I cannot blame other people of their ideas towards the government.Its good that at least,they still have something to say and they realize the situation.If you are to define liberty,you will have different realization for that as well as when you ask other people.Liberty is the highest form of freedom.With regards to this article,one cannot escape the burden of taxation because it is our obligation to do it.One of the big things which governs income tax rates and tax theory generally in these United States is a thing called the Laffer Curve - which makes sense since it is a real laugher. It was made popular by Jude Wanniski, a crony of Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, and later, Reagan and Bush, and the argument goes that there's a midpoint of taxation rates which makes for optimal collection and use of tax funding.

To elaborate quickly on Rick's point, James Madison saw property rights and indivisible from all other rights. Or, as Madison himself put it: "As we have a right to our property, so we have property in our rights." Denigrate the former, undermine the latter.

Here's an excerpt from Madison's essay on property from 1792:

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

Just a guess here, but the other countries may score higher on the economic freedom index because, as Khabalox suggests, countries with universal health care spend less on health care. Why? Because government dictates how much shall be spent on medical treatments. And if the citizens want more, then that's where rationing kicks in.

As we've discussed here before, a major reason health care spending is much higher in the U.S. than it is in other nations is that 1) we're richer, so we have the freedom to dedicate a lower share of our disposable income to food/shelter/clothing and 2) our convoluted system of third-party payment shields most people from the actual amount of money spent on medical services and 3) so what? Spending more on health care is a good thing. It means -- yes -- we take care of our people and are willing to pay for it.

To take an extreme example, when Canadian provinces set their annual National Health Service budgets, that's how much will be spent on medical services. People who want expensive treatments for non-life-threatening conditions may face lenghty waits for care (if they can get it at all). Those who can afford to do so often come to the United States and pay for treatment from their own pockets. (We've linked to this stuff before, K, so don't ask. And the literature about waiting lists for routine care in Canada is voluminous, and readily available.)

Great! Medical care costs less in Canada! But does that mean health care is better, especially if you have chronic illnesses, or you want the latest life-saving (and often very expensive) cure?

Maybe not.

So in this case, this measure of economic freedom may not fully correlate with quality of life, which is more subjective.

I'm cribbing from an e-mail exchange between Monkeys Ben and Zaius and me.

I don't know whether to be flattered or creeped out that you guys talk about me and my ideas (and Joel's and crywalt's) behind my (our) back(s) in your echo chamber. :P

I just read K's reply on monolithic gov vs. corps. A revelatory admission!

Perhaps the subject of that post was too subtle for you? I see now that you did make the "monolithic corporations" plural, but isn't that a bit of a contradiction? If there are more than one, how are they monolithic? In any case, I keyed on the "monolithic" part - it didn't seem to me that you were offering the choice of a plethora of market-responsive corporations, each with a sliver of market-share, challenging each other in an arena of true competition. Likewise, and perhaps unfairly, I didn't take "monolithic government" to mean the stereotypical Orwellian dystopia, but rather one where we still had relatively free and fair elections.

Oh and this little nugget of nonsense:

the U.S. has decided that most of those who can't afford care simply won't get it.

Hogwash. What's Medicaid good for, then, if we're left with people not getting care. What good is the law that no emergency room can deny you care?

I find it humorous (in a dark way) that you accuse the "left" of misinformation, and then throw this up. I'm going to guess that this is Zaius because this is a good example of being technically and narrowly factual, but completely misleading and missing the point at the same time. I've provided plenty of statistics and studies showing how people on Medicare and private insurance delay or do not get coverage due to cost, not to mention the thousands of people with no insurance at all that don't go to the ER every time they get sick.

I do have a question for any and all of you though. I would appreciate a direct answer, if you can manage. "Do you think that treating uninsured people in Emergency Rooms is a sound (medically, financially, etc.) policy?"

And what of this?

In Britain and Canada, only about 6% of respondents reported that costs had limited their access to care.

Why isn't that 0 percent, since they have universal care? I thought those systems took all the cost concerns out of it.

Oh no, you spotted the flaw in the system *rolls eyes*. I mean, really, this isn't even good sarcasm. You guys can do better than that. Maybe there is a reason that most comedians are liberal - conservatives just aren't that funny.

I'm not sure I understand this completely. Are you saying that quality of life is better in the US? Are you aware that we have a lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than most countries with UHC?

Move then, you ingrate! How big is the average house or apartment in France? How many vehicles does the typical family have? What is their average salary? How many TVs do they have?

Atrios Alert!!! Why does my asking for clarification of your point warrant calling me an ingrate, implying that I don't love our country? Are you so bereft of salient points that you have to stoop to name calling? Sad sad sad. You said:

So in this case, this measure of economic freedom may not fully correlate with quality of life, which is more subjective.

And I asked (snarkily), "Well, what do you mean 'quality of life'? Based on basic measures of health, we do worse than those with 'UHC'." Ok, so you take quantity (and presumably quality) of possessions into account to, which is fair. Personally, I don't put as much weight on material things as I do on health and family, but hey, to each his own. I would just say that what good is that house or TV if you are sick or dead? But to address your points: I'm sure the disparity in house size has a lot to do with our lower population density (and probably more relaxed building regulations vis a vis historical buildings); We in the US do enjoy higher income on average, but given our extremely high Gini coefficient (45 per the CIA - the only country on our radar that's higher is Hong Kong) indicates that our higher average income is in part due to extremely high income households distorting the picture somewhat. Vehicles: What is this, High School Geography? Do I need to explain how much better suited Europe, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong are for public mass transit? Perhaps those people freely choose not to own cars. How can you libertarians be against that??? (Ok, taking my tongue out of my cheek now :p)

The life-expectancy and infant mortality rates are easily explained by murder rates for subsets of young males, and the desire to try to deliver a baby and keep it alive than merely aborting it. This is so well known I can't believe the left even tries this nonsense anymore.

Really? Do you guys even bother to check your facts, or do you just parrot what you hear on Fox? Are you seriously asserting that infant mortality in the US is higher because of abortion? Do you even know how infant mortality is calculated? Ben, are you sure you want to be tangentially related to this drivel?

Life expectancy for whites at birth in the US is 78.3 years (table 26 of this pdf on page 218). Include all races and it falls by just 6 months, to 77.8. We (whites) are beaten by every Western European nation (well, we tie Denmark). France is 80.7, UK is 79.4, Singapore is 80 and Hong Kong is 82.2. (wikipedia). 2.5+ years might not seem like a lot to you, but you're a fool to argue that LE in the US is low because of high death rates of black males, and by such imply that white Americans live as long as their European counterparts.

Similarly, infant mortality for non-hispanic white women in the US is 5.66 per thousand. France, Spain and Belgium = 4.2; Canada, UK, Slovenia(!) = 4.8. Hong Kong = 3.7; Singapore = 3.0. Are you aware of Google and wikipedia? It doesn't seem so.

"The truth is that the common man's love of liberty, like his love of sense, justice, and truth, is almost wholly imaginary. ...[H]e is not actually happy when he is free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. He longs for the warm, reassuring smell of the herd, and is willing to take the herdsman with it.... The average man doesn't want to be free. He simply wants to be safe."

So I get lambasted for saying that Americans are not savvy to the details of the HCR bill, but then you turn around and quote Mencken saying that the common man is just a sheep. Who has a lower opinion of his fellow man now? And if the common man doesn't want to be free, but rather safe, who are you, Mr. Libertarian, to tell him otherwise?