Talk:Economic freedom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

An inconvenient president

I am not well versed in this topic, yet I can see from 3.9 miles away the inconsistency in the argument that Roosevelt, Bronfenbrenner, et al are irrelevant because they are dead or old. Economic freedom only has standing because it was mentioned in the four freedoms. The fact that it appears to me to be a usurping, OR, FRINGE spin on those ideas only adds to the fact that they are the only shaky leg of would-be precedent the whole theory has to stand on. The fact that Roosevelt et al differed with modern EF is irrelevant only to a whitewash. I am fine with the shaky leg being lopped off, if the torso is hauled away. As that seems unlikely to happen, I'll be damned if I stand around and watch while someone is trying to have it both ways. Anarchangel (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sonova crap--Until just now I'd completely missed the existence of the book The Second Bill of Rights by Cass Sunstein. I expect there's material there which will be relevant. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've been watching this page go back and forth between two relatively unchanging versions for a few days now. I've protected it so that you guys can agree on some wording and use that. Protonk (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I listed my major objections to other version above. However, they weren't answered. Also, my preferred version is the original one from a two months ago. -- Vision Thing -- 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"my preferred version is the original one from a two months ago" That's about it. Vision Thing has persistently rejected any changes to the article as it stood a couple of months ago (a POV endorsement of dubious thinktank research), despite the fact that no other editor (with the exception of an unexplained drive-by revert a few days ago) agrees with this. A claim that any challenge to the VT version represented original research was taken to the relevant noticeboard and received no support. I don't think there is any serious possibility of agreement with VT here, but otherwise there is a pretty clear consensus on the talk page.JQ (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User Vision Thing's behavior on this article is a pretty clear case of "ownership" [1] - which is why s/he prefers the "original" version to any kind with additional edits. While I think there's some good faith here, these kind of actions and edits are in disagreement with stated Wiki guidelines.radek (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer original version from two months ago, but I went through considerable effort to combine it with JQ's version, giving detailed explanation for my changes. What I got in response were indiscriminate reverts without any attempt of meaningful discussion on talk. -- Vision Thing -- 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The correct procedure is to discuss the changes one at a time on the talk page, then implement those on which we can agree. The current version clearly has more support, so we should start from there.JQ (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wholesale revision of a contentious article - especially when those revisions have previously been objected to - is not the proper way to seek consensus. LK (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. -- Vision Thing -- 11:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where you have discussed addition of "Positive and negative freedom" and "Freedom of association and union organization" sections, addition of criticisms and deletion of content from "Rule of law" section. On the other hand, I did provide explanation for my edits and you and II are still ignoring it. In fact you two are acting like a tag team, and when one uninvolved editor revert you, you threatened him with admin intervention. -- Vision Thing -- 11:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I count six editors on this talk page who reject your attempts to exert control, so it's more like a Royal Rumble than a tag teamJQ (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you are counting in editors who say that challenged content should be discussed at talk before it is added to the article (which is a view that I support), and you are constantly failing to discus content changes. -- Vision Thing -- 12:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Vision thing has asked me if I would like to informally mediate disputes over this article. Lots of you guys know me, voted in my RfA, and have been on wikipedia longer then I have, so I understand if you would want to find a different person to mediate (or find a formal mediator). However, absent those reservations, I'll make my pitch.

I see mediation as moving through four steps:

1. Generate some sub-pages or sandboxes where the two sides can post a draft of their desired revision. Doesn't have to be complete or anything, just a basic outline (even an old revision of the page edited to conform to WP:SUBPAGE would be fine. That way we can make comparisons and see where the two sides are coming from.
2. Find which otherwise reliable sources are disputed (or where the extent of their use is disputed). How do we feel about using the heritage foundation's economic freedom index? What about the world bank rule of law index?
3. Find differences in the two drafts which are relatively uncontroversial and work on editing the article to reconcile those differences. If we can improve the article during mediation without forcing some action on the hardest issues, this will help.
4. See if we can bring in a third opinion on the most pernicious challenges.

So long as we make slow, substantive process on the article, we should be ok. So what do we think? Protonk (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we can still do this the old-fashioned way. Creating two new articles seems like a poor use of time, and none of us have much time. Many editors have referenced VT's complaints in-depth and disagree, especially his attempt to remove the reference to controversy when Bronfennber clearly uses the word in reference to economic freedom. Everyone over at WP:NOR/N agreed that there was no original research in the controversy issue, since Bronfennber uses the word controversial in direct reference to the economic freedom. His second main point is that the freedom of collective bargaining is not an economic freedom, or at least should not be referenced explicitly. Cregot8 neatly refuted that with, at the least, this source, in addition to another source, a book.

Best that we address these points one by one rather than all at once. If VT can agree that he has no case on the first two, then we can move on to the others. II | (t - c) 04:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to ditch the two drafts part of it. Protonk (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I addressed those two issues in points 1 and 10 of my response to Cretog8. Source you presented [2] shows exactly what I am talking about in #10. Source says Their claim to negotiate collectively with employers is the assertion of that freedom of contract which is the basis of economic freedom. Right to engage in collective bargaining is derived from freedom of contract which is an essential part of classical economic freedom. It is not a part of "other conception", at least not in its entirety, and in my view, it should not receive any more prominence than say right to have a business. -- Vision Thing -- 11:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There are three versions of this article. "Original" one, current and my attempted compromise version so I don't think we need additional drafts. If everybody agrees, I think it would be best if we would all refrain from any major edits until mediation is finished. If we agree on something, Protonk can implement it. For beginning, I would like to know if there is any specific reason why my additions ([3]) about Friedman at the end "Criticisms of classical liberal view" section and Hoover in "Freedom from want" section are getting reverted? -- Vision Thing -- 10:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with User:ImperfectlyInformed. If VT can show good faith by conceding on the points where there's clearly no case, we might make some progress. VTs final question illustrates the point. The diff shows a massive and highly POV edit. Anything useful in it got reverted with the nonsense. JQ (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we should have a gentlemen's agreement not to make any controversial edits. Any potentially controversial edit should be aired out here, and made by Protonk. We should restrict ourselves to minor edits like providing citations and cleaning up grammar. LK (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• That sounds good. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions I have

• We clearly want to nail down (looking at the diffs here) a conception of how controversial "economic freedom" is and how controversial its measurement is. That seems to be part of the dispute. Where should the mention of the controversy go. Who is quoted in disputing indices or conceptions. That sort of thing. We probably want to get away from "classical liberals argue..." without moving too far and claiming things as fact which are merely conjecture.
• We want to pin down where labor fits into this. That is part of the dispute both in the content and in the sources. We should agree on some non-fringe sources to use and find some common statement here.
• We want to settle some of these OR disputes.

