Economic Liberty

It has come to my attention that different people have different ideas on economic freedom.  The chief aspect of this disagreement involves the treatment of labor unions.  What one side calls the right to organize interferes with what the other, my own side, calls the right to work.  I think I might provide some service if I make a few points about the nature of the disagreement.

In order for workers to be said to have the right to organize, it is not sufficient for the government and employers to abstain from any activities that would physically prevent them from doing so.  The absence of threats of fine or imprisonment doesn't go far enough either.  Employers must be prevented from firing workers who organize or go on strike, and hiring replacement workers.  Union workers must be able to collectively prevent employers from forming independent agreements with non-union workers at a rate that is agreeable to both those workers and the employers.  That is, an agreement in restraint of trade is to be upheld by the government, when under other conditions such agreements are held to be illegal.

Some people support this point of view because they believe that it will result in higher wages and better working conditions overall.  It is acceptable to argue that this is the case and to attempt to provide evidence in favor of this point of view.  What I find objectionable is when people argue that capitalist principles have been created out of whole cloth.  This is not true, they are the consistent application of the principles of property rights and free exchange.  You may, if you wish, disagree with these principles, but you cannot prevent their supporters from making their arguments and attempting to provide evidence that supports their point of view simply because they have a different view of what constitutes liberty than your own.

In order to present a valid argument against the concept of economic liberty as seen by the advocates of capitalism, it would be necessary to point out that the way it was being defined for an empirical study was inconsistent with basic capitalistic principles.  That is, you must show not only that it violates your idea of liberty, but that it is an attempt to use dishonest means to advocate capitalism by evaluating countries on the basis of conformity to one set of standards and then using the results to support the imposition of some other standard.

This is not the case.  The standards used by the Economic Freedom of the World report are indeed those that measure conformity to capitalistic standards.  It would make very little sense for them to falsely report which countries were in closer conformity with these principles since doing so would prevent supporters of these principles from determining which countries were doing a better job at following them.  The report provides evidence that economic freedom, as defined by capitalists, leads to economic growth, improves standards of living and doesn't cause inequality.

If opponents of capitalism want to present a strong argument against this, they should come up with their own set of standards for evaluating economies, and use this to show that the policies that they advocate produce prosperity or equality and don't lead to economic stagnation.  I suspect they will be unable to do so.  That's why I advocate capitalism.