Freer Is Better

Measuring economic liberty around the world.

(Page 2 of 2)

And look at France. It ranks 64th, behind Mexico, Peru, and Latvia! Yet France is a much wealthier country.

"France is doing their best to fall out of the index," Beach explained. "That's a country that says, 'We'd rather not be economically free if we can be economically secure.'"

Which countries should we keep an eye on in the future? Beach says parts of Central and South America are awakening. "Brazil has pretty much broken through after years of doing the right thing and is on the verge of serious sustained economic growth."

And Mexico is improving: "If Mexico could fix its drug war problem, we'd see the good things happening there."

If we want to reverse America's decline, we'd better get to work. There's a lot of government to cut.

John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    America can fix Mexico's drug war problem...very easily.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Beat me to it.

  • La Reina del Sur||

    Don't you dare try it.

  • Dick Cheney||

    Can I buy two crack rocks? So that's what...$200?

  • ||

    Doesn't Japan have the highest corporate tax rate? And isn't the US level of corporate tax the lowest level of GDP in the G8?

  • ||

    I think they're speaking in terms of combined tax rates. Federal + state.

  • ||

    HHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

    You think you're economically free!?!?!??! You Americans cannot even legally own a house!!!

    http://youareproperty.blogspot.....house.html

    Thats right, you had your OWN HOMES confiscated and you didn't even notice.

  • zoltan||

    This blog is the shit.

  • Martin Landau in "Ed Wood"||

    Home? I have no home. Hunted, despised, living like an animal...

  • The Gobbler||

    He was great in that film.

    "Pull ze strings! Pull ze strings!"

  • ||

    This freedom index is way off. It should begin with a list of countries in which there are first world government services and no income taxes.

    Here's a few:

    Andorra
    Bahamas
    Cayman Islands (no property or sales tax either)
    Vanuatu
    Monaco
    Isle of Man
    Qatar (although they have a corporate income tax)

  • Dello||

    First we'd have to agree on what "first world government services" are, and then on whether or not that's a good thing.

  • ||

    Good point. I was referring to roads, schools, etc. The basic stuff, not welfare programs or enormous militaries.

  • ||

    Singapore ... Paragon of freedom.

    Every time I think that the 'stache has hit bottom, he scrapes down a little further.

    I should stop being surprised.

  • ||

    He is speaking in terms of economic freedom, not personal freedom.

  • ||

    Then he is speaking in terms of pure nonsense.

  • ||

    You can, to a small extent, separate the 2.

  • Double Bubble||

    Watch that chewing gum.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: oOoOoOoO,

    He is speaking in terms of economic freedom, not personal freedom.

    They go together. What Danny does not realize is that a person can be freer in Singapore than in many places in the US, especially in San Francisco. So far, I have not seen Singapore wanting to ban soda pops...

  • ||

    Not soda pop. Just chewing gum.

    And also, political dissent.

    And oral sex (but, curiously, not prostitution).

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "Free markets and free minds are corallaries"-Ayn Rand

  • Ayn Rand||

    My farts are the font of all wisdom, ipso facto. QED.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Oh. Wow dude, that makes a lot of sense when you put it that way.

    Lou

    robot.com

  • ||

    HA +10

  • mr simple||

    Stossel didn't write the list. The list was objectively made comparing certain policies as explained in the article, not made to fit your personal opinion. Try reading comprehension sometime.

  • ||

    Oooh, look! mr simple wins the debate by using the word "objectively." Game Set Match! Woohoo! There's no arguing with the word "objectively."

  • The Gobbler||

    Asshole much, Mr. Shit Facktory?

  • mr simple||

    Wow, nice comeback. You respond to my refutation of your premise by pointing out a word in my post. I guess that totally proves that Stossel wrote this list based on pure opinion. Good job.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    OOo0H! Looky @ Mr. knowitall using words in a way consistent with their definitions! WOOH00o0/O!!1!i No Fairzz to people who don't know much words!!

  • Really nice...||

    ...use of scare quotes and exclamation marks. Impressive argument. Win.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm sure there are politics involved in creating this list. Nothing like this is totally objective as Danny so sarcastically points out below. I think "in general" it's probably a fair representation, but I don't see us behind Canada. I do think that Canada is moving more in the right direction and we're moving in the wrong direction but I don't see how we've traded places at this point.

  • mr simple||

    If you think there is a problem with their data or process, it would behoove you to look it up rather than guess. It's supposedly on the Heritage website. There may be problems, I don't know; I don't have time to look at it today. My point was that nothing in Danny's original assertion was based on truth or logic. Stossel didn't write the list, let alone pull the names out of his ass. The rankings are based on raw numbers in specific categories.

  • ||

    mr simple's logic is beyond quibble. For instance, Stossel did not write "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Therefore, if Stossel simply cited the Protocols as the true and accurate account of the Jews of the world for his column, his writing would still be above reproach. Our argument would be with the Tsarist secret police, not Stossel!

    Stop arguing with mr simple. He is all-knowing!

  • mr simple||

    Really piss poor analogy. "Thes Protocols" are demonstrably false. You have not shown any reason why this study should be dismissed out of hand. You attacked Stossel on the high ranking of Singapore in this list, specifically. I showed he had nothing to do with the rankings. You've had no rejoinder, merely attacks. If you had said something to the effect of "I disagree with the data, criteria or method used to make this list," then you would at least have an argument to make. But you only have attacks and straw man questions. So, yes, stop arguing until you have an understanding of basic argumentation.

  • ||

    It's not an analogy, it's a reductio. The extremity of a comparison with the Protocols is not a flaw; it's essential to the point being made.

    And since when is the burden of proof shifted off of the proponent? The rank of Singapore is a prima facie indicator of a deep flaw in the study used (Heritage Foundation - big surprise!). The burden is on 'stache, you, and whatever other massive self-important tool wants to hold this "study" up as actually indicating something worthy of attention.

    You think you can hide your basic stupidity by sniffily declaring that your interlocutor doesn't understand "the basics"? Troll somewhere else, Rand-freak.

  • re-defiler||

    Little Danny, when you get all angry, whine and throw a little tantrum, its really just a signal that you need to take a nap. Even trolls need their sleep. I think that will help calm you down about things read off the internet, and help cure your acute case of the stupids.

    Also, regardless of your childish assessment of the Heritage foundation, that any entity with a website and a publication history is infinitely more credible/deserving of the benefit of doubt, than a drooling forum moron with a free Yahoo account. So is it Gabriel or Danny?

  • ||

    "A free yahoo account."

    I think I am being mocked by somebody who is still paying for his e-mail account. I wonder if he still has a paid subscription to the Village Voice, too?

    Please, nobody tell this guy about Gmail. His head will explode.