Little suggestions

• The Hayek view on the British Labour Party is an interesting story. Evidently, the 1956 preface to Road to Serfdom took a swipe at the BLP but that was removed from the 1976 preface. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The central theme of The Road to Serfdom, as implied in the title, was that the policies of the BLP, implemented after 1945 would put Britain on the eponymous road to totalitarian government. This was so obvious that no one at the time restated it in the explicit terms that would get past VTs wikilawyering. As you indicate, Hayek himself backed off over time, and subsequent references tend to be in passing, since it's rare to get a full-length review of a book published decades ago. But if we want a source for the relationship between political freedom and (classical liberal) economic freedom Hayek is the place to go. The fact that his claims were wrong is not a reason for suppressing them.JQ (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The Road to Serfdom was published in 1944 so its central theme couldn't have been the policy of the BLP implemented after 1945. As for references, Hayek's thought is analyzed in many books published after 1990 (several of them are listed here) so if those criticisms have a real foundation, you shouldn't have a problem in finding a reliable source for them. -- Vision Thing -- 21:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Umm, isn't this rather like (in fact, exactly like) saying that John McCain can't have criticised Obama's policies during the 2008 election campaign since the policies aren't going to be implemented until 2009? Hayek criticised Labour's policies and predicted dire outcomes in terms of political freedom if they were adopted.JQ (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a mention by Gordon Tullock of The Road to Serfdom. It's in with lots of other comments in the Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom Toward a Theory of Measurement (plenty of interesting stuff mixed in there): "The basic problem with The Road to Serfdom was that it offered predictions which turned out to be false. The steady advance of government in places such as Sweden has not led to any loss of non-economic freedoms. This is particularly impressive because I doubt that any government before 1917 had obtained control of anything even close to the 65 percent of GNP now flowing through the Swedish government. I know many Swedes (and also Norse, Danes, Dutch and English) who are very upset with the sacrifice of control over so much of their earnings, but none who regard themselves as unfree in any other sense." CRETOG8(t/c) 18:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it is possible for us to acknowledge that Hayek's criticism was significant for those connecting political freedom and economic freedom. I think it is also possible for us to mention this criticism and then mention both how it was mellowed (from DeLong, above) and how it was not completely accurate (W/ cretog's source above). That doesn't make it less important. Hayek and Friedman form the intellectual basis for the secular right in the western world and the connection between that and "economic freedom" needs to be summarized. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I followed my own advice and I looked through some more reliable sources about this issue. This is what The Cambridge Companion to Hayek has to say: One line of criticism of Hayek fails. That is that he has been proven wrong – that democratic socialism did not collapse into serfdom. Hayek at least safeguarded himself from such retrospective refutation. He was warning against the totalitarian implications ("unintended consequences") of trying to direct economic life according to a central plan. He wrote that "the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans." By the 1970s there was some evidence of the slippery slope…and then there was Thatcher. Hayek's warning played a critical part in her determination to "roll back the state." -- Vision Thing -- 19:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• We should be able to dig up some studies on relationships between the various indices and outcomes. As a matter of fact I know Dani Rodrick's book (not just his blog) contains summaries of some of that research. Just as an example, I saw a paper presented (though not published yet) linking the rule of law index to the size of the underground economy in various countries. The rest of the indices tracked showed a much smaller correlation or one that wasn't significant (but you can read it yourself!). There should be lots out there to let us put some points down without asking the Fraser institute or the Heritage foundation. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Freedom House conducted its own research on economic freedom in 1995/1996. Would their definition and measurement of economic freedom be more acceptable for all involved? -- Vision Thing -- 21:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It's useful as another measure, showing that there are a range of different views on the question. In particular, FH takes account of freedom of union organization, the right to strike and so on, and will be a useful source for that.JQ (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I concur with JQ--the Freedom House definition shouldn't be taken as the "true" definition of EF as some sort of compromise--it's just another measure, and so worth bringing up. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
      • This is what they say:

Economic freedom is frequently equated with a government that refrains from dictating wages, controlling prices, erecting trade barriers, or otherwise hindering private economic endeavours. It is of course elementary that an individual cannot be free if the state infringes his or her rights to exchange goods and services or join together to pursue economic ends. But for its citizens to be able to fully exercise their economic freedoms, the state must do more than simply stand aside and let market work. As one contemporary champion of economic freedom has explained, government must also act as the arbiter and interpreter of the rules governing the economic game. Contracts must be enforced, property rights defined, and the other institutional prerequisites required for the conduct of economic affairs set in place. Freedom House's method of measuring economic freedom captures both those dimensions.

I would want to make two points. 1) They don't mention any controversy about definition. 2) Their definition is pretty much in line with classical liberal definition, which brings me to next question. How appropriate is to restrict this definition and view on economic freedom only to classical liberals? Judging by sources, this is a majority view. -- Vision Thing -- 19:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• I believe Amartya Sen has written about positive and negative conceptions of economic freedom. I remember hearing him talk about it in lecture once many years ago. I'll try to track it down. Anyone have any idea in which book that may be found in? LK (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • LK, see above. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a less-prestigious article by David Kaun (2002): What does economic freedom buy?, Journal of Socio-Economics, vol 31 no.4. It explicitly looks at negative and positive freedom, and then goes after some empirical stuff which I haven't properly gotten into.CRETOG8(t/c) 22:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I re-found something from earlier. It's a PowerPoint presentation by Lawson on the EFW. [4]. Page 4 is interesting in that it explicitly points out that, "Our conception of economic freedom is based on negative rights not positive rights." and that it notes that Sen has a different idea. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

PA Review and politics

I'm not sure about the status of the Real-World Economic Review (formerly the Post-Autistic Economics Review. It's clearly and explicitly non-mainstream and I can't tell if it's peer-reviewed. It has had contributions from prominent mainstream economists such as Arrow, Stiglitz and McCloskey, however, so it's not totally out there.

In any case, I'm going to point to a couple pieces published as opinion therein:

1. Margaret Legum, Should We Aspire to a High Score for ‘Economic Freedom’?, issue 42: Legum criticizes the IEF ranking of South Africa and the criteria in general.
2. Jim Stanford (Canadian Auto Workers), Economic freedom for the rest of us, issue 43: Stanford echoes Legum to some degree and points to an alternative index for states in Canada put together by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Neither of these qualifies as a reliable source in the specific sense, but they seem reasonable as sources of alternative opinion. Also, Stanford quotes Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." I believe this quote has been in some version of the article, and is likely worth putting back.

Stanford also agitates for alternative indices to be constructed--the alternative indices would clearly be a political project. That reminds me that something we should search for is discussion of whether the IEF and/or EFW were constructed explicitly with the notion of promoting the particular notion of economic freedom. I think I've seen such discussion, but will need to search for it again. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

attributing Miller

One of VT's changes was to attribute some of the criticism of indices to John Miller in Dollars & Sense. I think that's appropriate.

The current section is:

Critics have argued that the high correlation between living standards and measured economic freedom is the result of choices made in the construction of the index that guarantee this result. One example is the treatment of a large informal sector (common in poor countries) as an indicator of restrictive government policy. A second is the use of the change in the ratio of government spending to national income, rather than the level of this ratio. This means that social democratic European countries can rank higher than countries where the government share of the economy is small but growing . Jeffrey Sachs has noted there appears to be little correlation between measured economic freedom, and economic growth, as indicated by the strong growth of the Chinese economy in recent years. A similar point is made by Dani Rodrik "Dani Rodrik's weblog: Is there a growth payoff to economic freedom?".. The observation that Hong Kong and Singapore, both only "partially free" according to Freedom House are leading countries on both indices casts doubt on the claim that measured economic freedom is associated with political freedom .

I suggest:

John Miller has argued in Dollars & Sense that the high correlation between living standards and measured economic freedom is the result of choices made in the construction of the index that guarantee this result. One example is the treatment of a large informal sector (common in poor countries) as an indicator of restrictive government policy. A second is the use of the change in the ratio of government spending to national income, rather than the level of this ratio. This means that social democratic European countries can rank higher than countries where the government share of the economy is small but growing .

