Is it possible to measure freedom?

[BurgessLau]

Because there is no way to measure freeness, you cannot use it as a rational[e]for war (by war I mean one nation invading another).

[This sentence -- amended with square brackets -- comes from the "American Intentions in Iraq" thread, post 57, by johngalt1972.]

Can freedom be measured or not?

A few days ago I began wondering about this problem when I saw a news report -- citing Freedom House, I recall -- about Russia becoming less free during the last year. The report ranked various nations. That raised the question, how do these people go about measuring freedom? Then I saw the clear negative statement above.

Here is my attempt to answer, in the affirmative:

A measurement, in Objectivism, is "the identification of a relationship -- a quantitative relationship established by means of a standard that serves as a unit. Entities (and their actions) are measured by their attributes ...." (Ayn Rand, ITOE, 2nd edition, p. 7, but see the index for many references to "Measurement.")

("Quantitative" can include ordinal as well as cardinal measurements.)

A society is an entity (for the purposes of study -- see ITOE, p. 271). It has attributes. In the case of a society ruled by a state, one attribute is the freedom the state protects or limits.

Can that attribute be measured? If so, how?

I would suggest the approach should be a mixture. First is hierarchical and second is enumerative. One can first identify a hierarchy of rights, with three basic rights (life, liberty, and property) at the foundation, and other rights (such as a right to a fair and objective trial) being derivative from that base. Second is a count, such as: Two out of three basic rights violated? Seventeen derivative rights violated?

This approach is analogous to the process of measuring concepts of cognition. (See ITOE, p. 32.) There, one measures such concepts in two ways: "breadth," that is, scope of referents, and "depth," that is, hierarchical length of the conceptual chain required to reach that concept from its referents.

I am unsure of this approach. As always, consider this to be a target for rejection, correction, or elaboration.

[Zeus]

I would suggest the approach should be a mixture. First is hierarchical and second is enumerative. One can first identify a hierarchy of rights, with three basic rights (life, liberty, and property) at the foundation, and other rights (such as a right to a fair and objective trial) being derivative from that base. Second is a count, such as: Two out of three basic rights violated? Seventeen derivative rights violated?

This approach is analogous to the process of measuring concepts of cognition. (See ITOE, p. 32.) There, one measures such concepts in two ways: "breadth," that is, scope of referents, and "depth," that is, hierarchical length of the conceptual chain required to reach that concept from its referents.

I am unsure of this approach. As always, consider this to be a target for rejection, correction, or elaboration.

Mr. Laughlin,

My post will be unhelpful, as I am not responding to the gist of your post but to an inessential part of it.

I just want to say that, yes, there might be a "right" answer to your question; but, since your approach is objective, and since you wouldn't have posted this much had you not thought the matter through to a good degree, you have no reason to be "unsure." Since you're being objective, you can be certain.

Your statements, since they derive from the facts of reality, are implicitly prepended with a caveat to the effect, "from all the evidence available to me..."

And so, even if you were to change your mind through the introduction of new evidence by yourself or by someone else, there is no loss of objectivity.

Thank you very much.

[Patrick N.]

I did some introspection to better understand my own thinking on this subject.

I measure a nation's freedom by first comparing it to a standard: an ideal government which protects individual rights and does not violate them. I then evaluate a nation's government by measuring how close or far it is from this standard. Using this method, I think it is possible to relate in an ordinal more/than less/than way which nation's governments are freer than others.

Ayn Rand said that love can be measured in a more/than less/than way (this is paraphrased from memory and not an exact quote). For example, one love's one's wife more than one's dog. There are no numbered, cardinal measurements here, only more/than less/than ordinal measurements. One does not say, "my love for my wife is 10.2 units, but I only feel 2.8 units of love for my dog," one simply says, "I love my wife much more than my dog."

I think freedom can be measured in the same way. One does not measure freedom on a numbered, cardinal scale. One measures it on an ordinal scale in the same way one measures love.

This is a tentative theory and I am open to criticism.

[DavidV]

The Economic freedom index.

[Ed from OC]

The Economic freedom index.

That was the first thing that came to mind for me, too.

More broadly, though, measurement is not confined to things we can put numbers on. For instance, I value Ayn Rand's philosophy much more than I do Aristotle, and that far, far more than I do Plato's. Those are measurements, but I can't put numbers to them. It would be silly to say: "Objectivism is 10.3 points more valuable than Aristotle's philosophy, while Plato's views are -5 points," for instance.