  • ||

    "Stossel's list is bullshit. For example: He has a mustache.
    Fuck Mr. Simple because I compared a list that hasn't been discredited yet to my semetic hitlist. Also, I use "'stache" as a pejorative to generate ad revenue for perezhilton.com"

  • ||

    who is this sywars guy hacking my handle?

  • ||

    How free are the GST, HST, PST?

  • Knoss||

    It depends, income tax rates have been cut. I think HST is a bad thing because it hurts interprovincial competition but PST and GST are good taxes. I'd say the that both the PST and GST need to be simplified the offest made universal and all income taxes and other exise taxes abolished.

  • ||

    OK...

    GST, Goods and Services tax, Federal, right?

    PST, Provincincial Sales Tax, right?

    HST, ??? What's this?

    IIRC, the GST and the PST are levied at the point of retail sale. With the GST first, so you pay PST on the GST. Is that right?

    The GST came in after I left Canada. I believe it replaced the old 11% Federal Sales Tax, which was levied at the wholesale level and was never seen by consumers. Many people didn't even know it existed.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It's a stealth VAT...

  • ||

    My original question was serious, even though it may appear to be sarcastic.

    HST is the harmonized sales tax, a combination of GST and PST, but if I understand it correctly, it has the effect of compounding GST and PST rather than adding them.

    Ontario has a series of commercials touting the viability of the Province for U.S. companies looking to move, specifically highlighting tax incentives.

  • Slater||

    I'm an American ex-pat in Singapore, and life here is good. The economy is growing 13-15% this year alone. The value of the S$ is rising. There's hardly any poverty and no homelessness. Business is booming. There's a 2% unemployment rate, the borders are open, the government is transparent.
    Its penalties for breaking their laws are draconian, and its laws concerning free speech are restrictive. At any rate, before you make a snarky comment about a country - try opening a business there. It's easily one of the easiest and best places to open and run a business in the world.

  • Ehop||

    Sg, an example of a corrupt dictatorship can work.

  • Give me a break!||

    Gather around children, it's time once again for one of Uncle Stossle's Libertarian fairy tales. Thank you oh simplistic one for glossing over how it could be that China's economy "can be on fire" while personal liberty is stagnating. Oh its because of Hong Kong, blah blah blah. You should know very well that China's economy is still to a large extent socialist, and the goverment will take drastic measures to ensure the social stability, predictability of its citizenry, and yes suppressing wages especially, to ensure economic growth continues. But considering how it could be then that economic growth does not always mean more personal liberty or visa versa, complicates your model tremendously. How could that be? There are many more variables to take into consideration than economic liberty and personal liberty when considering their relation and the ultimate outcome. That's what is commonly called reality, you know, as oppossed the fairy tales which you peddle.

  • ||

    Where Have All the Good Trolls Gone?

  • ||

    Gone to graveyards every one ?

  • Spiny Norman||

    When will they ever learn?

  • ||

  • sarcasmic||

    He's talking about economic freedom, not you wanting to marry your gay lover.

  • Don't blame me||

    He did say something about oppossed [sic] to fairy tales.

  • Warty||

    tl;dr

  • Libertarian douche||

    But as China uses direct government action to outcompete the US economically, we will have our magic freedom rays to hold them back. Believe you me, they can't defeat our magic freedom rays.

  • AlmightyJB||

    What do you want broke first? Are you arguing that the countries at the top of this list don't have a higher standard of living then those at the bottom? Because if you are, I'd love to see your data on that.

  • Old Mexican||

    There are many more variables to take into consideration than economic liberty and personal liberty when considering their relation and the ultimate outcome.

    Like what???

  • Gimme a break?||

    Global economic competition is one. If you want to be the top dog, there's no sense in letting the personal freedom of your citizens getting in the way.

    Scarce natural resources is another. Got water? Screw you jack, I got mine. And by the way its all mine. Gotta pay to play, that's the law of the jungle.

    Wither life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Gimme a break,

    Global economic competition is one.

    How in the world can global competition preclude personal or economic freedom if, in order to compete, you do it because you're personally free?

    See, that's what happens when you lack understanding of concepts, something that happens when lacking imagination, knowledge and character.

    If you want to be the top dog, there's no sense in letting the personal freedom of your citizens getting in the way.

    What do you mean by that? Are you advocating for tyranny? Because if you are, why isn't North Korea the "top dog"? Certainly the regime does not let people be free, so that should not get in the way.

    Scarce natural resources is another.

    Hong Kong doesn't have much in resources... But they have people that act freely. Guess what? Your "variables" are not that relevant.

  • Knoss||

    so what if I build a dam and hold back millions of gallons of water and the farmer pays more than the average person and industry pays more than the average person, guess what the average person will get the amount of water they need, the food the farmers made tne the goods industry made.

  • ccs||

    Don´t they have paragraphs on your planet?

  • ||

    It's so stupid on its face. Is the right to sell copies of the Communist Manifesto, or Fanny Hill, or Atlas Shrugged, an "economic freedom" or not?

    Is selling pot or turning tricks for a profit part of "economic freedom" or not?

    Is the freedom to call for a boycott of sweatshop goods part of "economic freedom" or not?

    Is the freedom to agitate politically for independent labor unions, collective bargaining and workplace safety part of "economic freedom" or not?

    Are you "economically free" if you do not have a right to vote for the offices of those with the authority to levy taxes in free, fair and open elections?

    The idea that you can usefully distinguish between personal, political, and economic freedom is asinine and ridiculous. In other words, it's exactly what you would expect from the 'stache and the lower quartile of the Reasonoids.

    More Balko, please!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Danny,

    Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes: One does not have the right to "vote" in people that indulge in stealing, bottom line.

    One has a right to call for a boycott, and certainly one has a right to organize and protest. That does not mean you have a right to impose yourself on someone else's property - if that is what you really mean (the right to impose YOUR conditions on other people like employers), then you're not talking about political, economic or personal freedom but about enabling wholesale slavery.

    The idea that you can usefully distinguish between personal, political, and economic freedom is asinine and ridiculous.

    Personal freedom is the same as economic freedom.

  • Tony||

    One does not have the right to "vote" in people that indulge in stealing, bottom line.

    Sure they do. Hopefully elected officials who commit the crime of stealing will be caught and prosecuted. On a completely unrelated topic, one also has the right to vote for people who share their tax policy views.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Sure they do.

    No, they don't. You cannot simply delegate a power you DON'T have, Tony, and levying taxes IS stealing (the taking of property that does not belong to you by threat of violence.)

    Hopefully elected officials who commit the crime of stealing will be caught and prosecuted.

    That would only mean stealing from the government, as the government does not like the competition...

    On a completely unrelated topic, one also has the right to vote for people who share their tax policy views.

    That's rich - like making 2+2=5 just by voting for people that agree with you that 2+2 should be 5. Thanks, Mr. Wizard!