The rest of the material in the paragraph should really be a separate paragraph. Since there are studies of EF indices and economic growth, I think we can/should rely on them rather than on Rodrik's blog and Miller's article.CRETOG8(t/c) 16:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What I see as a main problem with Miller's criticism is Miller himself. Whole section on Indices has 2320 characters. His criticism has 860. That's hugely disproportional when we take into account prominence of Indices and prominence of Miller or Dollar & Sense. In my view, it would be best to reduce his criticism to one sentence and find more criticisms from mainstream sources. But we can deal with this when major issues are settled. -- Vision Thing -- 19:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Miller is talking about Index of Economic Freedom, not EFW, so that should also be noted. -- Vision Thing -- 22:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

criticism of idea / indices / results

I think I made a mistake above in agreeing that criticism of indices should largely be folded into criticism of "classical liberal view". Some criticisms apply well to either, in which case I think they more properly belong in criticisms of the idea than the index. But much of the criticism currently in the "Criticism of indices" section isn't a criticism of any view, but of the indices as good empirical measures. That belongs in a section on the indices. (Which begs the question of how much belongs in this article versus an article on the indices--I think it would be most productive to leave off that question for a time.)

Also in the current "Criticism of indices" section is some material questioning the indices relation to economic growth and political freedom. That belongs in a separate section, since it's not really a criticism of the indices, but a criticism of some results claimed. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ref on index controversy (and zealots)

The recent addition of a Lawson essay pointed me to:

Martin Paldam (2003), Economic freedom and the success of the Asian tigers: an essay on controversy, European Journal of Political Economy, vol 19, no 3, pp.453--477

That's also apparently in a special issue of the journal on EF. The introductory essay could be useful: [5].CRETOG8(t/c) 18:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I read Lawson's essay but I could not find where he is talking about IEF and EFW being constructed to guarantee specific result.[6] Did I miss something? -- Vision Thing -- 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he's responding to a (real or straw man) suggestion in other articles that it was so constructed. It looks like a weak reference on that point. I'll pull it out for the time being. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Vision Thing -- 20:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hayek

Anyone care to toss up some suggestions on how to word the Hayek section so we can get that out of the way? Protonk (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a wording problem. VT has tried to claim that the statement is inaccurate, on the basis of a (wrong) quibble about dates, and has similarly cavilled at using expert blogs as sources. No doubt he'll quibble on some similar basis about this summary from an ad for the Chicago edition "For F. A. Hayek, the collectivist idea of empowering government with increasing economic control would lead not to a utopia but to the horrors of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy." [7]. But the sentence as it stands is an accurate summary of Hayek. Let's settle the factual point first. Then we just need to agree on the best RS. JQ (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me based on what we've found that there's disagreement on what Hayek meant (now if not at the time he wrote it). Unless someone comes up with a really striking reference to solve the disagreement, probably any reference to this needs to describe the disagreement, which might be unwieldy.CRETOG8(t/c) 23:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's my rough approach:

In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek argued that "Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends." Hayek criticized social democratic policies as starting the slippery slope to totalitarianism.

Economists such as Gordon Tullock have argued that Hayek's analysis predicted totalitarian governments in much of Europe in the late 20th century. While praising the classical liberal notion of economic freedom, Tullock used as a counter-example to "the Hayek-Friedman argument" Sweden, in which the government at that time controlled 63 percent of GNP. Tullock says, "The basic problem with The Road to Serfdom was that it offered predictions which turned out to be false. The steady advance of government in places such as Sweden has not led to any loss of non-economic freedoms." Tullock still praises the classical liberal notion of economic freedom, saying, "Arguments for political freedom are strong, as are the arguments for economic freedom. We needn’t make one set of arguments depend on the other."

Others say Hayek's argument was weaker, that (according to Robert Skidelsky), "Hayek at least safeguarded himself from such retrospective refutation." Skidelsky argues that Hayek's argument was contingent, and that, "By the 1970s there was some evidence of the slippery slope…and then there was Thatcher. Hayek's warning played a critical part in her determination to 'roll back the state.'"

CRETOG8(t/c) 04:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What stops us from placing a statement in the first paragraph showing that he walked back those claims by the 1970s (or it could work as well in the last)? Protonk (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to meJQ (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think Hayek backtracked? This is what he said in 1976 preface: At the time I wrote, socialism meant unambiguously the nationalization of the means of production and the central economic planning, which this made possible and necessary. In this sense, Sweden, for instance, is today very much less socialistically organized than Great Britain or Austria, though Sweden is commonly regarded as much more socialistic. This is due to the fact that socialism has come to mean chiefly the extensive redistribution of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state. In the latter kind of socialism the effects I discuss in this book are brought about more slowly, indirectly and imperfectly. I believe that the ultimate outcome tends to be very much the same, although the process by which it is brought about is not quite the same as that described in this book. It has frequently been alleged that I have contended that any movement in the direction of socialism is bound to lead to totalitarianism. Even though this danger exists, this is not what the book says. What it contains is a warning that unless we mend the principles of our policy, some very unpleasant consequences will follow which most of those who advocate these policies do not want. -- Vision Thing -- 20:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the 1956 preface had lines like this: "Of course, six years of socialist government in England have not produced anything resembling a totalitarian state. But those who argue that this has disproved the thesis of The Road to Serfdom have really missed one of its main points: that "the most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people." This is necessarily a slow affair... attitude[s] toward authority are as much the effect as the cause of... political institutions under which it lives.... [T]he change undergone... not merely under its Labour government but in the course of the much longer period during which it has been enjoying the blessings of a paternalistic welfare state, can hardly be mistaken.... Certainly [Weimar Germany's] Social Democrats... never approached as closely to totalitarian planning as the British Labour government has done.... The most serious development is the growth of a measure of arbitrary administrative coercion and the progressive destruction of the cherished foundation of British liberty, the Rule of Law... [E]conomic planning under the Labour government [has] carried it to a point which makes it doubtful whether it can be said that the Rule of Law still prevails in Britain..." Protonk (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Cretog8, I would only like to somewhat shorten and amend your proposal:

In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek argued that "Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends." Hayek criticized socialist policies as the slippery slope that can lead to totalitarianism. Gordon Tullock has argued that "the Hayek-Friedman argument" predicted totalitarian governments in much of Europe in the late 20th century. He uses Sweden, in which the government at that time controlled 63 percent of GNP, as an example to support his argument that the basic problem with The Road to Serfdom is "that it offered predictions which turned out to be false. The steady advance of government in places such as Sweden has not led to any loss of non-economic freedoms." While criticizing Hayek, Tullock still praises the classical liberal notion of economic freedom, saying, "Arguments for political freedom are strong, as are the arguments for economic freedom. We needn’t make one set of arguments depend on the other." However, according to Robert Skidelsky, Hayek "safeguarded himself from such retrospective refutation." Skidelsky argues that Hayek's argument was contingent, and that, "By the 1970s there was some evidence of the slippery slope…and then there was Thatcher. Hayek's warning played a critical part in her determination to 'roll back the state.'"

