By James Shott
Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland,
Canada, Chile, Mauritius, and Denmark all beat the United States in the 2013
Index of Economic Freedom. The U.S., part of a group of countries termed
"mostly free," scored 76.0 out of 100, dropping .3 from last year,
compared with 89.3 for Hong Kong. The world average score of 59.6 is only .1
above the 2012 average. All free economies averaged 84.5, well above the U.S. ranking.
The Index is produced by The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, and is based
on Adam Smith's theory expressed in The
Wealth of Nations in 1776. It covers 10 freedoms scored from 1 to 100, from
property rights to entrepreneurship, for 185 countries, and has been published
since 1995.
Economic freedom is defined as "the fundamental right
of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically
free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any
way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and
unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow
labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or
constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain
liberty itself." That definition applies less to the U.S. each year.
The U.S. has lost economic freedom
for five consecutive years and suffered losses in the categories of monetary
freedom, business freedom, labor freedom, and fiscal freedom. The U.S. did post
an increase in one category, however: government spending, in which it scored
lowest of the ten categories.
The poor U.S. position, the lowest Index score since 2000,
is due to rapid expansion of federal policies, which have encroached on the
states' ability to control their own economic decisions. The authors
specifically mentioned the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial
bill as having strong negative influences on economic freedom. They also noted
that national spending rose to over 25 percent of GDP in 2010, that public debt
passed 100 percent of GDP in 2011, and that budget deficits have exceeded $1
trillion each year since 2009.
"More than three years after the end of the recession
in June 2009, the U.S. continues to suffer from policy choices that have led to
the slowest recovery in 70 years," the authors wrote. "Businesses
remain in a holding pattern, and unemployment is close to 8 percent."
Until government stops trying to regulate nearly every facet
of life, its tinkering will continue to slow the economy and prolong suffering,
and we will continue to fall in the Index of Economic Freedom.
* * * * * * *
The decision to put women in up-front combat roles is
troubling, to say the least, perhaps more so to those of us who grew up and
served in times when women played important roles in the military, but were not
directly involved in combat, or even close to combat.
Fortunately, only a relative few females have been injured
and killed in recent military actions, but if this decision stands those
numbers will grow, and that prospect is a quite traumatic one for many
Americans, and completely unacceptable for many others.
The critical factor in determining whether any group or
individual serves in a combat situation is whether they are up to the daunting
challenges that exist. Requirements for who fills combat roles must be
maintained at levels that guarantee that every person in a combat role is up to
it, man, woman, gay, straight or whatever.
There are also practical considerations when males and
females are in combat situations in close proximity. Troops are often in
sustained operations for extended periods, and living conditions offer no
privacy for personal hygiene functions or sleeping. Finding ways to provide
needed privacy during high stress and dangerous operations may very well put
troops at greater risk. That is not acceptable.
A convincing argument against this is that the decision was
made for the wrong reasons: it was driven by political and social
considerations, not military need, according to Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, US Army
(Ret.), who served for 36 years as an original member of the Delta Force and a
Green Berets commander.
Some women believe that their chances of career advancement
within the military suffer from being excluded from ground combat positions.
And predictably, the American Civil Liberties Union, which frequently takes
positions that make no sense in the practical world, agrees and has filed a
lawsuit on their behalf.
The safety of our military personnel must not be put at
risk in return for achieving some politically correct sense of fairness or even
to allow female military personnel access to the career advantages that are
available to males, as unfair as that may be. Fairness and equality sometimes
must take a back seat.
Despite the strong desires of many Americans, men and women
are by nature different biological creatures and distinctly not equal in
important ways, one of which is that men are better suited to military combat
than women. We shouldn’t
fool with Mother Nature.
Cross-posted from Observations
No comments:
Post a Comment