  • Tony||

    OM if you really believe that levying taxes is stealing, then you are an anarchist, and hence your head is so far in the clouds/up your ass that you're completely useless in any political discussion. How can you have the most extremist possible view and then act all incredulous like it's obvious truth?

  • sarcasmic||

    If you don't pay taxes then you will be visited by nice men with guns who will be happy to kill you should you put up a fight.

    How is that not stealing?

  • Tony||

    Because you are contracted with government to pay for the services it provides you?

  • sarcasmic||

    Really? I don't recall voluntarily contracting with government for anything.

    And the times that I have asked for the government to actually do these services, silly things like enforcing the law, they reacted like I had three heads.

    I assume you've never been victim of fraud, a home invasion or a mugging. If you had then you would know that those nice men with guns who visit you if you don't pay your taxes don't give a shit when it comes to their side of this "contract".

  • Tony||

    sarcasmic show me on this doll where the tax collector touched you.

  • Paul||

    The government says it's not your property. You've stolen from the government in this case. If you hold up arms against the government, to protect your stolen taxes you are effectively robbing the government. I mean, you might morally believe that you have some natural right to own your property free from interference, but even within that perspective it would be reasonable to tax incomes as a tax on an exchange on labor. If a governing body has no right to take your "property", what makes you so right in saying that you own some land over say, some squatters who actually use the land?

  • Jordan||

    but even within that perspective it would be reasonable to tax incomes as a tax on an exchange on labor.

    Keep begging that question!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    OM if you really believe that levying taxes is stealing, then you are an anarchist

    Are you serious? You're finding this out NOW? What, have you been under a rock all this time?

    [..]and hence ["hence"?] your head is so far in the clouds/up your ass that you're completely useless in any political discussion.

    You mean, useless in the sense that you prefer discussion with people that agree with you. Tough luck.

    How can you have the most extremist possible view and then act all incredulous like it's obvious truth?

    There's nothing extreme about stating facts, Tony - taking something that does not belong to you under threat of violence is STEALING.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Because you are contracted with government to pay for the services it provides you?

    A contract made under duress is NOT valid. A government that says "I will provide you with these services whether you like it or not" is NOT providing services nor was it contracted to do so, it is merely running a racket.

  • Tony||

    There's no duress. You are contracted when you are born as a citizen, and you're free to give up your citizenship at any time.

  • sarcasmic||

    "you're free to give up your citizenship at any time"

    If they let you.

    You can attempt to give up your citizenship and they'll still try to collect taxes on you even if you haven't stepped foot on American soil in decades.

  • Jordan||

    Ah, "love it or leave it." It was only a matter of time before Liberals and conservatives came full circle. Well, I guess anything is justified as long as you're free to leave (even though we're not free to leave without being mugged first).

  • Tony||

    I don't mean that in a "love it or leave it" way. You don't have to love it, you just have to obey the laws of the jurisdiction in which you live like every other human being on earth. If you have irreconcilable differences with your society and its contracts, then yes you are free to leave. If you weren't free to leave there would be a serious question about duress, but that's not the case.

  • Jordan||

    You don't have to love it, you just have to obey the laws of the jurisdiction in which you live like every other human being on earth.

    In other words, slavery is justified as long as it's written down on a piece of paper.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    You are contracted when you are born as a citizen, and you're free to give up your citizenship at any time.

    The same with slaves - you're born from a slave, hence, you're a slave.

    What an UTTERLY STUPID argument, Tony.

    And the idea of renoucing your citizenship if you don't like it - argument by threat, that's rich. I call it the "Put out or get out" argument, as equally valid from the standpoint of the woman as your argument is in the eye of a reasonable person.

  • Mr. Bentley||

    "You are contracted when you are born as a citizen"

    Like slavery?

  • Zeb||

    I'm pretty sure the government will still try to collect income taxes, even if you renounce your citizenship. The social contract is a lie, Tony, and you know it. Government can only be morally justified on utilitarian grounds. Maybe everything would be worse if there was no government, but you can't make the case that they are not taking property by threat of force, or actual force, without your consent, and a lot of people would call that theft.

  • Tony||

    Useless in the sense that if you're an anarchist, you hold a position very few people hold, for reasons of its stupidity.

    Your belief is completely contradictory: the very concepts of "stealing" and "belonging to" are meaningless unless they are defined according to a common understanding and enforced by law. If it's just whatever you say it is, then I can simply define them differently and you'd have no recourse logically or practically.

    You are contracted with government to pay for the services it provides. If you don't agree, then you must also believe that you are not obligated to follow other laws (including, btw, those against theft), since laws are merely provisions of the same contract.

  • sarcasmic||

    "You are contracted with government to pay for the services it provides."

    What happens when government doesn't hold it's end of this "contract" into which I did not voluntarily enter?

    If I break the "contract" they can confiscate my property and lock me in a cage.
    If they break the "contract" it's business as usual.

    Seems like a shitty deal to me.

  • Tony||

    What part of the contract are you claiming government is breaking?

  • sarcasmic||

    "What part of the contract are you claiming government is breaking?"

    Are you serious?

    Have you ever been the victim of a crime? I have, more than a few times, and they couldn't care less.
    Have you ever tried to get any government "service"? I have and was pretty much laughed at.

    I used to be a good little liberal until I discovered that this government I had so much faith in was a lie.

    A very expensive lie.

  • Tony||

    sarcasmic it's clear you have some specific grievance. All I can say is that most of the time civilization hums along fairly well. Government certainly isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it's not necessary.

  • sarcasmic||

    "sarcasmic it's clear you have some specific grievance."

    I don't like thieves and liars; government is both.

    "All I can say is that most of the time civilization hums along fairly well."

    You confuse society with government. Society hums along fairly well not because of government, but in spite of it.

    "Government certainly isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it's not necessary."

    Another straw man.
    limited government != no government

  • Patriot Mike||

    Tony, try reading the Law of the Land, the Constitution. In it, you'll see the words "Common Law" appear several times. Look this up and get back to me. Until then, shut up about having a contract with the government.

  • Tony||

    Patriot Mike the constitution is the most important part of the contract I'm referring to. It's even printed on paper and signed! Common law can be a part of a social contract too.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    But what about that pesky Tenth Amendment, Tony?

  • Tony||

    What about the 10th amendment FIFY? I'm wrong because I hold 10 amendment case law as reality rather than your arbitrary fantasy of what it means?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yeah, what about the 10th? The one most likely to be ignored by Rs AND Ds?

    It's been fucked in the ass, just like the commerce clause, by your party and theirs. But keep defending your position... it's amusing.

  • Tony||

    FIFY I don't have a strong opinion about the 10th, I just know that case law disagrees with you about what it entails. I have no good reason to take your word over the judiciary's.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You should read it sometime, Tony. It doesn't say "whenever my party is in power, it can do pretty much whatever the fuck it wants to do".