-- Vision Thing -- 20:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

VT, I'd make one change to your version, and ask input on another. The change I'd make is to include Tullock's phrase "the Hayek-Friedman argument", since the above material comes in our article just after some M&R Friedman stuff, and Tullock is explicitly aiming his comments at the Friedmans as well as Hayek. I'd ask for input from others as to whether the policies Hayek objected to should be called "socialist", "social democratic" or something else. I'm terrible with such labels (which apparently gave Hayek trouble as well, according to your 1976 quote above). CRETOG8(t/c) 23:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hayek uses "socialist" so I would go with that. Also, "social democratic" has narrower meaning, and Hayek was against wide spectrum of policies – from the nationalization of the means of production to the extensive redistribution of incomes through taxation. -- Vision Thing -- 17:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure further fine-tuning is possible, but I'm fine with your version above. (Good job trimming my over-wordiness.) CRETOG8(t/c) 20:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, I also agree with implementation of this edit. -- Vision Thing -- 18:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good. I'll introduce the change. Protonk (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Protonk. That's the right version. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Freedom House II

I noted above that folks from Freedom House were in discussions with folks from Fraser Institute in the early days of Fraser's EFW. I've lost track of one of the references on the disagreement (it was in a bit of discussion by the Fraser Institute on the history of the EFW, if anyone can turn it up). In "Freedom Democracy and Economic Welfare", there's less on explicit "we disagree", but plenty of points which are in disagreement. Gastil & Wright from Freedom House write such things as:

On the one hand, we are considering economic freedom to be analyzable in terms of a series of economic ratings such as that for freedom of property, while on the other hand we are considering economic freedom to be determinable from the extent to which the majority in a democracy decides on the rules that produce the economic ratings. (p.103)

For private property the difference between the two scales could be considerable, but for many economic rights, such as association, information, or movement, the ratings will be very similar. Freedom must be individual and collective, economic and political, if it is to be effective. (p.105)

A country received a high rating for freedom of property if taxes were not confiscatory, or if there was not undue concentration of ownership of either land or industrial property. (p.102)

Largely, their point is that economic freedom can have two competing aspects--individual freedom (close to the "classical liberal" idea) and collective freedom. Collective economic freedom as they describe it could possibly be called "economic democracy". CRETOG8(t/c) 00:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've found the ref I mentioned above, possibly more from that later. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the more:

Raymond Gastil and Lindsay Wright of Freedom House took part with in mid-1980's discussions about studying economic freedom. Michael A. Walker of the Fraser Institute noted that:

As Gastil and Wright shared their views on economic liberty, it was obvious that they differed significantly from those of most conference participants. The Gastil-Wright approach reflected the Freedom House perspective that democratic political procedures and civil liberties were the most important aspects of freedom. According to this philosophy, highly progressive taxation and large income transfers are entirely consistent with individual liberty, if policies in these areas are approved by democratic majorities of legislative bodies.

CRETOG8(t/c) 04:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Another worthwhile bit from above, "Several of the participants in this first conference, including myself, Walter Block, and Alvin Rabushka, believed that the Freedom House approach trivialized and distorted economic freedom, making it dependent on the political process. We came away even more convinced that development of a sound measure of economic freedom was a vitally important project." CRETOG8(t/c) 05:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Last survey of economic freedom by FH that I'm aware of was World Survey of Economic Freedom 1995-1996. Do you know of any later one? -- Vision Thing -- 20:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual property

The place of IP in various notions of EF is unclear. I'm not sure if there's much addressing IP and EF, and whether it should be brought up in the discussion. I did find--which I think is valuable--a criticism of including IP protection in the indices. In a piece that otherwise defends the Fraser EFW, Walter Block criticizes including IP protection. "...the problem with this measure of economic freedom (Gwartney and Lawson, 2003) is not, paradoxically, that these authors include protection of intellectual property rights in their index. Rather, it is that they assign it the wrong sign." (awkward text or slow PDF) CRETOG8(t/c) 05:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Block piece (footnote 2) also reinforces the point that the Fraser/Heritage indexes were developed specifically to promote an alternative (and overtly ideological) position to that of Freedom House in the controversy over the meaning of economic freedom. JQ (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicely spotted! Thanks. CRETOG8(t/c) 08:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Friedman and Hoover

As a response to criticisms by Sachs I would like to add this:

• However, development in China was anticipated by Milton Friedman, who predicted that even a small progress towards economic liberalization would produce dramatic and positive effects.

That source isn't adequate for what you say above, since Friedman is mentioned in passing, and it's not entirely clear what Tim Kane is claiming Friedman said. I think that source is fine as it is--the HF defending its index and analysis, and it could be used that way. CRETOG8(t/c) 07:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem in leaving out Friedman comment if we are going to stick to the same standards when it comes to other sources in the article. Maybe statement in this manner would be more acceptable: "The Heritage Foundation sees growth in China as a direct consequence of Deng Xiaopeng's economic reform, which that regard as the start of a "revolution in economic freedom""? -- Vision Thing -- 22:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In Freedom from want section (maybe it should be renamed to Four freedoms) I would like to add Hoover's opinion about economic freedom:

• Herbert Hoover saw economic freedom as a fifth freedom, which secures survival of Roosevelt's Four freedoms. He described economic freedom as freedom "for men to choose their own calling, to accumulate property in protection of their children and old age, [and] freedom of enterprise that does not injure others."

-- Vision Thing -- 18:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link for the above ref: [8] CRETOG8(t/c) 07:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm weakly OK on that addition--weakly because I'm not sure what else Hoover might have said, or what the above might have really meant. In many ways, Hoover wasn't an advocate of LFEF, so I'm concerned this might be giving the wrong impression. Anyway, as I say, I'm weakly OK on it. CRETOG8(t/c) 07:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then it can be implemented. -- Vision Thing -- 22:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to rephrase slightly to:

• Herbert Hoover saw economic freedom, "for men to choose their own calling, to accumulate property in protection of their children and old age, [and] freedom of enterprise that does not injure others," as a fifth freedom, which secures survival of Roosevelt's Four freedoms.

If nobody objects, then I'll put that in, since we're going a bit slow for Protonk to keep track. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To me such long quote inserted in a middle of a sentence sounds a little awkward, but English is not my native language so if you think that your version is better put your version in. -- Vision Thing -- 17:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Lacking any other input I put in your version. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This was removed from Rule of law section without any explanation:

• Classical liberals see the rule of law as one of the prerequisites for economic freedom; fundamentally, the government must be ruled by the law and be subject to it. The rule of law requires the existence of widely shared cultural values and ethical norms; in the absence of a widespread social concept of justice, the state, or people in power, can violate the rights of citizens, sometimes by turning one group against another. In such conditions government can issue arbitrary and inconsistent decrees that dissimulate individuals by creating uncertainty about consequences of their actions. The certainty of law does not mean absence of any change; rather the absence of perpetual and unpredictable changes in laws. Such stability is important for a free society and economic coordination.

-- Vision Thing -- 22:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a couple of problems with this. First, as regards the content, it doesn't seem to distinguish classical liberals from conservatives, modern liberals or social democrats. For example, the para would lead naturally into a conclusion like "therefore wages should be stabilised by law, rather than allowed to fluctuate randomly in the light of market conditions or as a result of struggle between one group in society and another". Second, it reads like an essay not an encyclopedia article.JQ (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no distinction between classical liberals, conservatives, modern liberals and social democrats on this as far as I know. Of course, conclusion that each of these groups draws from premise laid down in paragraph can be different, but that doesn't affect validity of premise. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve wording? -- Vision Thing -- 11:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

My feelings about that passage are a bit different than JQ's, although I agree with it being essayish. The first sentence is referenced and fine--my only objection is that we need to go see how other EF notions treat the rule of law, but that's an objection of omission, so no reason to keep this out. What comes after the ref is troubling. I haven't read the ref, so I don't know how much of it is in there. But it makes pretty strong (if reasonable sounding) claims about the requirements for rule of law. It seems unlikely to me that everyone in the field agrees that, "rule of law requires the existence of widely shared cultural values and ethical norms". There's nothing in my objections about the connection of rule-of-law to EF, that's handled fine. It's the handling of rule-of-law itself that looks iffy. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that a source talks about rule of law in democratic societies. Would qualifier "In democracy" at the beginning of the sentence in question improve anything? -- Vision Thing -- 17:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Heritage as source