When it comes to social freedoms (press, religion, speech, abortion, etc.) one could set up a checklist: which are protected by law? Further: to what extent is the culture moving to undermine each of them (taken singly and collectively)? Are the protections just whims of the political leaders or are they protected by courts and laws? To what extent can one use the courts as an objective arbiter of disputes with the government?

Such a checklist might serve to create a relative ranking of various governments. It also could spell out where a particular government lies on a scale of capitalism to statism.

[Al Kufr]

This is how i measure freedom, how often do you think about the government in the course of the day?

If you lived in china or Iran you would constantly be thinking about the government because you would be afraid of thinking something wrong or saying something wrong, so your fear is constant.

In america you would think of the government a lot less since you arent afraid of saying somehting "wrong" or doing something wrong, but as the government gets bigger this starts to change with new regulations,taxes,etc.

[johngalt1972]

The Economic freedom index.

If we assume the aforementioned list to be the standard, then as a rationale for war (the context of the original quote) which of the two is the correct:

A. Hong Kong has the right to invade any nation.

B. Hong Kong through Canada have the right to invade any nation below Canada.

If I am reading this list correctly, it looks like Germany can now legitimately invade Poland, France, etc.?

[BurgessLau]

If I am reading this list correctly, it looks like Germany can now legitimately invade Poland, France, etc.?

Are you addressing the subject of this thread? As I said in the first post, you are the one who claims there is no way to measure freedom. Do you still believe that? If so, what are your reasons?

[johngalt1972]

Are you addressing the subject of this thread? As I said in the first post, you are the one who claims there is no way to measure freedom. Do you still believe that? If so, what are your reasons?

Mr. Veksler’s original post suggested a list with an explanation before it was edited down to “The Economic freedom index” alone (post #4). I interpret his post now as an edict, rather then a suggestion. If freedom is measured exclusively in terms of economic freedom, then I am simply applying this definition to my quote in your original post.

In post #45 of American intentions in Iraq, I said, “There is no scientific or objective way to measure a State’s freeness” (emphasis added). Why did you choose to quote me if you wanted to drop my context? You are, of course, aware that anything can be subjectively measured and any two things can be subjectively compared with each other?

Thus far, I still believe there is no way to objectively measure freedom. Patrick N. has offered the best subjective approach (sic) in post #3; I fully appreciate his answer. However, I would not recognize another nation’s right to invade the United States (in part or in whole) because they happened to attain a government that was closer to “a standard.”

[ex_banana-eater]

If we assume the aforementioned list to be the standard, then as a rationale for war (the context of the original quote) which of the two is the correct:

A.  Hong Kong has the right to invade any nation.

B.  Hong Kong through Canada have the right to invade any nation below Canada.

If I am reading this list correctly, it looks like Germany can now legitimately invade Poland, France, etc.?

Did you take in what I wrote in the other thread? A slightly freer country than another does not have the right of invading the slightly lesser free country unless it is in self-defence. All countries have a sphere of rights protecting them, except for absolute dictatorships.

In regards to Burgess' thread question, I think some objective standard of measuring what consists as the most fundamental rights would be needed to compare free countries. For example, here are some questions that can arise:

Is a country that completely allows property rights but penalizes certain political speech better than a socialist state that allows freedom of speech and other non-material freedoms? Does having a state monopoly on the media constitute a greater act against freedom than a 30% income tax? Are anti-trust laws which penalize a small amount of people (but to a large degree) worse than taxing a large amount of people to a small degree? Abortion restrictions, which mar a woman's entire life only apply to very few people, while leaving everyone else free. The same with eminent domain.

[johngalt1972]

This is how i measure freedom, how often do you think about the government in the course of the day?

If you lived in china or Iran you would constantly be thinking about the government because you would be afraid of thinking something wrong or saying something wrong, so your fear is constant.

Having been to China, this was not my experience at all. I have not been to Iran. If people were “afraid of thinking something wrong,” how did the United States come into existence? How do you think change happens? Furthermore, fear is an individual choice; you and I choose to be afraid or not. If you put a gun to my head you’re going to make me angry, not afraid. Once you pull that trigger I’m dead, what am I supposed to be afraid of?

In america you would think of the government a lot less since you arent afraid of saying somehting "wrong" or doing something wrong, but as the government gets bigger this starts to change with new regulations,taxes,etc.