    No wonder you don't care about what it entails.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I suppose "enumerated powers" doesn't excite you, either, Tony...

  • Tony||

    Having an ineffectual government purely for the sake of not just treating the constitution as a sacred text, but interpreting it in a fringe way, does not push my particular button, no.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Who's saying it has to be "ineffectual", Tony?

    YOU are. YOUR definition. How you came to it, is likely not rooted in logic.

  • sarcasmic||

    "I have no good reason to take your word over the judiciary's."

    His word?
    What about the words in the 10th Amendment?
    They're plain and straightforward.

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Case law and the judiciary interpret that to mean "The federal government has unlimited power to do whatever the fuck it wants, fuck the states, fuck the people".

    Your problem is that you judge arguments on the one making the argument, not on the argument itself.

    That makes you a mindless fool.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Useless in the sense that if you're an anarchist, you hold a position very few people hold, for reasons of its stupidity.

    That's what happens when you don't THINK. MOST of your decisions are anarchic (anarchism, by the way, does not mean "chaos" or being callous, it simply means without government):

    YOU CHOOSE your friends by yourself, don't you? Or do you ask permission to the government for that? YOU CHOOSE your clothes, don't you, or do you ask permission to the government for that? YOU CHOSE to write to me, didn't you? Or, were you compelled by government to do so?

    Anarchism doesn't mean without laws, either - I FOLLOW laws that are not written, all the time, and I follow those laws even outside the eye and realm of the government.

    Your belief is completely contradictory: the very concepts of "stealing" and "belonging to" are meaningless unless they are defined according to a common understanding and enforced by law.

    You mindless twit - you're BEGGING THE QUESTION. How do you think those laws come to being, or do you really think lawmakers are THAT CLEVER?

    If it's just whatever you say it is

    It isn't - that's a strawman.

    then I can simply define them differently and you'd have no recourse logically or practically.

    Yes I do - I have two recourses in case you want to define "stealing" in a way it suits YOU: They're Smith and Wesson.

    You are contracted with government to pay for the services it provides.

    I say I am not, I have never agreed to such contract. And if you say "You are because they're the government", then you would be making the case for me that it is not a contract we have but an imposition.

    If you don't agree, then you must also believe that you are not obligated to follow other laws (including, btw, those against theft)

    That's a cop-out, Tony. A very clumsy one.

    [...]since laws are merely provisions of the same contract.

    Again with the question begging.

    "Contract is By Law"
    "Law"
    "Then, Contract IS Law."

  • Tony||

    OM you've said a lot without answering any of my points in the slightest. I'm not begging any questions.

    You obey laws because of the implicit contract that exists between you and your society and its government. If you do not believe in any such contract, then you should feel that not only are taxes a form of illegitimate force, but so are laws against theft, murder, etc. Do you believe you should be above the law?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I am addressing your points, Tony, every single one of them. If they BEG the QUESTION, I tell you. I don't have a reason to lie to you.

    You obey laws because of the implicit contract that exists between you and your society and its government.

    Tony, you are again arguing through talking points. People don't obey laws because of "implicit" contracts, they follow them because they're REASONABLE. One does not need a contract for that.

    If you do not believe in any such contract, then you should feel that not only are taxes a form of illegitimate force, but so are laws against theft, murder, etc.

    False. Utterly false. The problem is your positivism, thinking that just because it's on paper it becomes good or moral.

    Do you believe you should be above the law?

    Have you stopped beating your dog?

    I don't answer loaded questions, Tony. Try harder.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    OM, don't forget the liberal definition of anarchy = "ZOMG if we got rid of even one Department of Something, the whole country would fall apart!"...

  • Brian R||

    It scares me to admit it, but I have to agree with Tony for once. Anarchy as a system doesn't allow for ownership rights, so you can't sensibly argue for both at once.

    And anarchy is right up there with communism for things that might sound nice in theory, but suck in practice. At least communism is quasi-stable, anarchy doesn't even have that going for it. In practice it devolves into fun systems like despotism and feudalism very quickly.

  • ||

    Citation? Evidence?

  • Brian R||

    Sy,
    I'm just going to assume you're talking to me there - the threading makes it unclear.

    Since one of the commonly accepted roles of government is to "enforce property rights", presumably in an anarchy nobody is doing that.

    As far as anarchy being unstable, hmm, let's see, where are there good examples... Oh yeah, most of sub-Saharan Africa since the 1950's. Or the "Federally Administered" areas of Pakistan. Or pretty much any other "failed state."

    Every time you read an article with the word "warlord" in it, what do you think they're talking about? Some guy with an AK that set himself up as ruler of a little area. ie, he is a feudal lord/despot.

  • Joe R.||

    Tony doesn't like us principled "taxation is theft" types because he can't just wave us away with his "we just have different policy preferences" line like he does with the limited government types.

  • Tony||

    You're so principled you remain here in an oppressively taxed and governed society when you're perfectly able to leave. Not principled so much as whiny and entitled, I think.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    You're so principled you remain here in an oppressively taxed and governed society when you're perfectly able to leave.

    How quaint - a "Put out or get out" argument, again!

    By the way, MANY have left, renounced their US citizenship so as not to suffer further persecussion. It is not like people like what's going on, hence the increased sales of ammo...

  • Tony||

    Ah the "I don't like the current government, so I think I should be able to kill them all and replace it with MY version" argument. So much better than "love it or leave it," which isn't even what I'm saying. I'm saying your freedom to renounce your citizenship is the reason you are not technically in this relationship because of force.

    The land you were shat upon at birth/moved onto is under the jurisdiction of one or more governments. If that bothers you, go find some unclaimed territory if you can.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Ah the "I don't like the current government, so I think I should be able to kill them all and replace it with MY version" argument.

    That's not my argument and I don't think you understand - there would be no replacement if it were up to me.

    The land you were shat upon at birth/moved onto is under the jurisdiction of one or more governments. If that bothers you, go find some unclaimed territory if you can.

    I don't understand your point - you mean to say your land is not yours? Because it is one thing to have a group of assholes calling themselves "the government", way out there inside a shack, and letting everybody else be, and quite another having a roaming host of thugs taking possession of your land. Which one am I suppose not to like so as to uproot myself?

    Also, you're quite conceding that there WOULD BE something I *might* not like about a government so as to have to uproot myself - I though there was supposed to be a contract between me and them; what happened to that?

  • Tony||

    OM if you're not happy with the representative democracy you have then feel free to find something else. You seem to want to be sovereign over yourself, so you probably want to find some unclaimed territory. I think there's some on Mars. One thing's for sure, if someone else decides to plop down on what you claim to be your land, without a government of some sort you'll have no more legitimate claim to it than he will.

  • Shorter Tony||

    LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!

  • waffles ||

    You can't be born an anarchist. You have no right to anarchy.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "whiny and entitled" describes liberals much better, Tony.

