Does Economic Freedom Foster Tolerance?

[Frodo]

The black sharecroppers of the South beg to differ with you.   

[Redalgo]

Both you and Redalgo seem to misunderstand the way regression analysis is used. No one is claiming that economic freedom determines tolerance. There is hardly any such relation existing  in any social science.

In all honesty, regression analysis is a completely unfamiliar concept to me and I had not read every post (much less the articles posted) before offering some thoughts. That is just how I often do this when my supply of time is running short. I agree with you concerning your final remark, but at the time was intuitively (and irrationally) convinced that this thread was about establishing that a high measure of personal autonomy from state regulation and extensive private property rights are necessary for pluralism or multiculturalism to take root in a society, and in the process further imply that only liberal democracies embracing laissez-faire capitalism can become or remain "free societies" over long periods of time. Past experiences have taught me how to react and respond when hackish intent is perceived without me even having to think about it for a strong opinion and slipshod rebuttal to swiftly develop. Alas, at times I succumb to prejudice and entrenched biases!

I wish there was something more useful or intelligent for me to chip in but for the moment I am holding a pretty bad hand today and am content to observe your exchange with the others. xD

[MustCrushCapitalism]

The phrase economic freedom, in the context of market freedom, as right-wingers like to call it, is as meaningless as the phrase "freedom to own slaves".

And no, it doesn't. The arguments for that idea aren't particularly strong.

[Gustaf]

'Economic Freedom' is a piece of political language and a statement about values and so on, and so is not a useful description of anything. 'Tolerance' is also not exactly an objective concept. Which makes this a project like this - no matter how many factors are 'controlled' for - a hilarious waste of time and other resources. The logic isn't so very far off some of the less edifying Marxist approaches to social sciences popular in the 1970s...

Well, that's another line of attack, of course. But you'd have to specifically argue that the variables they use do not reflect those things. I think they seem like decent enough proxies for what I would mean by those terms. What do you disagree with precisely?

Gully, the point is to find whether economic freedom (as defined in this study) leads to more tolerance. Why wouldn't that be worthwhile? If it isn't, do you think all social science is worthless because it can't establish causal relationships that are 100% determined?

No; don't be silly. Though I will say again that I don't believe in social "science". However, are you seriously suggesting that "freedom" is a measurable concept? (And please no strawmen-type responses). Especially "Economic freedom"? Nonsense.

If you're not talking about economic freedom as defined in the study your whole point seems quite irrelevant, wouldn't you say? If it is merely that something else that you might call something else didn't have that effect, well...

No. It's meaningless nonsense. And meaningless ideological nonsense at that.

The mechanism they describe is one of increased contact with other people. That would take time to have an effect, especially to alter values that are deep-rooted. You also would have to consider other factors, of course.

How is that an effect of economic freedom? And btw, here lets not forget the first great example of cross-continental oceanic trade (clearly this brought a great deal of tolerance to the world).

You can't seriously argue that social sciences must assume that intentions are all that matter??? Like, if I say the actions of the Catholic church helped cause the Reformation, would it be a valid counter-argument to say that the Catholic church did not want the reformation to happen?

That is a completely and utterly absurd analogy. That is Libertas' level of debating. You surely see the difference between an ideologically driven movement and the accidental consequences of such a movement?

This is even worse, actually, because the gay rights movement got nothing to do with their mechanism. Your observation does in no way contradict their model. Do you see that?

And I'm saying your mechanism is a lot of balls. Give me reasons telling me why it isn't?

Eh. You don't come off as being interested in serious debate if you're going to hold up slave-trade as a relevant point.

I have to conclude that you either are trying to troll me or have no idea what this is about.

If you want to call the independent variable used in this regression something other than economic freedom, propose an alternative name. It is a largely insubstantial point and I get the impression that you're pushing that point simply because you couldn't be bothered to read beyond the headline. The things referred to here as economic freedom are real and important and discussing them is a good thing, regardless of what you want to call it.

It's not my mechanism, it's the mechanism of the paper. You have not yet offered any criticism of the mechanism (nor even demonstrating that you've actually understood it) so I don't think there is any need to defend it yet - there is, after all, an actual paper doing that already.

There is a difference between a movement and the consequences of it, yes. That was my point. Your argument seemed to be that if group A wants X, it is impossible for X to be caused by things that A dislikes. If I want ice-cream but I dislike black people it is impossible for ice-cream to be produced by black people. That is such a deluded way of thinking that I'm not entirely sure what to make of it.

I guess if you're claiming that things can only happen as intended outcomes caused by rational, deliberate action from human beings I guess that makes sense, but I didn't think anyone (least of all you) believed that.

If you want another analogy, how about industrialism helped give rise to socialism, yet socialists didn't like industrialists?

[Gustaf]

The phrase economic freedom, in the context of market freedom, as right-wingers like to call it, is as meaningless as the phrase "freedom to own slaves".

And no, it doesn't. The arguments for that idea aren't particularly strong.

I think you'll find that just saying that doesn't actually make it so. Can you construct an actual argument?

[Progressive Realist]

I would argue that such values as individualism, egalitarianism, and pluralism foster "tolerance" more so than "economic freedom."