The Heritage Foundation isn't a neutral, reliable source in reporting on EF in general, and particularly on its own index. I'm not sure quite how to handle all this. When Heritage or Fraser or someone makes a report citing other studies from reliable sources, I'm mostly willing to leave the HF or FI in as a ref. The recent Chafuen and Guzmán reference is straight Heritage Foundation, though. So I'm going to pull it, and that stuff still needs a reference. (Here's the ref, if wanted for different use: .) CRETOG8(t/c) 17:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Positive and negative freedom

Unless it can be properly sourced this section should be removed. Currently it is based on this source of dubious reliability. -- Vision Thing -- 16:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify your objection to the source? It seems like a well-established media outlet (see Rediff.com) and you don't appear to dispute the facts claimed.JQ (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RS. It says: "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context." A news article written by some unknown author is not a good source for academic topic of positive and negative freedom. On a related note, "Economic Freedom Index for India" is not notable enough to be discussed in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 12:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a reference to a Sen paper which includes discussion of positive and negative freedom. Thanks for the nudge, VT. There's more stuff on positive and negative freedom which I should integrate as well. JQ, I think I'm with VT on the notability of the "Economic Freedom Index for India"--That rediff article you link to is the only mention I can find of it. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Rediff article is about the work of Indian economists. It's relatively straightforward and appears unbiased. The Indian innovation on the concept seems appropriate. Their work is also covered here.

I think there's some confusion regarding notability here. Please re-read the lead of WP:NOTABILITY: These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. We should strive to cover all relevant work. If there's decently reliable sources on relevant fact, then it can be covered in Wikipedia. The question is whether it should be covered in a subarticle or not. This clearly can be covered in the main article, although it should get less weight. II | (t - c) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation mk II

VT's reversion on the article page snapped me back here. Sorry folks, I pointed myself in other directions over the holiday. I'm going to be in and out form the 9th to the 18th, but I'll try to give some love to the talk page anyways. Protonk (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

VT has an edit summary claiming the article is under mediation, but I am apparently not a participant. So, I'd like to know if anyone other than VT has an objection to my recent edits. If not, I propose that they be restored.JQ (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a rather informal outcome from an edit war on the page previously. It isn't 'formal' meditation so if you weren't part of the original mess then you aren't compelled to participate, but I would invite you to treat his reversion as the second step of WP:BRD. What was the content you wanted to add? Protonk (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I remember now. :I had the impression this mediation had lapsed, but thanks for restarting it.

(i) I've proposed some expansion of Sen on capability, which I think should be uncontroversial, but has been reverted.

(ii) I think it should be noted that Hong Kong is not a country but an administrative region of China

(iii) The fact that boht Hong Kong nor Singapore have low levels of political freedom while ranking first and second on economic freedom is obviously relevant to the relationship between the two. I added this to the relevant section, with a citation

You can check my proposed changes, reverted by VT, from the history .JQ (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(i) Sen is ok.

(ii) Hong Kong is wikilinked and unless some source stresses importance of its political position in relation to its economic freedom rank, there is no reason to highlight its political status.

(iii) This is content in question: Critics of this claim respond that the states ranked highest on measures of economic freedom, Hong Kong and Singapore are respectively an administrative unit of a one-party dictatorship with an undemocratic local government and a nominal democracy in which one party holds nearly all seats in Parliament and where government opponents are routinely harassed and imprisoned. Conversely, libertarian economist Walter E. Williams argues that :People mistakenly stress the importance of democracy as key to economic progress ... a country like Singapore can have little political and civil liberties yet have top ranking in economic freedom. This critique is already in the section Criticism of indices, and I don't see why it should be repeated. As for Williams' quote, it incorrectly presents liberal position. While it is true that Friedman and others argued that political freedom is not necessary for economic progress, they also argued that economic freedom will have a positive impact on political liberalization. -- Vision Thing -- 12:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Largely seems ok to me. Is "People mistakenly stress the importance of democracy as key to economic progress ... a country like Singapore can have little political and civil liberties yet have top ranking in economic freedom." a pulled quote from Williams? Does anyone else have an issue with the content as written? Protonk (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The para is an abridged quote - I'd be happy to quote in full if anyone thinks its misleading, but the sentences quoted seem to cover the main points, while the rest of the para just adds detail.JQ (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be at an impasse here. Since Protonk appeared happy with the changes, and no-one except VT objected, I implemented them, but VT has reverted at least twice. Rather than edit war, I thought I'd ask for some further opinions.JQ (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It also seems to me as if Protonk has green lighted the changes. However, doesn't our informal mediation agreement stipulate that Protonk should be the one who makes any substantial changes? LK (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Change is controversial and it shouldn't be implemented. Criticism that JQ wants to add is not sourced, while quote is a Frankenstein of his own design.[9] JQ combined first and seventh sentence of the third paragraph to give appearance that libertarian economists respond to his criticism by arguing that democracy is not important for economic freedom/progress, which is a straw man. From my perspective this dispute perfectly illustrates that the other side doesn't understand or doesn’t want to understand core Wikipedia polices. -- Vision Thing -- 12:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As already noted, I don't think the elision changes the sense. But since you disagree, I'm happy to use the full quote. Does that resolve your problem?JQ (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Friedman or Hayek are only two people who deserve to be quoted in that section if we are going to use a quote to present classical liberal view. With all due respect to Williams I don't know why we should quote him, especially at length you are suggesting. -- Vision Thing -- 21:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JQ that the elided quote doesn't significantly change the meaning, and I'm also surprised that the quote is controversial--I thought it represented the mainstream of thought within the LFEF-advocacy community. Many believe that LFEF and political freedom are connected in one way or another, but I thought it was a common view that LFEF was valuable even without political freedom. As for who should get quoted, there's plenty of people who talk about and research the connection between LFEF and political freedom, and it seems to be an ongoing major element of discussion regarding LFEF. So, I don't think it's reasonable to limit it to two dead economists. Against this specific quote, I'm concerned about whether Williams is prominent enough to be quoting about this--I'm not entirely up on my modern libertarian economists, but is his opinion considered important in that community? CRETOG8(t/c) 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a common view that "LFEF" is valuable without political freedom, and that is already said in the article (...Friedman developed the argument that economic freedom, while itself an extremely important component of total freedom...). Friedman and Hayek are the most prominent proponents of "LFEF" so in my opinion it is natural to quote them when we are presenting "LFEF"'s view. -- Vision Thing -- 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We could use the F.A. Hayek quote

Well, I would say that, as long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression – and this is valid for South America - is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government. And during this transition it may be necessary to maintain certain dictatorial powers, not as something permanent, but as a temporary arrangement.

to characterize a common viewpoint among supports of LFEF. The advantage of Williams is the specific reference to Singapore, which is currently the leading exemplar of LFEF, according to the indexes.JQ (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What that quote has to do with economic freedom specifically? If you want to put a quote in that section, I suggest this quote by Friedman:

Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward achievement of political freedom.