    It's how Democrats get re-elected... pandering to the whiny and entitled. Bribe 'em with goodies every two years, and feign interest in their well-being = virtually perpetual re-election for Dems.

  • DesigNate||

    Far be it from me to agree with Tony on anything, but the constitution does give the government the ability to collect taxes. Now does this imply income tax is okay? I don't believe it does, but the idea that we shouldn't pay any taxes seems a little disingenuous. Of course I understand that you, as well as others on here, are anarchist, so your position makes sense.

  • zoltan||

    Not completely unrelated, you ignorant toolbelt. I'm going to find some people who share my views on stealing.

  • Goddamit||

    you are defending the undefendable -- okay to steal as long as you don't get caught -- a lot of theft is perpetrated today by elected officials who surround themselves with like-minded avaricious cronies -- so they won't get caught. The public trust is betrayed by graft, bribes and blowjobs. We know who these officials are -- progressives have raised this thievery to a fine art -- they have divorced their looting from shame. You know all of this. Why do you keep voting for them?

  • Tony||

    What the hell are you talking about?

    If politicians are breaking the law, of course I believe they should be held accountable. You're just vomiting up a bunch of vague nonsense though.

  • ||

    and "held accountable" is not vague nonsense?

  • sarcasmic||

    Is the choice to wear a seatbelt or helmet an economic freedom?

    Economic freedoms are personal freedoms, but when we're talking about freedom to do or not do things where money is not changing hands I have trouble calling that an economic freedom.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Sarcasmic,

    Is the choice to wear a seatbelt or helmet an economic freedom?

    Don't confuse economics with money. Economics is the science of choices, of human action.

    ALL choices are OBVIOUSLY personal as only persons (individuals) step on this planet - "collective" action or choice being much a mirage, a result of several persons making a similar choice. And ALL actions are ECONOMIC as people have to choose from several and contrary options.

  • .||

    Only "persons" step on this planet? You seemed to have forgotten that a corporation is a person.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's a pretty straw man.

    Your yard must have some nice seasonal decorations.

  • ||

    Getting your cotton picked is a basic right, I guess.

    Doesn't mean you get to hold people in slavery to do it.

  • ||

    "The bottom 10: Republic of Congo...Democratic Republic of Congo..."

    It really is a bipartisan problem.

  • Gimme a break?||

    Here's "economic freedom": "You can follow your dreams, express yourself, create a business, do whatever job you want. Government doesn't run labor markets, or plan what business you can open, or over-regulate you."

    So China ranks 140th in economic freedom and somehow their's is the second largest economy. Its presents a rather big paradox for libertarian theory. Economic liberty is neccessary for economic growth. That's clearly not always the case. (Let's not mention either how economic liberty and personal liberty are closely related yet often contradict each; that would just be too much.) For fucks sake though, don't think about it too much! John Stossel already did that for you. Just sit back, relax, and enjoy.

  • ||

    China ranks 140th in economic freedom and somehow their's is the second largest economy.

    How often is the fattest chick at the dance also the hottest one?

  • Thomas McElroy ||

    Did I ever tell you about the time I rode a moped... Yeah thats a good ride there. Tons of fun... Three fitty a ride...

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Just don't let your friends see you on 'er

  • ||

    Actually, the truth is fairly simple: China has a large population that works very cheap. It pours a lot of money into industry. Also, Macao. Hong Kong.

    Because of the lack of political freedoms and the shakiness of property rights there, continued economic growth without political turmoil is unlikely. Not to mention that China has a number of economic bubbles that are on the verge of bursting.

    In any case, India is far, far, far more likely to be the major economic power going forward.

  • Wesley||

    The problem with India's future is that most individuals aren't very free, not because of government oppression, but because of religious and family oppression. They have major cultural issues getting in the way of their economic growth. Cultural issues that will go away eventually, but it may be a long time.

  • ccs||

    +1

  • ||

    "Not to mention that China has a number of economic bubbles that are on the verge of bursting."

    Mmmm.. sweet 'n' sour sauce all over my face.. yes..

  • kinnath||

    China is a big economy because they have a billion little yellow hands making shit that Americans want to buy cheap.

    China is busy destroying its environment to meet America's demand for cheap goods. It is merely deferring the cost of regulations that American's have to cope with.

  • waffles ||

    USA, #1!

  • ccs||

    Don´t most Chinese have TWO hands?

  • Joe R.||

    Yeah, on a per capita basis, China is closer to 100th, depending on whose list you believe.

  • re-defiler||

    Gimme a break. Methinks you forgot to divide China's second largest economy figure by 1.5 Billion. I think that should clear up your confusion about economic growth and personal freedom. Also watch out for the big piece of obvious that's been wailing on the back of your head!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Who does YOUR "thinking for you", GAB?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Gimme a break?

    So China ranks 140th in economic freedom and somehow their's is the second largest economy. Its presents a rather big paradox for libertarian theory.

    No, it doesn't. Read Stossel's report again: The growing economic activity actually happens in the coastal areas, wheras inside China things are not so great.

    Let's not mention either how economic liberty and personal liberty are closely related yet often contradict each; that would just be too much.)

    Yeah, let's not talk about that because it is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Personal freedom and economic freedom are THE SAME, you cannot have one without the other as only INDIVIDUALS (i.e. persons, hence PERSONAL freedom) produce and exchange.

    You're an idiot, by the way, and not a very entertaining one at that.

  • sarcasmic||

    What about choosing who you have sex with (assuming no money changes hands). Is that personal freedom an economic freedom?

    I would argue that economic freedoms are a subset of personal freedoms.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Sarcasmic,

    What about choosing who you have sex with (assuming no money changes hands). Is that personal freedom an economic freedom?

    Don't confuse "economics" with "money." Economics is the science of human action, and clearly, having sex with a broad IS an economic act, as you have to choose from several competing options (like staying home watching the game, or having dinner, or having a beer with the guys, or whatever else one can do with 20 minutes...)

  • sarcasmic||

    What about being free from the use of force?
    Would you call that an economic freedom?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: sarcasmic,

    What about being free from the use of force?

    I don't understand the question - the use of force by whom?

  • sarcasmic||

    Does it matter?

  • Old Mexican||

    Of course it matters. If you mean can we be economically free if others are not free to use force against you, then the answer is YES, you are. If you ask if a person's USE OF FORCE is an example of his economic freedom, then it is NOT, since freedom precludes the need for force.

  • ||

    Or having a gold-digger girlfriend?

  • Gimme a break?||

    Ok, so Stossel did your thinking for you. No need to fact check. Just mindlessly repeat it.

    Consider this report from the People's Daily from July 27 of this year:

    "Most provinces and regions in China reported first-half gross domestic product (GDP) growth exceeding the national level, with less-developed central and western regions generally outperforming the nation's more economically advanced areas."

