I reflect a lot, on all kinds of things.
Before I respond to the substance of your suggestions, I’d like to address one aspect of your post, i. e., the implicit suggestion that because you are an engineer and I am a lawyer, your views and approach should be considered superior. According to you, an engineering degree endows an engineer versed in antenna theory with reasoning and logical powers far superior to those of a mere lawyer who studies history, politics, economics, etc.
Whatever.
Typically, the resort to an ad hominem argument such as the one you made is an implicit acknowledgment of defeat, a last resort. Those facts are utterly irrelevant because the arguments, whatever their source, are proof of their own merit, or lack thereof. Let’s stick to facts and arguments, shall we?
Substantively, your argument implies that economic freedoms exist in a vacuum, that they exist in isolation and are somehow self- sustaining. This cannot be more wrong.
Economic freedoms require the protection of civil liberties and a fair (not authoritarian) political system. Without these civil liberties and fairly enforced protections, markets can become distorted by authoritarian control and cronyism, not to mention ad hoc state intervention. The Chinese real estate market is a great example. But there are countless more examples. Imagine yourself a 1930s successful German Jewish entrepreneur who is free to ply his trade. He keeps his head down, as you would counsel him, remains friction-free. What good did his economic freedom or his silence, etc., do him in 1940 or 1941?
Political liberties ensure accountability, redress in the event of governmental overreaching and confidence. This is the main flaw in your argument.
But there are others. History shows that once political freedoms erode, economic ones often follow, as seen in countries that go through authoritarian shifts, a shift China seems to have undergone as the Deng era turns into the Xi dictatorship. These countries linger but they eventually fail as government and dictators make wrong decisions. And their citizens ( even the friction- free, heads down worker bees) suffer. Compare this to the long term success of the free Scandinavians, the USA, etc.
You might wish to read this.
democracyweb.org
In short, your arguments concerning the exclusive relevance of economic freedoms are not only wrong, they are egregiously wrong. It seems to be an after the fact justification for accepting what you are unable to challenge. |