I find this quote specially suiting because it is succinct and it talks about economic freedom both as an end and as a mean. -- Vision Thing -- 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that we're at the same impasse again, Vision thing wanting the page to only reflect one viewpoint, and the rest of the editors trying to make the page reflect the broader literature found. I don't think that Protonk wants to be constantly bothered by this edit war, but I'll leave him a note anyway. If he doesn't reply, I think we should go forward. As long as a statement is cited and relevant, it should stay in, regardless of the feelings of any one party. LK (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also invited Protonk back, but in his absence I agree with LK. In the meantime, let me suggest that there's enough here to show a wide range of conflicting views among supporters of LFEF

(a) Economic freedom is unrelated to political freedom (Williams) (b) Economic freedom is a necessary condition for political freedom (Friedman) (c) dom is unrelated to political freedom (Williams) (b) Economic freedom may be in conflict with political freedom; in such cases economic freedom should be preferred (Hayek) And, while VT loves to wikilawyer about this kind of thing, let's not forget the glaringly obvious fact that the two top places in the EF list(s) go to highly undemocratic and unfree states. The article should reflect this; if the selected citations don't meet VT's criteria, let's put a fact tag on them, and give VT a chance to come up with something better.JQ (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

LK, this broader literature about which you are talking about are non-academic web articles. However, unlike you I'm always ready to give to non-academic views due weight even if I don't agree with them. Problem is that article you provided as a source doesn't support claim about "a nominal democracy in which one party holds nearly all seats in Parliament and where government opponents are routinely harassed and imprisoned." Also, section criticism of indices already contains criticism based on a similar reasoning ("The observation that Hong Kong and Singapore, both only "partially free" according to Freedom House, are leading countries on both economic freedom indices casts doubt on the claim that measured economic freedom is associated with political freedom.") If you wish to add to that criticism something like "Norman Solomon argues that economic freedom as measured by Index of Economic Freedom can be catastrophic for genuine human freedom", I'm fine with that. -- Vision Thing -- 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

JQ, Williams doesn’t think economic freedom is unrelated to political freedom. By using your way of quoting I can produce following quote from him: "the best of all worlds is a combination of political, civil and economic liberty... economic freedom... strengthens people's demand for political and civil liberty." -- Vision Thing -- 17:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is one several violations of WP:AGF in what is supposed to be an informal mediation, so let me observe that I'm not in the least surprised to see you accuse me of quote doctoring when I present (with ellipses) the beginning and conclusion of a para, then complain that the quote is too long when I present it in full. JQ (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm accusing you of misrepresenting Williams' view. He doesn't argue that economic freedom is unrelated to political freedom. He argues that economic freedom can exist without political freedom, and at the same time observes that even if that is the case economic freedom positively influences development of political freedom. That is a common view among classical liberals and Williams is no exception. -- Vision Thing -- 10:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was delayed long than I had hoped, so I was unable to participate in this (It also doesn't help that the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) page has swallowed my watchlist whole). I am inclined to agree with LK--my role seems to be to agree that the warring parties have agreed on a change and then allow it to be inserted. If both sides are willing to edit using that process anyway, it makes my participation redundant. I certainly can't speak (consistently) from any position of authority on the subject matter. Thanks to Cretog, VT and JG for poking me. I'll try to spend more time on this page while I am logged in, but I think it is better if we talk through large changes on the page and once you guys are satisfied, make them. Protonk (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we clarify this. I think it's clear from the above that there is consensus with the exception of VT, that the topic has been discussed, and that you've already noted that proposed changes are OK. The subsequent discussion has suggested, again with dissent from VT, that a quote from Hayek might be better than the one from Williams. I think it's time to implement changes now.JQ (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer (purely from an editorial standpoint, the 'mediation aspect' was difficult on this one, so I dodged it above, hoping instead that people would push toward unanimity) to summarize the three quotes (if we want to include williams) rather than blockquote them. Hayek's quote is about (sort of) institutions and temporal demands for stability. Friedman's quote is less specific (and is somewhat redundant to points made in the section already), delineating the somewhat liberal view of economic freedom as a means to achieve political freedoms. Williams, though not capable of asserting the stature of either Friedman or Hayek, provides a few salient counterexamples to Friedman's quote. I don't think the article would suffer if all three were incorporated. Protonk (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, where in his quote Hayek directly and explicitly talks about economic freedom? -- Vision Thing -- 10:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't, but it's a reasonable compliment to the Williams quote. Where Williams is pointing out the possibility that economic and political freedom are unlinked, Hayek is making the claim that idiosyncrasies in institutions and countries can produce dictatorships. We can connect this with a lit review from a post-Washington consensus devolpment economics lit review (so we aren't engaging in OR in treating Hayek as a partial rejoinder to Williams). Protonk (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that we should stick to secondary sources and refrain from cherry picking and interpreting quotes for ourselves. If there are reviews that connect views of Hayek and Williams on economic freedom we should definitely use them. -- Vision Thing -- 12:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, how does everyone feel about the prospect of merging the "criticism of XYZ" subsections into their respective "XYZ" sections above. Eg. "Criticisms of classical liberal view" into "Economic and political freedom" and so forth? Protonk (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is always good practice, though difficult of course. Let's try and do this. JQ (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start by inartfully appending "criticism" sections to their parents. Hopefully that will stir some followon action. :) Protonk (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. That hanger-on to the friedman/hayek section will make much more sense with the Williams quote (or something like it) summarized there. Right now I'm half tempted to roll it into the "indices" section. Protonk (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what content you added to section about link between political and economic freedom has to do with that topic. It seems better to place it into the indices section. Also, claim: "Additionally, the indices currently include measures that many socialists oppose, for example, the use of corporate charters and intellectual property." is sourced to this, and source doesn't talk neither about socialists nor indices. I raised point about Proudhon before and I will raise it again, besides arguing that property is theft Proudhon also argued that property is freedom. Currently his view is misrepresented. -- Vision Thing -- 10:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't, literally. I didn't add anything, just moved the sections. I think that we are capable of folding in 'criticism' as a single narrative. As for the section itself, I'm ok if it is changed or moved. We just need to make sure we are finding reasonable criticisms of economic freedom (I agree that "many socialists oppose" is both weasely and unimportant--many socialists oppose lots of things). Protonk (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Expanded Proudhon part should go to "private property rights" section. Rest would fit in nicely in "indices" section. Do you agree with these moves? -- Vision Thing -- 12:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I also don't think they are too controversial. Protonk (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wage slavery

I'm sorry for spamming here, but I'm having a problem at Wage Slavery - I thought you guys might be interested as its a related concept although on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

I'm trying to bring a broader, more inclusive, less biased view to the page, but I'm being fought tooth and nail by a determined anon IP editor (who apparently devotes all his/her time to it).

I'm not sure what I'm asking for, maybe advice? I'm not really up for a fight, but if I just walk away, the anon will certainly revert everything in a couple of days or so. He even edit wars and reverts POV tags. Is there anything I should do?