    Oh don't worry about whether that contradicts Stossel's claims. Stossel said, i believe it, that settles it!

  • Jordan||

    Regional government in China are under enormous pressure from the national government to cook the books. That's why there are entire vacant cities and massive bubbles on the verge of bursting, not to mention the fact that youth in large cities like Beijing and Shanghai are largely living off the savings of their parents. Check real estate prices in Beijing. The Chinese economy is a house of cards.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Gimme a break,

    "The People's Daily"?

    What's next, a quote from the Pyongyang Times?

  • Gimme a break?||

    Good grief:

    "Accelerated economic growth in the inland region. First, economic development is accelerating in the inland region, which has been outgrowing Eastern China since 2007. Particularly since the Lehman Brothers collapse, the inland region has been benefiting from government stimulus amounting to four trillion yuan, announced in November 2008."

    http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/china/10042801.html

    "The epicenter of the new growth is the country’s vast western expanse, rather than its eastern coastline."

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/0.....inese.html

    "The Western Regions {of China} will become an increasingly important part of China's economic development."

    http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk.....growth.pdf

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Gimme a Break,

    Particularly since the Lehman Brothers collapse, the inland region has been benefiting from government stimulus amounting to four trillion yuan, announced in November 2008.

    World - meet another HALFWIT that thinks government spending equates to economic progress.

    Finally, I understand where you're coming from, GAB.

  • Gimme a break?||

    No you don't understand, and you are in a serious state of denial. Economic growth in China is being fueled by government policy and government spending, in the form of stimulus, not the free-market. This is a fact directly contradicts libertarian thinking. Why don't you peddle your libertarian fairy tales to the "half-wits" in Beijing. They'll laugh at you.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Well of course, everyone thinks the bubble is great when it's being expanded by the government, but the second it bursts they'll be blaming those evil(western?) capitalists faster than your flop sweat matriculates. Japan's been pumping worthless cash into their system for 20 years, and all they have to show for it is 20 years of stagnation, virtually no savings, and the most expensive hookers on the planet.

  • The Gobbler||

    And those hookers are worth every yen.

  • Jordan||

    I'll bet you were one of the Keynesian clowns parroting the exact same line about our housing bubble. Whoops!

  • Libertarian douche||

    MAGIC FREEDOM RAYS! WE HAVE THEY DON'T!

  • Pravda||

    It's a toss-up, Viejo, one's as good as the next.

  • Joe R.||

    I said it before, but there are 1.2-1.5 billion people in China, depending on whom you believe. Their GDP per capita puts them at about 100th worldwide, with fiscal neighbors like Algeria, Albania, Guyana, and the Ukraine.

  • andrew||

    "No, it doesn't. Read Stossel's report again: The growing economic activity actually happens in the coastal areas, wheras inside China things are not so great."

    this is an old, old misperception. Stossel is about 20 years behind reality, if he's really believing this line. it's not all about Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Shenzhen anymore. that was 1990.

    cities throughout China are growing at a completely unheard of pace relative to what we know in the west. believe it or not most of these cities are not "coastal city states". this is such a backwards point of view it's embarrassing.

    Xi'an isn't on the coasts; Chengdu and Chongqing aren't on the coasts; Hefei, Changsha, Harbin, Changchun, etc. etc. - all big cities with large modern, educated workforces (and many more peasants), billion-dollar corporations, millionaires and billionaires, construction on infrastructure and industry happening *every single day of the year*.

    the fact that it's all under the ultimate supervision of the communist chinese government is another thing altogether - just because these cities and provinces are growing and becoming wealthier and wealthier doesn't mean they're "economically free" by the Heritage Foundation's - or John Stossel's - definition. a definitional problem? it isn't economic growth if you don't want to call it that?

  • re-defiler||

    1.5 Billion is a really big number, try counting that high, then rethink or maybe just think. How many cities and town are in China? Congratulations that you've named 5 of them. You know, whine and volume does not help a crappy counter-arguement.

  • Gimme a break?||

    What the fuck is wrong with you people? Can you just not handle reality? Stossel made a serious factual error when he discussed China. Its been refuted several times already; what do you want Andrew to do name each and every single fucking city, all with their respective GDP rates, before you get it? If he did that, you would say, "Well its not really the cities that matter. Its individuals. Come back to me with the personal incomes of all 1.3 Billion Chinese, then we'll see." Stossel mentions one city. One! And thats just from one guy at the Heritage foundation, a think-tank, or more properly a propaganda tank that gets paid to say what their sponsers want to hear but make it look like actual research.

    So one guy mentions one city, and you'll believe it, because they told you want you wanted to hear. Suddenly though someone brings some facts into the debate that challenge your ideology and you suddenly want him to write a book before you'll believe anything. "Free minds, free markets" my ass. For a group that stresses individuality, Libertarians are just as prone to group think as any Chicom waving around Mao's little red book ever was.

  • andrew||

    knowing something about China should, just maybe, be a requirement for making claims regarding China. making incorrect claims about China, in Stossel's case, probably boils down to not knowing what he's talking about - or knowing and deluding himself. you might consider that you have the same problem.

    China is big and complicated. I'm only arguing against the completely wrong notion that it's "rich coasts and poor mainland", which honestly is ignorant, and makes Stossel sound like he hasn't noticed *anything* that's happened over there in the past 20+ years.

  • ||

    China's is the second largest economy because they have a huge fucking population, you fucking moron.

    On GDP per capita they don't look so good.

  • ||

    a huge fucking population, you fucking moron

    It's a fucking problem, literally.

  • Gimme a break?||

    "If China’s average national income continues to rise at an annual rate of 8%, the country’s per capita income will reach $8,500 by 2020 and will touch the $20,000 mark by 2030. Hence, China’s average per capita income will exceed the current income of Taiwan and Korea and the country will qualify for an OECD membership."

    http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/china/income.html

    That's right. The GDP growth is not only due to population growth. Per capita GDP is increasing as well. That's right, the standard of living in rising as well all without our beloved freedom and democracy. This is why China will never become a democracy. Who needs democracy when you can buy more and more shiny widgets under a dictatorship?

  • Jordan||

    That's one gigantic "If" in the first sentence.

  • Joe R.||

    Here's my quote from that same article: "If[.]"

    There are plenty of people who think it won't, for reasons listed above. Also, even if it gets to $20k, that just gets them into the top 50 worldwide.

    I am curious to see where a mature fascism leads them, but I will be surprised if the current trends continue indefinitely.

  • waffles ||

    Also won't wealthier people be harder to control, and want more freedom? I imagine the great cyberwall of china and other such totalitarian nonsense will be harder to maintain with a wealthier worldier population.

  • T||

    If this line stays straight, look what happens!

    Assuming current trends will hold steady over a decade is a fool's game in any area.

  • Nephilium||

    Obligatory XKCD.