[Gustaf]

You mean that if people are tolerant they are more tolerant? That's probably true but a tad trivial.

[freefair]

Economic choice provided by market mechanisms fosters an acceptance or social and moral choice.
To put it simply.

[Insula Dei]

'Economic Freedom' = Wealth? (In which case, and excuse the ProgRock reference,: 'You who are rich and whose troubles are few/May come around to my point of view.')

Obviously Free Markets don't necessarily foster tolerance. If anything the way anti-immigrant sentiments and a certain brand of right-wing neoliberal politics have been converging in certain parts of Europe should show that the idea is nonsensical.

[Jack Vance RIP]

'Economic Freedom' = Wealth? (In which case, and excuse the ProgRock reference,: 'You who are rich and whose troubles are few/May come around to my point of view.')

Obviously Free Markets don't necessarily foster tolerance. If anything the way anti-immigrant sentiments and a certain brand of right-wing neoliberal politics have been converging in certain parts of Europe should show that the idea is nonsensical.

No need to apologize. This forum needs more prog rock references.

Of course the fact that your post was absolutely correct is another reason not to apologize.

[Vasall des Midas]

Do more market oriented economies have anything to do with our values when it comes to tolerance?An academic ran a regression analysis, and found that it appears to - at least when it comes to homosexuals.

Ah. Interesting caveat that, since what's the difference between homosexuals and all the other traditionally discriminated minorities? Ah.

[Gustaf]

'Economic Freedom' = Wealth? (In which case, and excuse the ProgRock reference,: 'You who are rich and whose troubles are few/May come around to my point of view.')

Obviously Free Markets don't necessarily foster tolerance. If anything the way anti-immigrant sentiments and a certain brand of right-wing neoliberal politics have been converging in certain parts of Europe should show that the idea is nonsensical.

No need to apologize. This forum needs more prog rock references.

Of course the fact that your post was absolutely correct is another reason not to apologize.

I don't get how you can criticize the term without reading the article? It doesn't equal wealth.

And that anti-immigrant parties sometimes have right-wing views on economics does not show that the idea is nonsensical. Does no one here understand regression analysis?

[Progressive Realist]

I would also argue, actually, that the the neo-liberal "globalization" of economic markets creates conditions that foster inequality, divisiveness, suspicion, xenophobia, an increase in religious bigotry, ethnic clashes, and other oh-so-wonderful things.

This is more evident when you consider that conditions for the poor and working classes of much of the world have not improved, but have overall deteriorated since the age of globalization, deregulation, and privatization began.

But hey, a small portion of the world's population have improved their standing enormously, so it's all good, right?

[Torie]

I would also argue, actually, that the the neo-liberal "globalization" of economic markets creates conditions that foster inequality, divisiveness, suspicion, xenophobia, an increase in religious bigotry, ethnic clashes, and other oh-so-wonderful things.

This is more evident when you consider that conditions for the poor and working classes of much of the world have not improved, but have overall deteriorated since the age of globalization, deregulation, and privatization began.

But hey, a small portion of the world's population have improved their standing enormously, so it's all good, right?

Vast swathes of the globe have improved their standard of living dramatically in the last 30 years, including most of Latin America, China, Southeast Asia and India, which is more than half the world's population right there. In fact, the transition has been simply amazing, along with the dramatically falling fertility rates, which go in tandem with it all typically these days.

[Gustaf]

I would also argue, actually, that the the neo-liberal "globalization" of economic markets creates conditions that foster inequality, divisiveness, suspicion, xenophobia, an increase in religious bigotry, ethnic clashes, and other oh-so-wonderful things.

This is more evident when you consider that conditions for the poor and working classes of much of the world have not improved, but have overall deteriorated since the age of globalization, deregulation, and privatization began.

But hey, a small portion of the world's population have improved their standing enormously, so it's all good, right?

The first paragraph is precisely what the paper seems to disprove. The second paragraph is false and indicates that you haven't followed economic history very much (if at all). It's also quite horrid that you want to condemn millions upon millions of poor people in the world to go back to starvation just because you were too intellectually lazy to look up how they actually live.

The third paragraph is technically true though, I suppose.

[Jack Vance RIP]

I would also argue, actually, that the the neo-liberal "globalization" of economic markets creates conditions that foster inequality, divisiveness, suspicion, xenophobia, an increase in religious bigotry, ethnic clashes, and other oh-so-wonderful things.

This is more evident when you consider that conditions for the poor and working classes of much of the world have not improved, but have overall deteriorated since the age of globalization, deregulation, and privatization began.

But hey, a small portion of the world's population have improved their standing enormously, so it's all good, right?

Vast swathes of the globe have improved their standard of living dramatically in the last 30 years, including most of Latin America, China, Southeast Asia and India, which is more than half the world's population right there. In fact, the transition has been simply amazing, along with the dramatically falling fertility rates, which go in tandem with it all typically these days.

Last 60 years really.

[Politico]

Economic freedom leads to market diversity as opposed to government conformity. It should come as no surprise that market diversity, in turn, tends to produce greater social diversity.

