Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon

Opinion
May. 08, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Economic freedom and human rights

Don't think the two are related? Think again

Freedom House, a New York-based organization, released its annual survey of 193 nations this week, reporting 90 countries around the world currently respect a broad array of basic human rights and political freedom, while 103 countries fail to do so, at least in some degree.

The eight countries judged to have the most repressive regimes were Cuba, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Two occupied territories, Chechnya and Tibet, "whose inhabitants suffer intense repression," were placed in the lowest category, as well -- though their current governments are, of course, not their own.

Within the bottom-rung eight countries and two territories "State control over daily life is pervasive and wide-ranging, independent organizations and political opposition are banned or suppressed and fear of retribution for independent thought and action is part of daily life," explained Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, in issuing the group's annual report.

Ranked only slightly better than "the worst of the worst" on human rights and political freedom were Belarus, Chad, China, Equitorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Zimbabwe as well as the Western Sahara territory of North Africa. These nation-sized prison camps severely suppress opposition political activity, impede independent organizing and censor or punish criticism of the state, Ms. Windsor said.

Most Popular Stories
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Hillary's best hope: racism
  • J.C. WATTS: Your side, my side and the truth
  • EDITORIAL: It's now illegal to carry cash?
  • J.C. WATTS: Social conservatives still a political force
  • JOHN BRUMMETT: It's the worst of all worlds for the DemocratsCommentary
  • EDITORIAL: Billing Mrs. Fossett
  • EDITORIAL: Just 'trust our incumbent senators'
  • LETTERS: Tipping 'expert' a total cheapskate
  • ERIN NEFF: They just figured it was a lingerie supplier
  • LETTERS: To boost revenue, repeal smoking law



    • It's interesting to compare this rogues' gallery to the rankings independently compiled by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal in their 2008 annual Index of Economic Freedom, which seeks to measure "the ability of ordinary citizens to make economic decisions on their own. It includes the freedom to choose a job, start a business, work where one chooses, borrow money, and use a credit card. It ranges from buying a house to having a choice in health care, from being fairly taxed to being treated justly by the courts."

    The Index of Economic Freedom gives its highest rankings to Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, Australia and the United States, in that order, while its dirty dozen -- the nations that provide their residents the least economic freedom -- are (you'll never guess) North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Libya, Burma (Myanmar), Turkmenistan, Iran, Belarus, Bangladesh, Venezuela, Guineau-Bissau, and the Republic of the Congo.

    The Heritage folks didn't even rank Somalia and Sudan, in their slightly smaller listings of 157 nations.

    Thus, the only nation which stands out with a fairly high ranking on economic freedom (62.8 percent for a 60th-place ranking of "moderately free," tied with Belize and Mongolia and slightly outranking Italy) yet an abysmal report on human rights is Saudi Arabia, an interesting anomaly possibly explained by a hierarchical regime where the de facto freedoms of male citizens far exceed those of women and "guest workers."

    With that interesting exception, however, the parallels are unmistakable: Countries that allow little economic freedom also end up near the bottom of the list for human rights and political freedom.

    Nor should this be terribly counterintuitive. The forces of "Progressivism" keep insisting there can be some form of more "benign" redistributive kleptocracy. But in real life, people aren't likely to hand the bulk of their income to the state -- let alone give up their right to lend, borrow, hire or take a job of their choice -- until a guy with a gun shows up and convinces them those freedoms are gone.

    Economic freedom rewards people for their hard work, elevating standards of living and leading to expectations for improved human rights and political freedom, as well. The notion that the state can (or ever really will) deliver one type of freedom ("free medical care"?) while still withholding the others is a cynical sham.

    Just ask the cheerful folk of China (126th), Russia (134th), Iran (151st), Cuba (156th), or North Korea (dead last on the Economic Freedom scale, at 157).

    Links powered by inform.com


    Leave Your Comment 4 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Don Evans wrote on May 08, 2008 11:03 AM: Free markets (aka absolute economic freedom) are not always successful. This is a known economic fact. Certain LIMITED markets, due to their demand inelasticities, are prone to market failure; or the inability of the market to efficiently distribute the available resources.

    Medical care costs are expanding to the point that they are operating as a de facto "tax" upon our economy. The provision of some limited supply side government intervention in the market would arguably act similarly to the Laffer curve argument. In short, if medical costs are reduced by way of a market intervention, that expenditure produces an increase in individual household wealth; which equates to larger amounts available for either savings or consumption, both of which aid our consumption-based economy.

    The lack of available medical care also bears a cost, which you seem to have neglected. As I've stated previously, sick of dying people can't produce and, hence, become a drain on our economy which surpasses the costs of some limited supply side intervention.

    If you expect 45 million people to sit by while their families get sick and die young, moreover, While the rest of us recite Milt Friedman's lunacy and tell them "that's just how the cookie crumbles"; perhaps you don't remember your history. Extreme resource distributions such as this never end well, gentlemen. The key is BALANCE.

    In addition, if you mean to imply that supply side intervention in these types of FAILED MARKETS is some form of a slippery slope leading from relative freedom to despotism; I believe that the argument is, as you say, a "cynical sham".


    John F wrote on May 08, 2008 10:26 AM: Check out Thomas Friedman's column on what he terms petro-politics;

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/opinion/07friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    It has a lot of good things to say about both political and economic freedom.


    Mike L. wrote on May 08, 2008 08:00 AM: We can admit athletic ability is genetic, but not intelligence or criminality, lest we offend the dumb criminals.


    GEORGE wrote on May 08, 2008 03:46 AM: The list also shows that economic freedom is linked to race, but the media will never admit that.