Economic Freedom vs. Personal Freedom

Would you give up voting in exchange for no more taxes? Stephan Livera joins the show to discuss the curious distinction between economic freedom and personal or political freedoms, and how we weigh those freedoms.

00:00 Introduction
00:41 Economic Freedom, Political Freedom, and Personal Freedom
06:13 Freedom Indexes
14:01 Are Economic Freedoms the Most Valuable?
23:51 Singapore
26:56 Voting with your Feet
31:28 Escaping Western Globalism

[DanJohnsonAffordableAviation]

I’m really enjoying Human Action Podcast, Jeff (and Bob, when he’s not off gallivanting around). Good topics, the right length for me, lively. Bravo!

[NickGore]

I think Americans are taken more by the social issues than the economic ones because our society craves drama. Drama allows us to be emotionally invested but also not have to participate very much, not much more than changing a profile picture or posting something controversial online. It's a great way for the elites to control us because drama changes daily. An example being people who are outraged about Disney two weeks ago are already planning their next trip to Central Florida with no hesitation.

[scott]

20:43 “Americans are very soft, and fat, and weak, and lazy.”

Preach.

[mateo]

Stephan left Australia, where as for us New Zealanders it’s our best hope to get ahead economically.

Always amazes me how NZ gets on those so called freedom lists.

[samyguerroury]

Hello from switzerland. Thanks for the video. It's very Interesting.

[claudiorio]

I have lived in Australia since 2015 and I was equally disappointed by what I saw in 2020. From the government, yes, but mostly from the Aussies who showed very little appreciation for freedom to the point of berating and mocking people that dared to speak up about that insanity that was going on here.

[krishnanunnimadathil]

One aspect which is not discussed when mentioning city-states such as Singapore and the UAE is that their citizenship laws are extremely tight and designed to ensure not many get it. So, the people who live and work in places such as Dubai, oftentimes the majority of them, are not citizens of the place but live on temporary visas. This is the case even for those who were born to foreign parents and have spent their entire lives in the UAE. The idea, from an expat perspective, is to work hard and make as money as you can with a view to eventually getting back to the home country, hopefully wealthier than when you, or your parents, left. There are no politics in these places because people do not have time for any. 

If you wish to look at the perspective of how these countries are for the citizens in these places, then you'd be actually comparing apples to apples. For the citizens, or "locals" as they as called, they live off of some of the world's most generous welfare state with cradle-to-grave benefits which would make the average American spill his coffee. Everything from birth to school and college education to healthcare to wedding funds to houses are subsidized by the state. If you thought the welfare state in America was causing people to become lazy and unethical, you ain't seen nothing yet!

The mistake you guys are making is to compare the status of citizens in Australia with that of expats in Dubai, or other places. Compare the status of citizens in Australia or the US with citizens in the UAE, and you would get a more perceptive conversation. Or compare the status of expats in Oz with that of expats in Dubai.

Love Mises Institute and the work they are doing!

[jimkozubek]

its possible that extreme wealth inequality has triggered the lashing out social issues.

[torch_fire]

I see three facets of freedom in countries: social, economic, and political freedom. Some liberty lovers may be upset at this, but political freedom is not a necessary ingredient to have immense social and economic freedom, and a good amount of prosperity as a result. An authoritarian government can still dictate that people can live their lives how they want, and conduct business in how they want. Some may argue that their is no requirement for an authoritarian government to do these things, but I would argue neither does a democracy. In a democracy, bad authoritarians can take power on the force of a populist movement. Oftentimes, they don't relinquish power once they have it, and this has been how several democracies have died.

So a good question to ask is, how do we create a government that will always ensure freedom for it's country? I would say you can never trust a democracy to do this, as again, it allows a chance for bad authoritarians to take control. I would also say you can't put all your faith in the absolute dictatorship of one man; even if they are good, it's the equivalent of having all of your eggs in one basket. If the leadership is compromised, then any freedom the dictator ensured is in jeopardy. Instead of all this, I think a group of rulers, bound together in a mission to preserve freedom, would be the best option. If one of their members should die, or become corrupt, the others could intercede to ensure that does not hurt the workings of the government. Furthermore, they can keep the focus of their group on the mission of creating and preserving freedom by being selective as to who to include in their group. They could vet people for their ideological beliefs, and their commitment to freedom -- no populist democracy, and no assuming that the children of the leaders would automatically be the next to rule like in other dictatorships.

I think this would be the best way to foster and preserve freedom.

[brendan]

Steve Irwin, Paul Hogan types got beaten down in the name if equity etc

[jimmypchacko]

PODCAST: The first amendment "mehh" but also economic education is critical. 🙄

PODCAST: Every country has elites and they care more about their own interests than economic liberty... hey Singapore is really cool the airport is super modern and service is excellent, its a great place to live despite the draconian laws. 🙄

[lukaradojevic]

I find it little bit contradictory that libertarians say that we need limited government, but since most of the people want to be free and in some position of power, only way to stop them is by totalitarian regime which require strong government. so how can you stop people from achieving their goals for power, if not by having strong government that practice oppresing peoples desire for power?or you think that people actually don't want to be free, and it is only you with your noble right to rule over them who can be in position of power, by saying to them that we need small government because we don't want majority to rule, while you rule at the same time?

[kendreamer]

Seems like Jeff is suggesting you can have a business without or you can have property right without having free speech. I don't see it. Someone can see your human actions as a self expression which is a kind of speech.