The world's ecological system is incredibly diverse, but not without its problems. Likewise, the world's economic system is incredibly diverse, but not without its problems. In both cases, you need to largely let things work them self out rather than trying to control forces of nature (human nature in the case of economics).

[Progressive Realist]

I love right-wing technocratic attempts to be "scientific" about "free markets"-specifically in trying to objectively prove that "free markets" are superior to anything and everything else.

[Gustaf]

I love right-wing technocratic attempts to be "scientific" about "free markets"-specifically in trying to objectively prove that "free markets" are superior to anything and everything else.

Be my guest and disprove it.

[opebo]

Vast swathes of the globe have improved their standard of living dramatically in the last 30 years, including most of Latin America, China, Southeast Asia and India, which is more than half the world's population right there. In fact, the transition has been simply amazing, along with the dramatically falling fertility rates, which go in tandem with it all typically these days.

So?  Why on earth should an american electorate care one whit about that?

[Torie]

Vast swathes of the globe have improved their standard of living dramatically in the last 30 years, including most of Latin America, China, Southeast Asia and India, which is more than half the world's population right there. In fact, the transition has been simply amazing, along with the dramatically falling fertility rates, which go in tandem with it all typically these days.

So?  Why on earth should an american electorate care one whit about that?

What has that got to do with the price of potatoes?  Anyway, the "american electorate" should care about it if they have a clue about anything.

[Jack Vance RIP]

Vast swathes of the globe have improved their standard of living dramatically in the last 30 years, including most of Latin America, China, Southeast Asia and India, which is more than half the world's population right there. In fact, the transition has been simply amazing, along with the dramatically falling fertility rates, which go in tandem with it all typically these days.

So?  Why on earth should an american electorate care one whit about that?

What has that got to do with the price of potatoes?  Anyway, the "american electorate" should care about it if they have a clue about anything.

Why mention the last 30 years, Torie, as you damn well know that process has been happening for longer than that. (And in some of those places, thirty or twenty years was their modern economic nadir. See: Brazil's 80s Debt Crisis.

[opebo]

Vast swathes of the globe have improved their standard of living dramatically in the last 30 years, including most of Latin America, China, Southeast Asia and India, which is more than half the world's population right there. In fact, the transition has been simply amazing, along with the dramatically falling fertility rates, which go in tandem with it all typically these days.

So?  Why on earth should an american electorate care one whit about that?

What has that got to do with the price of potatoes?  Anyway, the "american electorate" should care about it if they have a clue about anything.

The point was, obliquely I'll admit, that the process you described was one of transferring a bit of income from a moderately well-paid working class (protected by the State), to one not so protected.  And naturally the vast majority of the savings realized by this transfer of work has gone to the top 0.1%.

[I Am Damo Suzuki]

Really, market economy does not imply necessarily tolerance or freedom. Look at China nowadays or Chile in the period 1973-1990. Both are fine examples of "free" market economy with horrible records in tolerance. In the first country we have a curious mix between the worst characteristics of capitalism and communism. Chile was an economic "experiment" sponsored by Milton Friedman and those Chicago Boys; everybody knows that freedom, in the actual meaning of the word, was out of question.

Another question is if a liberalization of the economy and the trade markets is good or bad. It's true that many countries around the world have improved, but the results are very different if we look at single economies. Compare Argentina under the "ultraliberal" Carlos Menem with Brazil under Lula. On the other hand macroeconomics is not always a good measuring system. Other socio-economic indicators like the Human Development Index must be kept in mind. It's well known that the Gulf countries are wealthy but not very good at tolerance. I suppose that they are "free" economies.

I think that tolerance (I prefer acceptance, but that doesn't matter) is related with social and economic development but not necessarily with concrete economic doctrines, at least not with Milton Friedman's.

[Gustaf]

Really, market economy does not imply necessarily tolerance or freedom. Look at China nowadays or Chile in the period 1973-1990. Both are fine examples of "free" market economy with horrible records in tolerance. In the first country we have a curious mix between the worst characteristics of capitalism and communism. Chile was an economic "experiment" sponsored by Milton Friedman and those Chicago Boys; everybody knows that freedom, in the actual meaning of the word, was out of question.

Another question is if a liberalization of the economy and the trade markets is good or bad. It's true that many countries around the world have improved, but the results are very different if we look at single economies. Compare Argentina under the "ultraliberal" Carlos Menem with Brazil under Lula. On the other hand macroeconomics is not always a good measuring system. Other socio-economic indicators like the Human Development Index must be kept in mind. It's well known that the Gulf countries are wealthy but not very good at tolerance. I suppose that they are "free" economies.

I think that tolerance (I prefer acceptance, but that doesn't matter) is related with social and economic development but not necessarily with concrete economic doctrines, at least not with Milton Friedman's.

Argh.

Does no one here understand how correlations work? Seriously, people.

"Black Americans are generally poorer than White Americans"

"Obama is not poor!"

I want to cry.

Also, China is not economically free. That left-wingers still claim this is bizarre. And Chile went dictatorship-->market economy-->democracy.

And Argentina has never pursued liberal policies. Looking up Menem he certainly does not seem to prove your point very convincingly.