  • andrew||

    if you separate out the peasants from the mix, Chinese GDP per capita is basically equivalent with ROK or Taiwan - and there's about 200,000,000 of them. it's the 300,000,000 peasants making next to nothing and living off state land, and the 800,000,000 laborers in between that bring down the total figure.

    and, these *are* different populations within china, separated by social, economic, and legal chasms. it makes sense to separate them conceptually as well. they aren't just 1.3+ billion "yellow hands making cheap shit", which is hopelessly ignorant (and the kind of statement that keeps cropping up here).

  • Michael||

    And by 2050 they'll all have a million dollars! They'll be millionaires! Then they could buy a million things! And then they'll make a million things for us to buy! Because we'll all be millionaires that can buy a million things! We'll have a million dollars!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "our beloved freedom and democracy"

    Not hard to tell how much regard you have for those concept, eh, GAB...

  • ||

    That was to Gimme a break?|10.14.10 @ 1:11PM|

    Stupid threaded comments.

  • ||

    Still managed to fuck it up.

    Who's the moran, ha ha.

  • ||

    It's moron, moron.

  • ||

    I don't understand why John Stossel would be perplexed that France ranks behind Latvia in economic freedom. It seems many of the former Soviet Bloc nations embraced economic liberty.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    The situation in at least Russia is that the people have de facto embraced extreme economic freedom but the law books tell another story hence the pervasive and required bribing.

  • ||

    But Latvia, Poland, Lithuania and Estonia are decidedly different than Russia, Georgia, Belarus and the like.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    no argument. I was merely pointing out my own empirical experience. Got none with those other countries.

  • MWG||

    Estonia's economy was built, in large part, based off a former prime minister's (Mart Laar) reading of Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.

  • ||

    France is an unmitigated fucking joke at this point.

    Canada may be up there in the list but here in Quebec, it's less free. Though I would like to know what they mean by "free." Here we have to pay for all sorts of bull shit permits and go through the state for so many things it's dizzying.

    Still. Overall. Yeah, Canada has done well but we can still do better.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    OldMexica, i luv ya but DAMN you have got to be the eassiest person to troll. Tony refuses to accept reality, let it go at that. My rule it two posts at most.

    TEH CHILDRENZ!

  • Chad||

    Three points:

    First: correlation isn't causation, and weak correlation is even less likely to be so.

    Second: GDP is an absolutely piss-poor standard to judge anything by. Anyone want to break a few windows?

    Third: Just because there is a correlation between two things, there is no certainty at all that there is correlation over all of (or the interesting parts of) the range over which they span. There probably is a pretty good correlation between access to food and health. That doesn't imply that we should be showering 400lb behemoths with donuts.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wow... an entire post devoid of soul, wit, or any mention of global warming.

    You're really off your game, Chad.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "Just because there is a correlation between two things, there is no certainty at all that there is correlation over all of (or the interesting parts of) the range over which they span."

    Wrong article.
    Say, when did you become an anthropo-G.W. denialist anyway?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hold on, I proudly denied G.W. twice... when he ran for president.

    Oh, um... that IS what you meant, right?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Yes, I was refering to Americapogenic Georgal Walkering

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, AGW. That shit. Almost forgot about it.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I feel so lonely.

  • ||

    Had to watch the penguins fall apart last week...

    I think fist had tickets.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I had tix for Saturday's loss. I just watched Thursday's loss on the Versus.

  • ||

    New episode?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    We're rich because we stoled it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So Stossel's show tonight is about how stupid people are?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I was joking when I said that but then a bunch of idiots said it

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Why is America rich?

    EXPLOITATIONSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

  • ||

    Oooh we're pee colored!

  • ||

    John you are a straight up racist. Damn!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's a republic.

  • ||

    I didn't know that Avon Barksdale taught at Colombia.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Democracy? Oh so We Voted to be rich.

  • ||

    Fiscal, prescient!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I knew it EEEEEEEEEEEEEXXXXXXXXXXXXPPPPPPPPPPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOTTTTTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Stop that.

  • ||

    Hey everybody it's the chick from Weird Science.

    Oh no he didn't play the slavery card!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I agree with Nicole Kidman.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I missed you guys

  • ||

    Platitudes make this country grrreat!

  • ||

    We must give people money so that they can tighten their belts, hmm, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Wow, Hill is a highly educated (I assume) idiot.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Why would sweater shops be considered slavery?

  • ||

    Sweaters are hot, and the ones with snowflakes on them are dehumanizing to the wearer.

  • ||

    Dang dude, all you got is exploitation and slavery = broken record weak sauce.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    People work at sweatshops at the point of a gun?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Why not.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Actually, they're prevented from working at sweatshops at the point of a gun.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Fuck! I never thought of it that way. That's messed up.

  • ||

    Hedley...what the mother fuck, am I right?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Coming up: Hoser-bashing!

  • ||

    Look up boys, that's more esses than you'll ever see again. Ain't she a beaute!

  • ||

    Jesse Ventura, next, and he's just asking questions here, can't he just ask these questions?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    HOW DO THEY KNOW THE FLU SEASON"S COMIN IF THEY AINT CAUSIN IT???!?!?!?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Harry Reid!!!

  • ||

    Shouldn't Antartica or the moon be first?

    Fuck canada, they are on my shit list after the past week.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "We intervened in the market."

    Who's this "we"? You have a turd in your pocket?

  • ||

    Nyet, it is a mouse gnawing on a turd, three truly is a crowd! hehe

  • ||

    Where is somalia, and also, why don't you fucking move there if you hate society so much....you will pay what you owe!!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    They must not have any resources in those places

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A judge is just a lawyer in a black moo-moo.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Nice

  • Fiscal Meth||

    You do it for the poor stupid

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Obama didn't buy everyone health insurance for himself!

  • ||

    Stossel is the king of hong kong wacky business ventures, and that is saying something.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Also they're afraid of tall people with thick mustaches

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Look how young Clinton-era John is!

  • ||

    47 million americans dead!!!GENOCIDEHATEIT!!!kill em!1!@23#!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So Bill Beach is a racist, right?

  • ||

    Goes without saying.

  • ||

    Ooooh, I hate the GREEEDYBANKERS more than those fucking mosque building ANCHORBABIES!

    Fuckin spittle time, yearrlsjelhaaaaaaa!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    What is it called when you kill a bunch of anchor babies? Genocide or infanticide?

  • ||

    It's called American exceptionalism, and don't you forget it, mac.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Tell the gum salesman there that he lives in an economically free country

  • ||

    Singaporean libertarians are always decrying the "war on gum",

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Stossel and his regulation pile. It's a fire hazard.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    So's the stache

  • ||

    nice.

  • ||

    Nobody wants to move the giant stack of rules in the studio, so John has to incorporate them into every episode.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If he would read those regs, he would see that it's illegal to have that much paper together in one place.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Actually it's against union rules to remove that much paper.

