Freedom Rankings
Dean
Cobb has a fascinating and audacious idea. And you know, if we had a "United Free Nations" instead of just a "United Nations" it might even be achievable.
You might think it's impossible to measure freedom, but you'd be wrong. Oh, like anything in social science there's a certain imprecision, but it's not as much as you might think. Since the early 1970s--over 30 years now--an independent, non-profit, international group called Freedom House has been publishing its rankings of how free or un-free all of the nations of the world are. They've been using the same basic standards and judgement criteria for a long time now, with a well-defined methodology and set of criteria. They rank countries from 1 to 7, with 1 being most free and 7 being least-free, on both political and civil freedoms.
The most-free nations in the world as of the beginning of 2005 are:
Andorra
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Canada
Cape Verde
Chile
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Kiribati
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Micronesia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Palau
Poland
Portugal
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
The least-free nations on Earth are:
Burma
Cuba
Libya
North Korea
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Syria
Turkmenistan
Some of the listings are a little surprising, but only for how on-target they tend to be. It might be startling to see China not at the bottom, but with things like internet access and limited artistic freedom and "free trade zones" like Hong Kong and Shanghai, they're able to stay out of the cellar (they rank a 6.5). Note also that among "free" nations (a rating of 2.5 or better counts as "free") there are no huge surprises; nations like Japan and Monaco and South Africa only rank 1.5, mostly because of some residual issues those countries still have. For example, as Sean Kinsell notes, you can be born and live your whole life in Japan and still not be a citizen. Mind you, Japan is easily one of the most-free nations on Earth--a 1.5 is outstanding by any historic standard.
Although not a single African nation has made it to "1" ranking, in just the last generation a whole swath of them have managed to make it from a 6 or 7 rating to a 2.5 or better--which is extraordinary. Nations like Botswana, Lesotho, Mali, South Africa, and Senegal have all gone from unfree status to being among the freeest nations of the Earth in only a generation or two. This is amazing.
Oh, and two of those nations are 90%+ muslim. If anyone asks you to name a muslim democracy, be sure to remember to list Mali and Senegal, both of which are stable and free democracies.
You can find the entire worldwide report for 2005 right here, including all you could want to know about methodology.
But if you want to see something truly breathtaking, simply look at their Democracy's Century report: in 1900, 0% of the world's population lived in true electoral democracies. By 1950, about a third of the world population did. By 2000, almost 60% of the world population lived in democratic nations--proving that the notion that democracy is only workable for people of certain races, creeds, or colors is simply wrong. If a nation like South Africa or Japan or Senegal can become beacons to the world, it's hard to believe others cannot.
For those of you who still want to quibble over defining the word "democracy," please see my earlier piece, "Defining 'Democracy' and the Democratic Peace Theory" below. Also, for more fascinating data from Freedom House, just read this discussion.
"Micronesis: We are TOO a country! We're not made up, we're real! Don't believe it? Google us BITCHES!!"
Okay, so their environment is wretched, such is the cost of laissez-faire.
Here is the report on Taiwan, which notes that it is one of the most-free places on the planet, but that it ranks only a "2" as compared to freer nations such as the UK, US, Japan, Greece, etc. It appears that they get a lower ranking due to vote-buying scandals, the fact that there are laws which make it possible for journalists to go to jail for criticizing the government, the fact that the government and military are major shareholders in one of the nation's five major broadcast outlets and often exert control over what's broadcast there, and the government exerts a requirement that you have a minimum of at least $1.45 million in capital before you're even allowed to broadcast a radio station there. Teachers, civil servants, and defense industry workers are barred from joining unions or bargaining collectively, and laws restrict the right to strike. The law allows employers to confiscate foreign workers' passports and deduct money from employee wages without consent.
Police are sometimes allowed to use force to extract confessions. Also, while it has caused widespread controversy, in October three men began their TENTH TRIAL on murder charges from 1991.
If Taiwan is a "libertarian paradise" it's news to me. As regards to pollution--which Freedom House doesn't address--most would suggest that widespread abuse of the environment is certainly not very libertarian, as it allows one person or group to negatively affect the property of others.
