From the posts I have submitted thus far many of you know I am a firm believer in economic and political freedom. There are, however, those with dissimilar opinions who try to assert that both are mutually exclusive because one does not beget the other, nor does the very existence of one ensure the other. Political freedom can be defined as the absence of antagonism, coercion, and hostility from within the construct of individual sovereignty. The following is a quote taken from Milton Friedman;
“The essence of political freedom is the absence of coercion of one man by his fellow men. The fundamental danger to political freedom is the concentration of power. The existence of a large measure of power in the hands of a relatively few individuals enables them to use it to coerce their fellow men. Preservation of freedom requires either the elimination of power where that is possible or its dispersal where it cannot be eliminated.”
Economic freedom can be more difficult to delineate and lends itself to ambiguity because of its intrinsic abstruseness. Thus, my cursory explication is as follows; it is the freedom to produce, trade and or consume any goods and or services, and such transactions are procured without the use of coercion, fraud, or larceny. Economic freedom is dependent upon free markets, and free markets need to be free from governmental interference, i.e. regulation, subsidization, and collusive monopolisms. In the presence of the aforementioned economic albatrosses you have inefficacy and cyclical instability within the market system. I posit that the free market should be regarded as a normative model, and not a concept, if it can be rendered to empirical consideration without pervertible interference. Here is another quote from Milton Friedman;
“A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises has stated, “The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice verse, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom. It is no accident that the age of capitalism became also the age of government by the people.” Here, Mises agrees that economic and political freedom are mutually dependent.
This leads me to liberty, how would you define it? Is it a state of being that is free from compulsion, constraint, terrorism, and all manners of duress that compel you to act by force of authority? A perfective characterization by any measure, wouldn't you say? You could add more, but succinctness breeds clarity. Below you will observe videos that were taken in Iran over the weekend (and some earlier), and they are gruesome. There is no true economic and political freedom in Iran, remember that as you watch the videos.
My heart breaks and my prayers go out to the Iranian people. Will Obama's overseas visits to the Muslim lands result in help for the people that are dying in the streets? Will they ever taste the freedoms, as elucidated above, and truly live in a free state of existence? Do our problems have a quasi-synonymity with the ones in Iran? Maybe not, but it is a stark reminder that party ideology, collectivism, and progressivism are slowly abrogating our liberties and freedoms. If left unattended, individual sovereignty will be the Social Cost for reforming and restructuring our Republic, equatability will become our new legal tender. Will you let this happen? Will you participate in Tea Parties on July, 4? I am, and I hope you are too. The picture to the left is of the Kent State University shootings, the person face down was shot by the Ohio National Guard. Are you surprised that this happened in the United States?