[Originally published February 26, 2007]

Once upon a time, the world “liberal”, in ideological parlance, meant defender of individual liberty.  Now, often as not, it means advocating the taking from one individual to give it to another.  For a number of years now, I have been making the argument that modern liberals have failed to grasp the simple distinction between “freedom” and “means”.  This confusion has led to the creation of oxymoronic phrases like “wage slave” and, in the context that liberals use the term, “economic justice”.

The distinction should be relatively simple.  Freedom is the absence of external constraint.  If you are prevented by an external agency (i.e., the state) from engaging in some activity, then your freedom has been infringed upon.  If you are prevented from engaging in essentially any activity by that external agency, you are a slave.  If, on the other hand, you lack the resources or abilities to engage in some activity, your freedom has been impaired in no way, whatsoever.  I lack the ability to simply soar into the air on my own power or the resources to purchase a Boeing 707 but there is no external agency preventing me from doing these things if the means were available to me.

Sadly, liberals frequently fall back on the nonsensical argument that employers restrict the freedom of the workers by not paying them enough – as if, in the real world, people lacked the power to seek employment elsewhere – so the state is justified in ensuring that everyone is given a certain level of means by taking it from others – infringing upon their economic liberty.  So, this time, I’d like to tray a new tack.  I’d like to demonstrate how the surest way for as many people as possible to acquire the means, is to give them the greatest possible economic liberty.

Arguments about how the chief reason for the prosperity and economic superiority in the world of the United States is overwhelmingly due to the relatively greater level of economic freedom tend to fall on deaf liberal ears.  Some, such as columnist Paul Krugman, perform truly amazing feats of statistical manipulation in order to make it appear that the more socialist economies of Europe are doing better than we are despite the evidence.  It’s dishonest, but there’s a market for people who will tell liberals what they want to hear.

So let’s set aside the US performance for the nonce and look at some examples elsewhere in the world.  Using the annual Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) and inspiration from an individual who posts using the nom du guerre, UncaAlby, I have selected a few sets of countries whose geographical location, population type and resources are relatively similar, while their levels of economic freedom are markedly different.  Using data readily available from the CIA World Factbook, let’s look at these sets and see if we can determine whether or not economic freedom does a better job of providing the economic means to the populace or whether the liberals are correct and that government intervention into the economy actually benefits the citizenry.

North and South Korea:  A greater example of economic disparity is hard to come by.  Unsurprisingly the IEF gives South Korea a score of 68.6; North Korea scored a 3.0.

A once unified people living on the same southeast Asian peninsula have the most disparate living conditions imaginable.  South Korea’s standard of living, as measured by GDP per capita, is thirteen times that of its poorer neighbor.  South Korea’s unemployment rate is only 3.7%; North Korea’s employment rate is only 10%, roughly the same percentage of the population not living in poverty.  South Korea’s economy is growing four times faster; North Korea’s inflation rate is nearly four times higher.

Botswana and Zimbabwe:  These two adjacent African countries also have similar peoples and resources.  The chief difference is that Botswana mining concentrates in diamonds and Zimbabwe has far more mining in ferrous and non-ferrous metals.  Botswana is half again as large as its neighbor to the west, but much of the country’s land mass is consumed by the desolation of the Kalahari Desert.  Botswana’s economy, however, is markedly less encumbered by the state.  The IEF gives Botswana a score of 68.4; Zimbabwe’s is half that at 35.8.

Botswana’s standard of living is five times higher than that of Zimbabwe’s.  Zimbabwe’s unemployment rate has reached 80%; Botswana’s is currently 23.8%, less than a third of their neighbor’s.  Botswana’s economy is growing by 5.5%; Zimbabwe’s is shrinking by 7.7%.  Botswana’s inflation rate is high at 8.6%; Zimbabwe’s is devastating at 266.8%.

Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip:  Here there is admittedly a distinct difference in the peoples under discussion and the size of the territories involved.  However, it is still a relevant comparison given that the economic conditions of the peoples that occupied these lands for the extended period ending roughly six decades ago had not been so different by any stretch of the imagination than they are today, particularly in the West Bank.  Certainly, a significant factor in the economic disparity between the peoples is due to the internecine conflicts that have continued nearly unabated for the entire period.  But it is my contention that the economic disparity is in large part due to the relative levels of economic freedom and that the disparity is a significant driver of the conflict itself.

The IEF gives Israel an economic freedom score of 68.4 – coincidentally the same score as Botswana and almost the same as South Korea; Both the West Bank and Gaza Strip score a 3.0 – the same as North Korea.  The standard of living difference is astounding.  The average standard of living in the Palestinian territories is a mere $660 per year; Israel’s comes in at $24,700, more than 37 times higher.  Unemployment in Israel is running at 9%; it’s about 20% in the territories.  And inflation in Israel is running at only 1.3% vs. 7% in the territories.

Taken together, in comparison to the more economically free countries listed, the more economically repressed countries have a standard of living a mere one-thirteenth as high, an unemployment rate that is 16 times higher, a poverty rate five times higher, and an inflation rate 40 times higher.

Another example not included because of the vast population disparity is China vs. Hong Kong and Taiwan.  Again, the peoples are overwhelmingly similar.  It is the economic system that is different.  China scored a 54.0 from the IEF, indicative of some opening that has occurred; Hong Kong and Taiwan scored 89.3 and 71.1, respectively.  China’s standard of living: $6,760; Hong Kong’s: $33,760; Taiwan’s: $27,350.  China’s unemployment: 9.0%; Hong Kong’s: 5.5%; Taiwan’s: 4.1%.

The conclusion is inescapable.  While freedom and means are two entirely distinct concepts, the best way to assure that the means are available to the widest number of people is to promote economic freedom and the surest way to guarantee that as few people as possible have the means available is to espouse the same socialist nonsense that has become the staple of modern liberalism.