Economic freedom and human rights

Freedom House, a New York-based organization, released its annual survey of 193 nations this week, reporting 90 countries around the world currently respect a broad array of basic human rights and political freedom, while 103 countries fail to do so, at least in some degree.

The eight countries judged to have the most repressive regimes were Cuba, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Two occupied territories, Chechnya and Tibet, "whose inhabitants suffer intense repression," were placed in the lowest category, as well -- though their current governments are, of course, not their own.

Within the bottom-rung eight countries and two territories "State control over daily life is pervasive and wide-ranging, independent organizations and political opposition are banned or suppressed and fear of retribution for independent thought and action is part of daily life," explained Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, in issuing the group's annual report.

Ranked only slightly better than "the worst of the worst" on human rights and political freedom were Belarus, Chad, China, Equitorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Zimbabwe as well as the Western Sahara territory of North Africa. These nation-sized prison camps severely suppress opposition political activity, impede independent organizing and censor or punish criticism of the state, Ms. Windsor said.

It's interesting to compare this rogues' gallery to the rankings independently compiled by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal in their 2008 annual Index of Economic Freedom, which seeks to measure "the ability of ordinary citizens to make economic decisions on their own. It includes the freedom to choose a job, start a business, work where one chooses, borrow money, and use a credit card. It ranges from buying a house to having a choice in health care, from being fairly taxed to being treated justly by the courts."

The Index of Economic Freedom gives its highest rankings to Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, Australia and the United States, in that order, while its dirty dozen -- the nations that provide their residents the least economic freedom -- are (you'll never guess) North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Libya, Burma (Myanmar), Turkmenistan, Iran, Belarus, Bangladesh, Venezuela, Guineau-Bissau, and the Republic of the Congo.

The Heritage folks didn't even rank Somalia and Sudan, in their slightly smaller listings of 157 nations.

Thus, the only nation which stands out with a fairly high ranking on economic freedom (62.8 percent for a 60th-place ranking of "moderately free," tied with Belize and Mongolia and slightly outranking Italy) yet an abysmal report on human rights is Saudi Arabia, an interesting anomaly possibly explained by a hierarchical regime where the de facto freedoms of male citizens far exceed those of women and "guest workers."

With that interesting exception, however, the parallels are unmistakable: Countries that allow little economic freedom also end up near the bottom of the list for human rights and political freedom.

Nor should this be terribly counterintuitive. The forces of "Progressivism" keep insisting there can be some form of more "benign" redistributive kleptocracy. But in real life, people aren't likely to hand the bulk of their income to the state -- let alone give up their right to lend, borrow, hire or take a job of their choice -- until a guy with a gun shows up and convinces them those freedoms are gone.

Economic freedom rewards people for their hard work, elevating standards of living and leading to expectations for improved human rights and political freedom, as well. The notion that the state can (or ever really will) deliver one type of freedom ("free medical care"?) while still withholding the others is a cynical sham.

Just ask the cheerful folk of China (126th), Russia (134th), Iran (151st), Cuba (156th), or North Korea (dead last on the Economic Freedom scale, at 157).