LK (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, that article has some serious problems. Few months ago I tagged it and reduced its grade, but anon quickly reverted me. -- Vision Thing -- 14:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry--I've poked a little at that page before, but I frankly find the whole thing so baffling I can't judge what's legitimate and what's not. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Che Guevara quote

The recent Che Guevara quote seems to be referring to artistic freedom rather than economics freedom. I'm going to pull it, please discuss it here. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cretog, as the originator of its inclusion, I would cede to your rationale for removal (even though I believe that in the full convuluted context, which would be to laborious to go into here) the quote in fact refers to both. I'm ok with its non inclusion however. Thanks for requesting input.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Che may be talking about Marx's theory of alienation when he says alienation. But it isn't at all clear from that quote. Nor does it seem to relate to economic freedom. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary Time

This recent edit added mention of a time-based approach to gauging positive economic freedom. That is relevant for this article, but I'm not sure it's notable enough (yet). A really fast scan of the idea makes it seem reasonable to me, but it seems pretty novel. If it does deserve mention, it's probably a very brief one. I'm also having trouble finding reviews of the book--any pointers to full reviews would be appreciated. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it won the European Consortium for Political Research 2009 Stein Rokkan Prize for Comparative Social Research, but I don't think it's been out long enough for any reviews in academic journals (I couldn't find any on Google or Google Scholar). The brief review accompanying the prize is available at [10] and at the ECPR website. Definitely novel, and I think it deserves a brief mention. I don't understand why Vision Thing keeps deleting it. Academic38 (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that VT is opposed to any interpretation of the words 'economic freedom' that is different from the libertarian interpretation. LK (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

'Economic freedom' is not a new or unknown term, in fact it is widely known. So if somebody writes a book with intention to talk about economic freedom, he would say that he is talking about 'economic freedom'. What I'm opposed to is a practice of certain editors to give their own interpretations of what the source is saying. -- Vision Thing -- 09:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how important that prize is, unfortunately. In any case, if the question is whether it's talking about economic freedom, then it clearly does. It doesn't seem to be available on Google Books anymore, so I can't provide a page number with greater detail than what's cited in the article, but it's there, in spite of not using the exact phrase "economic freedom". CRETOG8(t/c) 17:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Academic38, in your edit summary you said "the book title is about measuring freedom". The book may be talking about freedom but that doesn't automatically make it suitable for article on 'economic freedom'. Can you present some evidence that it is indeed talking about 'economic freedom'? -- Vision Thing -- 16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that it's talking about economic freedom. It may not be possible to provide evidence on that which is acceptable to you, VT, since you're working from a very narrow definition of EF. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that it is clear without presenting any evidence for that view or reasoning why they don't use the term 'economic freedom'. -- Vision Thing -- 18:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea of the section is that "positive freedom" is being advanced as an alternative to "economic freedom." If you look at the minimum wage article, you will see an entire section of alternatives to the minimum wage. So I don't think it is necessary that the book specifically mention economic freedom. Cheers. Academic38 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the point of the section is that, for some, positive freedom is an important part of economic freedom. It's not an alternative, it's that there's different ideas of what constitutes economic freedom. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we all know where we stand. The article already addresses positive freedom - the book describes a measure of positive freedom. VT is essentially dragging his feet to prevent any further change from his preferred version. Let's all remember that consensus does not mean that everyone agrees. WP:Consensus is about taking into account the arguments from all sides, and after hearing from everyone, the situation is pretty clear here. Everyone except VT agrees that the book should stay in. LK (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

LK, did you read WP:Consensus? It says: "Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the article will suffer." Neither of you has presented any reasons why "discretionary time" should be considered a form of economic freedom. Your main arguments are "we think it is, shut up" and "we have the numbers, reasons are not important". -- Vision Thing -- 21:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Academic38, positive freedom is an alternative to negative freedom. Problem is that section 'Alternative views of economic freedom' should be talking about less accepted definitions of economic freedom, not about alternatives to economic freedom (which is the case with 'Alternatives' section in minimum wage). -- Vision Thing -- 21:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed text on economic and political freedom

I'm proposing the following text for the section on economic freedom and political freedom, based on discussions we've already had. At the end, I'd like to incorporate some criticism from people other than classical liberals, but I'll leave that for later.JQ (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A range of views on the relationship between economic freedom and political freedom have been presented by classical liberals and others.

In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Friedman developed the argument that economic freedom, while itself an extremely important component of total freedom, is also a necessary condition for political freedom. He 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.

In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek argued that "Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends." Hayek criticized socialist policies as the slippery slope that can lead to totalitarianism.

Where political and economic freedom came into conflict, however, Hayek argued that economic freedom was to be preferred. In the context of the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, Hayek observed

Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises argued that economic freedom requires personal freedom, that "They are deluded by the idea that there prevails a clear-cut dualism in the affairs of man, that there is on the one side a sphere of economic activities and on the other side a field of activities that are considered as noneconomic. Between these two fields there is, they think, no close connection." He argues that in a totalitarian socialist state, no one would have any personal freedom to choose their personal ways of life.

Other classical liberals have disputed the empirical claim that economic freedom is closely linked to political freedom. Gordon Tullock has argued that "the Hayek-Friedman argument" predicted totalitarian governments in much of Europe in the late 20th century. He uses Sweden, in which the government at that time controlled 63 percent of GNP, as an example to support his argument that the basic problem with The Road to Serfdom is "that it offered predictions which turned out to be false. The steady advance of government in places such as Sweden has not led to any loss of non-economic freedoms."

Walter E. Williams argues that

People mistakenly stress the importance of democracy as key to economic progress ... a country like Singapore can have little political and civil liberties yet have top ranking in economic freedom.

End draft hereJQ (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think current version is superior. What are your objections to it? Your only addition is controversial Williams' quote and you want remove part of Freidman and Hayek content. Part that describes Hayek's view was recently added as a part of a compromise, so I'm especially unclear why you wish to modify it again. -- Vision Thing -- 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

All of this was recently discussed above, and this represents the compromise in my view. Unless an editor other than VT objects, I propose to implement it.JQ (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get two involved in simply stating my preferences, but elements of this new draft are inferior to the current revision. I think that we can come to some agreement over a summary of the williams argument and add that and that we can expand the bit about Mises. But VT seems to be right about the Hayek/Friedman sections being shaved for no good reason. Specifically, the Robert Skidelsky comment is removed and Tullock's criticism is detached from the narrative and reduced. The Friedman paragraph is a wash (IMO), it is shorter, but it doesn't lose a significant amount of content. Why not just add a summary of the williams quote in the end as a counter-argument to the Hayek/Friedman/Mises view that economic freedom and political freedom are interlinked (As presented here)? Protonk (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to summarize Williams view on this point. I'm not sure how much space we should give him. Article provided by JQ seems to be his only writing on this subject. -- Vision Thing -- 18:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't thought much about Williams yet, but the current bit needs rephrasing: "Walter E. Williams argues that economic freedom doesn't require political freedom, while observing that the greater wealth produced by economic freedom fosters people's demand for political and civil liberty.". The use of "observes" and the construction of the sentence assumes that LFEF produces greater wealth and that Williams argument is correct. In fact, the latter bit of that sentence is based on, "Professors Gwartney and Lawson point out that preliminary evidence suggests that a side benefit...", quoting others with only implicit agreement and still only about preliminary evidence suggests... I really don't know what to do with that.