  • ||

    Hey, right wing populism, yay!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Spittle! CGI that out, will you, John?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    His book would be so big, Stossel would use it as a prop every other episode.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Voiceover work by Lowell from Wings. How far we've come.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Hi-def sunglasses? Wake me when they find a color lens that makes things 3D.

  • ||

    I was gonna say something, but the commercials don't seem to sync.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    What the crap? We see different commercials? No wonder this country's a mess.

  • ||

    Half time, do it...

  • ||

    Rich people want cash from me, fuck off I actually drink pbr, dennis.

  • ||

    the richest countries are colored pee.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    This guy hates poor people obviously

  • ||

    I like that guys accent, reminds me of home...and genocide.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Where's home? You sum kynna forner or sumpthin?

  • ||

    General Butt Naked's home is wherever he can bathe in the blood of babies! Also it is where the heart is...to chew on!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Growing up I had a priest with that accent. He's was okay. His homily was always short.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'm signing a petition to force Washington to teach Africa to fish.

  • ||

    The irish owe their prosperity, wait what?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Bono IS the biggest turd in the world

  • ||

    Black dude has lost weight, and stossel wasn't even nice enough to complement him...fucking loserdopeians.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I give money the correct way. I spend it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Help us, Queen Amidala, you're our only hope!

  • ||

    Someone needs to micro-loan this lady some sleeves.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I thought the hot chicks on this show were supposed to be stupid pieces of shit like mimi roth. The ladies on this episode are not even evil...good even

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    HFS! Child labor on the playground!

  • ||

    This episode won;t be complete without some shots of poor kids doing jenkem.

    Go ahead, google "jenkem"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I always wondered why I got a contact high from taking a dump.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Cue the Star Trek fight music!

  • ||

    Stossel is in the pocket of big eye surgery.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    No he's a shill for BIG Lap Bands

  • ||

    Audience!!!

  • ||

    I have a question for Avon Barksdale:

  • ||

    And harry reid, also the chick from Weird Science.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I think she was married to Steven Segal.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I knew he wasn't going to concede the premise.

  • ||

    Couldn't you give your money to charity if you want less of it?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Hill is willing to pay more taxes. He would also willingly make you pay more taxes.

  • ||

    How charitable of him.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Woofcry would be a good band name

  • ||

    You're white, you cannot be expoloited.

    And fiscal in three, two,...

  • Fiscal Meth||

    FUCKYOuREVERSERACISMSSSSSSSSS

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    John cut off the applause that "consent" guy was going to get.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    WE we we we we we we we w ew ew we er we w e we we we w ew e we w e we we w ew e w e w e

  • ||

    When she said Mark's it sounded like Marx...intentional?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Mob rule on living wage threshold!

  • ||

    Facebook, so hip...do you tweet?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Of course I tweak. Have we met?

  • ||

    Bottom line, my brother Harry is full of jenkem.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    King Kanut should order every one to get a living wage

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Exasperation has set in with Sally. Hill, as an academic, has the luxury of planning his ideal in that real world vacuum.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Real World? Which season?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I knew he looked familiar.

  • ||

    "If we just set the parameters and get the right people to implement the policy in conjuction with community leaders we can...

  • Fiscal Meth||

    It's no fair if you get a teleprompter

  • ||

    Oh, that's no telepromter, that's pure bullshit. And, I'm damn good at it. I won't have you or anyone else take that away from me.

  • ||

    not chewing gum? Is that it?

  • ||

    Again, with the rules.

  • ||

    he should burn those fuckers on the season finale.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Hong Kong is Iraq? How existential.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Isn't that a Yoko Ono song?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You're a Yoko Ono song. Wrap your head around that.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Hey!! Don't call him a lady'conomist!!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Again with 1999. How did Stossel globetrot without that fancy 2009 golf cart of his?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    They stole Stache's paper!!

  • ||

    Do people in calcutta actually get permits? I sure as hell wouldn't, there is now way that they have the people to find every business.

  • ||

    The Rules!!!

  • ||

    They're telling you what you want to hear, loserdopeian!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Random old guy on the street for President please

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Those people are tourists. The people at the beginning of the show were native New Yorkers.

  • ||

    Yeah, buddy 'merica is gots money cause of da uniooons givin a guy a chance to make a livin...go local 187!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Always Sunny ya gibronies!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    FX cut the feed to Dish Network, so no Sunny for me.

    Until I download it later.

  • ||

    Wow, border/drug war bullshit right after stossel...just piss on the man, won't you!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Has Stossel taken on the WoD yet? You would think I'd remember an episode like that.

  • ||

    I looked for a episode index but couldn't find one. So right now I am going to just say no, there has not been a wod episode.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Ew. Ewwww ewwwwwww.

    Hey, Google "Yoko Ono Alarm"... see wha'happens.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Effective alarms

  • Kevin Carson||

    The "economic freedom" metric itself is suspect for being too neoliberal. It focuses on a narrow range of "free market" standards that are amenable to corporate power, without looking much at the forms of state intervention that are most centrally important to corporate power.

    For example, by any valid measure of economic freedom, the passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act would have been considered an upward spike in statism and protectionism unequalled (at least) since Smoot-Hawley.

  • Slater||

    Sorry guys, economic and social freedoms correlate but they do not equate each other. As I've highlighted in a post earlier, I live in Singapore. Which we know of as #2 on this list. Would it rank so high on a social freedom index? not likely. I've been a resident and business owner in Singapore for the last 3 years. It is incredibly easy to open and run a business. Easier than any other country in the world. Social freedoms aren't as nice, it would not make #2 in a social freedom index - but upon saying that, it is NOT a police state. There are only a small amount of things that are illegal here that aren't also illegal in the US. Or at least any number of states. Its infamous punishment, caning, is crude and barbaric in my opinion. Odds are that is what you know Singapore for (see also: The michael fay incident) I won't deny this. But Danny, apparently only interested in trolling, has no argument. Danny, as I've said before, before making a completely juvenile "argument" about this place, perhaps you should save up some money in your piggy bank and visit. Cad.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Danny is a useless twit. He should slither back to DemocraticUnderground where he belongs.

  • ||

    Canadians beat you on every measure of freedom, except maybe one.

  • A true-blooded libertarian||

    I can't wait to bring back the free market. Maybe I should open a business and hire people at $.07 a year and threaten to kill anyone that tries to leave. I should also charge thousands of dollars for a produce that most people can sell for 20 dollars and kidnap people and force them to buy my crap. And if anyone tries to take me out, I can send my employees to kill them and burn their building down. Hey, I'm working in my own self interest, so those evil socialist laws don't apply to me, right?

  • Jake||

    Yes, that's me above and that's what I think whenever people want to "free the market".

  • nike shoes UK||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement