New Freedom House Survey

[Bono]

Well, now I know Portugal is free.

[jaichind]

This survey puts political and media freedom too far ahead of economic freedom.  Freedom should be defined was what would an Average Joe would encounter.  Can he live where he wants? Work where he wants? Worship where he wants? Badmouth in private whoever he wants? Associate with whoever he wants? Buy/Sell what he wants?
Social economic and ethnic background not hinder him in his endevers?

It is far less important (although it does have positive value) to be able to publicly protest whenever he wants? Read every possible point of view presented in the media? Participate in direct political action (like voting) ?

I would argue that Singapore should be at the top of the list for freedom.  Russia while not the best even under my defiition should be considered free.  I guess I will have to disagree with the "survey."

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Political and media freedom help protect economic freedom.  Except in the US, where media freedom tries to counteract economic freedom

[jaichind]

Political and media freedom help protect economic freedom.  Except in the US, where media freedom tries to counteract economic freedom

I tend to view political freedom and economic freedom to be in conflict in the long run.  It is political freedom that leads to the creation of the welfare state.  Worse, the logic of the welfare state eventually leads to totalitarian measures such as the smoking tax/ban and eventually things like the fat tax/ban.  Political freedom often means socialization of many economic decision making.  It is actually easier to start a small business today in Communist authoritarian People Republic of China on the Chinese Mainland than the USA today.
 

[muon2]

I thought that this statement from their press relesase was most interesting. It appears to give some support to back the neocon position of regime change to create democracies. And it can be used to support war on Iraq for regime change as part of a war on terrorism.

According to a Freedom House analysis of global terrorist attacks of a five year period from 1999-2003, 70 percent of all attributable deaths by terrorism were perpetrated by terrorists and terrorist movements originating in Not Free countries. By contrast, only 8 percent of global fatalities from terrorism were perpetrated by terrorists and groupings with origins in the free world. "This suggests that the expansion of democracy and freedom is an important component in the international effort to rid the world of the terrorist scourge," said Adrian Karatnycky, principal analyst of Freedom in the World.

[WMS]

I thought that this statement from their press relesase was most interesting. It appears to give some support to back the neocon position of regime change to create democracies. And it can be used to support war on Iraq for regime change as part of a war on terrorism.

According to a Freedom House analysis of global terrorist attacks of a five year period from 1999-2003, 70 percent of all attributable deaths by terrorism were perpetrated by terrorists and terrorist movements originating in Not Free countries. By contrast, only 8 percent of global fatalities from terrorism were perpetrated by terrorists and groupings with origins in the free world. "This suggests that the expansion of democracy and freedom is an important component in the international effort to rid the world of the terrorist scourge," said Adrian Karatnycky, principal analyst of Freedom in the World.

Freedom House is a proponent of spreading democracy all right, but they're more in favor of doing it peacefully. That being said, they don't share the immoral "sovereignity at all costs, even if the country in question kills half its population" attitude many war critics worked themselves into. I think they're calling it like it is.

And to all the opebos, HockeyDudes, and phnkrockets of the world...

http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2004/bn-2004-11-22.htm

Freedom House does not look kindly on secularist bigotry, any more than they do on religious bigotry.

[muon2]

I thought that this statement from their press relesase was most interesting. It appears to give some support to back the neocon position of regime change to create democracies. And it can be used to support war on Iraq for regime change as part of a war on terrorism.

According to a Freedom House analysis of global terrorist attacks of a five year period from 1999-2003, 70 percent of all attributable deaths by terrorism were perpetrated by terrorists and terrorist movements originating in Not Free countries. By contrast, only 8 percent of global fatalities from terrorism were perpetrated by terrorists and groupings with origins in the free world. "This suggests that the expansion of democracy and freedom is an important component in the international effort to rid the world of the terrorist scourge," said Adrian Karatnycky, principal analyst of Freedom in the World.

Freedom House is a proponent of spreading democracy all right, but they're more in favor of doing it peacefully. That being said, they don't share the immoral "sovereignity at all costs, even if the country in question kills half its population" attitude many war critics worked themselves into. I think they're calling it like it is.

And to all the opebos, HockeyDudes, and phnkrockets of the world...

http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2004/bn-2004-11-22.htm

Freedom House does not look kindly on secularist bigotry, any more than they do on religious bigotry.

Thanks for the article. One of the best I've read on the subject in a long while. As a Christian who studied 8 years at a predominantly Jewish university I sympathize with many of its observations.

On your other point, I firmly believe that sovereignty can NEVER be used as cover for genocide. Saddam forfeited his right to rule long before Gulf I, and any nation had the right to remove him for his genocide.

[WMS]

I thought that this statement from their press relesase was most interesting. It appears to give some support to back the neocon position of regime change to create democracies. And it can be used to support war on Iraq for regime change as part of a war on terrorism.

According to a Freedom House analysis of global terrorist attacks of a five year period from 1999-2003, 70 percent of all attributable deaths by terrorism were perpetrated by terrorists and terrorist movements originating in Not Free countries. By contrast, only 8 percent of global fatalities from terrorism were perpetrated by terrorists and groupings with origins in the free world. "This suggests that the expansion of democracy and freedom is an important component in the international effort to rid the world of the terrorist scourge," said Adrian Karatnycky, principal analyst of Freedom in the World.

Freedom House is a proponent of spreading democracy all right, but they're more in favor of doing it peacefully. That being said, they don't share the immoral "sovereignity at all costs, even if the country in question kills half its population" attitude many war critics worked themselves into. I think they're calling it like it is.

And to all the opebos, HockeyDudes, and phnkrockets of the world...

http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2004/bn-2004-11-22.htm

Freedom House does not look kindly on secularist bigotry, any more than they do on religious bigotry.

Thanks for the article. One of the best I've read on the subject in a long while. As a Christian who studied 8 years at a predominantly Jewish university I sympathize with many of its observations.

On your other point, I firmly believe that sovereignty can NEVER be used as cover for genocide. Saddam forfeited his right to rule long before Gulf I, and any nation had the right to remove him for his genocide.

You're welcome. When I came across that article I knew I had to post it here to challenge secularist bigotry.

And I totally agree with you on sovereignity. Now let's see who chooses to argue with us, shall we?