I'm also not yet convinced that Williams belongs in this article, and the reference appears to be the equivalent of a blog post (no other reference). Is he really that important? I haven't been giving this article much attention, but I'll try to find an alternative which makes similar points. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, he is not that important. -- Vision Thing -- 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

After all the above debate, I don't really like to do this, but I'm not convinced that Walter E. Williams is prominent enough that the equivalent of a blag post from him is a worthwhile source. I lean strongly toward pulling this bit. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

The section "Alternative views of economic freedom" was tagged in June with a synthesis tag, but there's no discussion to go with the tag. So, here's the place for that discussion. CRETOG8(t/c) 12:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the discussions is in the section above. I'm still waiting for the reply to my last comment. -- Vision Thing -- 12:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you restate that comment here? I think it's just the phrasing of your point, I had trouble identifying what you thought the section should or should not contain. And is the perceived problem one of synthesis--making claims the sources don't make? CRETOG8(t/c) 13:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear that consensus is that the section is alright, and that the synthesis tag should go. Consensus does not imply that everyone agrees. Does anyone apart from Vision thing think that the synthesis tag should be there? Let's have a show of hands. If there's no one, it clearly should go. LK (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, one of my objections is that talking about discretionary time as an alternative view of economic freedom is violation of NOR, because there is no source that directly supports such claim. Same can be said for freedom of association and union organization. There is no source in the article that says that these are alternative forms of economic freedom. -- Vision Thing -- 18:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, VT. I think I do understand, then, and that's the same general complaint which I think has been well addressed. I don't want to dismiss your concerns, but after much discussion, I'm afraid I just don't see any way to satisfy you. Here's one more attempt. In the Goodin et al book, see the bottom of page 124: here. It uses the explicit term, "negative freedom", doesn't use the terms "positive freedom" or "economic freedom", but is clearly referring to them. So, yes, they are talking about positive freedom, negative freedom, and economic freedom. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that clearest way to settle this issue is to ask for clarification about that source, discretionary time and economic freedom at OR noticeboard. Tag should be removed if conclusion is reached that it is not OR, left if there is no conclusion and content removed if conclusions is reached that it is OR. Is that ok with you? -- Vision Thing -- 19:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's always your prerogative to take things to the OR noticeboard. I wouldn't say it's "OK" with me because the OR noticeboard discussion could go wrong, in which case I'd be very annoyed. Is your issue only with the discretionary time bit? You seemed above to indicate it's with many different notions of EF. It's also tiring to keep re-fighting what appears to be the same battle. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you accept "wrong" conclusion from the noticeboard discussion? Like I said, I also object to the "Freedom of association and union organization" section, but that is a bit more complex issue. In my view, there is nothing in propositions that "all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security and equal opportunity" and "the right of workers and employers to form and join organizations of their own choosing is an integral part of a free and open society" which is necessarily contrary to the predominant view of economic freedom. -- Vision Thing -- 19:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a technical issue. It's better to take it to the Wikiproject Economics talk page. Personally, I am wiling to abide by the decision from Econ wikiproject members. LK (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm not going to precommit to accepting the judgment of any discussion, just because a discussion can go horribly awry and "accept" can have very broad interpretation. I'm not prone to fighting any consensus, though, so if it seems like there's consensus on this, I'll likely go with it, at least until more material turns up to change the argument. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean by "technical". This is a policy interpretation issue. However, it would be fine with me to post a message at Wikiproject Economics talk page asking for an input to discussion at OR noticeboard. -- Vision Thing -- 14:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Walter Williams quote

I know that the Williams bit got a lot of discussion above, but I never saw my concern addressed. I just don't see that this thing is notable enough to include. I can't tell where it may have been originally published, but it has the appearance of what today would be a blog post. If Williams is a major player in the Economic Freedom realm, then a blog post from him might be good enough, but it's not obvious to me that he's that prominent. I don't think that quote makes the cut. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple considerations here. The article started out as a POV essay and remains massively unbalanced. In that context, I think it's more important to include a range of viewpoints than to worry overly much about notability. Notability is a bigger concern in article inclusion/exclusion decisions than in line by line editing.JQ (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm using "notable" in this context as a way to approach WP:SPS. As for the overall approach, I'm afraid that having low standards for inclusion in the pursuit of balance will bite us hard in the long run. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've demoted the cite to a secondary reference on the point.JQ (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue is already covered in the section 'Indices of Economic Freedom'. -- Vision Thing -- 09:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is massively unbalanced, and your edits consistently make it more so. I'd prefer to deal with this by adding more balancing material, but it appears to be necessary to go the other way, cutting out the uncritical presentation of a particular POV.JQ (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberal

I have removed POV violations from the article. There was an attempt to ghettoize mainstream view as a "classical liberal" view. The Wall Street Journal, The Heritage Foundation and Freedom House don't espouse a classical liberal view. More importantly, all academic journals when there are writing or doing research about economic freedom use this or very similar definition. -- Vision Thing -- 13:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the change as I feel that such a massive change to a heavily disputed article shouldn't be done without some discussion first. However, I am not actually against some of the changes. I can see VT's point, that we should recognize the most common use of the term as such. I think this is already reflected in the weight, but some of the wording does need to be tweaked in the direction that VT tweaked it. However, I think any removal of information about alternative viewpoints is unjustified, as the article already very heavily weights the viewpoint of economic freedom as a negative freedom. Before we go any further, let us give some of the other people who have edited this page a chance to comment before carrying out such massive changes. LK (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is really tricky because there's a fuzzy zone of what the different views are. In the most technical sense, there's not different viewpoints as much as there are just different explicit or implicit definitions. Once we know which definition we're using, much (not all) of the POV trouble is irrelevant. In the less technical sense, there's always the implicit "...and freedom is good..." and that complicates things. Given how the expression "economic freedom" is currently most used, I think giving the laissez-faire economic freedom (LFEF) definition the place of prominence is appropriate. However, while other (particularly positive freedom) ideas use the exact expression "economic freedom" less, I'm not convinced that they have significantly less weight. They come up all the time in matters of labor, social justice, even protectionism. So, downgrading their weight too much is inappropriate.

Anyway, in short, we should treat this as more a matter of different terminology than different viewpoints. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, what we have here is a clash of definitions. I was using words rather loosely there. LK (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with VT that "classical liberal" is not really accurate as a description of WSJ, Heritage, Fraser and so on (Freedom House only briefly looked at this issue, and is a bit of a red herring). These groups are uninterested in or hostile to the non-economic component of classical liberalism - civil libertes and so on. Heritage describes itself as "conservative" and that's probably the most common one-word description of the others. But it's a term that covers a lot of different things, only some of which are relevant here. I'd suggest "free-market conservative" is probably more accurate, but I'm not insistent on it. laissez-faire economic freedom (LFEF) would also work. On the general question of weight, the lead probably could be tweaked to give a little more prominence to the free-market conservative/LFEF view, but the body of the article needs a lot of adjustment in the other direction.JQ (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

JQ, I understand from where are you coming from, but I don't think that Classical liberal/Mainstream/Laissez faire section should be intertwined with criticisms because we already have alternative views section which is a natural place for them. For example, text you have recently added (Critics of the classical view of freedom of contract argue that this freedom is illusory when the bargaining power of the parties is highly unequal, most notably in the case of contracts between employers and workers. As in the case of restrictions on working hours, workers as a group may benefit from legal protections that prevent individuals agreeing to contracts that require long working hours.) could be reformulated to something like: Proponents of alternative views on economic freedom argue that freedom of contract should be regulated because of cases when the bargaining power... This seems to be better way to develop this article if we are going to have two main sections. -- Vision Thing -- 12:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of using 'Mainstream definition' as a name for the section. My second choice would be 'Free market definition'. Using 'conservative' would be as limiting and incorrect as using 'classical liberal'. -- Vision Thing -- 12:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw, in my edit to the lead [11] I had tried not to remove any content. One possible change could be moving up discussion of alternative views from third to second paragraph. Are there any additional suggestions? -- Vision Thing -- 12:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think mainstream would be appropriate. My take on the academic literature is that it's pretty split on the positive vs negative freedom issue. However, in the non-academic world the negative freedom view is more prevalent, mainly (I think) because of advocacy by WSJ, Freedom House, Frasier, etc. The article should recognize this in a neutral way, eg. common view, popular view, etc. The term that appears to be acceptable to both JQ and VT is the term 'free market'. I'm ok with that as well. We should also note that it is currently the definition usually used in the popular press. LK (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)