because of that collective bargaining should not be presented simply as opposition to usual definition of economic freedom. As I understand this relationship, collective bargaining is completely compatible with economic freedom as espoused by Hayek, Friedman, FI, HF and others as long as it is done on a level of individual company. Problem is in centralized bargaining on a state/industry level.

I agree that collective bargaining shouldn't be presented as strictly opposed to laissez-faire EF. It can be compatible or incompatible. It also can be motivated as part of different ideas of EF, even when it is compatible with LFEF. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

4. If it is a fair representation of what Hayek said it should be supported by a reliable source.

5. I'm glad we agree on compression. On your other point, subsection on indices is placed in the "Classical liberal viewpoint" section so there shouldn't be any misunderstanding about what kind of economic freedom they are measuring.

Drat, I thought we were in closer agreement than we actually are. See below. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

8. That is why I only somewhat shortened it.

10. This issue is connected with #2. Question is where collective bargaining should be included – in classical liberal or alternative views section. Except for that concern, I would argue that a right to collectively bargain is a right that derives from economic freedom, or that it is a part of economic freedom, not that is the economic freedom in it self. Economic freedom is general concept that has many different aspects (freedom to buy and sell, freedom to produce and consume, freedom to use your property, freedom to engage in collective bargaining…). No single aspect should be treated as a universal concept.

Collective bargaining is considered special by various sources, and so should be treated explicitly in the article. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What sources considered it special? -- Vision Thing -- 20:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

3. 7. 9. – On these points you don't have an opinion or…?

If you think it would contribute to discussion feel free to split list into separate threads. -- Vision Thing -- 10:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the short response. Regarding 3, 7, 9, I haven't mentally processed those yet, so as of yet I have no opinion. I probably won't take the trouble to form an opinion on Proudhon. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)