Despite all these negatives, however, it should again be noted that Taiwan is rated one of the freest nations on Earth. But there are some civil and political freedoms that it is clearly lacking.
I'm 50 now, young compared to Arnold Harris (the Grand Old Man 1/2 on the Mountain), old compared to you (who are yet more of a man -- man and 1/2! -- than I am).
During most of my life, a man whose watchword was "Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy", who spoke of "democracy" vs. "fascism", who regularly called his opponents "reactionaries", and who argued passionately that, if all the nations of the world had universal suffrage and free elections we would finally have peace and plenty -- such a man would have been a good friend of my father (who held similar views), and such a man also would have appeared often in the pages of the National Review -- as a favorite opponent.
Using the 1-dimensional Left-Right spectrum used by the media and in use in the West since 1789, the spectrumology of it historically is this:
For most of the history of the West, the views of our Founding Fathers would have been so far Left as to be non-existent. The Left then was Martin Luther. The Pope was the Center. Would I be the Right?
For the century or so from John Locke to the American Revolution, our Founding Fathers were the Left and views such as yours were so far Left as to be practically non-existent.
From the French Revolution to very recently, your views (for democracy) would be the Left, the views of our Founding Fathers (for an aristocratic republic) would be the Center, and men like Metternich or de Maistre (monarchist) were the Right.
Today, the likes of Ward Eichmann and Lord Pork Pork constitute the Left, the media (who echo the views of Lord Pork Pork and Ward Eichmann) call themselves the Center, your views are called the Right ("neo-conservative"), and Ayn Rand or the John Birch Society (whose views are the same as those of our Founding Fathers) are called the Far Right. Where would you put Queen Beatrix of Holland on this spectrum? Or Alain de Benoist? I sound like I'm on the Far, Far, Far, Far Right!
Something's gone screwy here.
By 2000, 60% of the world population lived in democratic nations
Yet their 2005 survey here (.pdf) says 44% of the world population live in free countries. Which seems to say that there are many people with democratic governments that are not free, or there was a 16% loss in the last 5 years.
The contemporary controversy must be, as Dean indicated earlier, the influence of Kissingerian "realism" in foreign policy thinking. Kissinger professed to be an admirer of Metternich. Yet Metternich was an anti-revolutionary, an opponent of Jacobinism. It is hard for me to see him pursuing "detente" with revolutionary Bolshevist and Maoist regimes as Kissinger did.
Remember, one speck of anything 'banned' in your house or car and the Feds can take it, and you have to sue them to get it back.
And did we mention the part about not being able to sue the Federal govt. if they don't want you to?
Yeah, with the Drug War still in full flower, we're a 1...as is France, where you can be held without charge, without an attorney, without bail, no phone calls, indefinately if you are suspected of being a terrorist.
Freedom-shmeedom, only the freedoms our benighted rules would allow us!
All you need to qualify as an electoral democracy are to have about 50% of your population eligible to vote, competitive elections, opposition parties, and to have your executive and legislative branches all elected (there are a few other qualifications but that's the gist of it).
So you could, for example, only allow men to vote, you could outlaw all but two political parties, and you could have some fairly strict restrictions on speech and press, and still be considered a democracy. If you are one of those, you will be listed by Freedom House as "partly free."
Electoral democracies such as Turkey are listed as "partly free." There are a couple of dozen or so other such nations. They're electoral democracies and much freer than much of the world, but they're not considered truly free.
To be a liberal democracy you need all the stuff electoral democracies have, plus universal franchise, guaranteed freedom of speech and press, and to rarely or never outlaw any political parties. If you can do all that you'll be listed in the "free" category by Freedom House, although you still may have things they criticize you for. (this is why they have a ranking system).
Everyone was who was reading newspspers in 1945 remembers that was its official name. Until some one-world propagandist decided that renaming it "United Nations" would make it more like the world government that it can never be and almost certainly it constitutuent sovereign states shall never permit it to be.
Among the things for which I have dislike is political fakery.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
or:
Get the U.S.A. out of the U.N.O. and get the U.N.O. out of the U.S.A..