I will agree inasmuch that I can say almost anything I want. I cannot, however, say what I want, anywhere I want. As far as “doing something wrong,” I was recently in court because I walked across railroad tracks (to get to the other side). I took the case to court and won. But when I’m stopped at gunpoint with a cup of coffee in one hand and a cigarette in the other at 7 o’clock in the morning, I have to question how free I really am! I can laugh now (as the judge did when I destroyed the officer’s case in court), but it doesn’t change the fact that this kind of totalitarianism exists here (at least on the San Francisco Peninsula where I live).

[The Durande]

Thus far, I still believe there is no way to objectively measure freedom. 

Not only are there ways to objectively measure freedom, but they are numerous.

1. The number of political prisoners a country has. That is, those who are imprisoned merely for their politcal thought. As far as I know, the United States has zero. China has many.

2. The number of people killed or imprisoned for attempting to leave a country. As far as I know, the United States has zero, Cuba has many.

3. The amount of time that a person is required to spend in the military of a given country. Now that there is no draft in the United States, it is zero seconds. In Italy, it is one year. In Switzerland, I believe, two years. (Males in both cases).

**If and when the United States re-enacts the draft, then it defaults in this category.** In fact, until the United States adopts a constitutional amendment to the effct that there will never be a draft, then this must be considered a grave weakness in the measure of freedom that we have.

4. The amount of children that a couple is allowed to have. In China, I believe it is 2. In the U.S., no limit.

There are countless ways to measure freedom. If you are saying that there is no objective way to get a "freedom quotient" or anything like that, what I would say is that each thinking person is free to determine the weight of the above factors, or any other factors, and come up with a measurement. **As long as one is relying on facts, the result will be an objective measurement.** The fact that two people could come up with different quotients is NOT an indication that freedom can't be measured. It is the fact that they may have ranked and wieghted the above or any other factors differently.

[Patrick N.]

Mr. Veksler’s original post suggested a list with an explanation before it was edited down to “The Economic freedom index” alone (post #4).  I interpret his post now as an edict, rather then a suggestion.  If freedom is measured exclusively in terms of economic freedom, then I am simply applying this definition to my quote in your original post.

In post #45 of American intentions in Iraq, I said, “There is no scientific or objective way to measure a State’s freeness” (emphasis added).  Why did you choose to quote me if you wanted to drop my context?  You are, of course, aware that anything can be subjectively measured and any two things can be subjectively compared with each other?

Thus far, I still believe there is no way to objectively measure freedom.  Patrick N. has offered the best subjective approach (sic) in post #3; I fully appreciate his answer.  However, I would not recognize another nation’s right to invade the United States (in part or in whole) because they happened to attain a government that was closer to “a standard.”

I have noticed you using the term "subjective" in many of your posts. What specifically do you mean by this term?

Further, how is my approach to measuring freedom "subjective?”

[BurgessLau]

Thus far, I still believe there is no way to objectively measure freedom.  Patrick N. has offered the best subjective approach (sic) in post #3; I fully appreciate his answer.

As a follow-on to Patrick Norton's perceptive questions, I have two more questions. Your answers might facilitate discussion by setting context for your comments:

(1) How much of Objectivism have you studied? (In particular, have you studied Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?)

(2) With how much of Objectivism do you agree?

[Alon]

That freedom can be measured objectively has been demonstrated, especially in economics where there are several quantitative indices, including one researched by the Cato Institute. The problem is that johngalt1972 takes this to mean that:

... Germany can now legitimately invade Poland, France, etc.

Or, stated more generally, that any nation which is objectively freer than another has the right to invade that nation.

Needless to say, the notion is utterly false. War isn't justified simply by the the attacking nation being freer. The nation attacked must demonstably lack sovereignty.

I think this is only the case where a clear casus belli is not apparent.

For example: ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, or the existence of Iraqi WMD are still not evident, yet the nation of Iraq sufficiently lacked sovereignty that America did not require a direct attack upon itself in order to attack Iraq, which America believed to be a threat.

Edit:

I take sovereignty to mean the moral right of a nation to exist because the government recognizes the authority of its citizens.

[stephen_speicher]

That freedom can be measured objectively has been demonstrated, especially in economics where there are several quantitative indices, including one researched by the Cato Institute.  The problem is that johngalt1972 takes this to mean that:

Or, stated more generally, that any nation which is objectively freer than another has the right to invade that nation.

Needless to say, the notion is utterly false. War isn't justified simply by the the attacking nation being freer. The nation attacked must demonstably lack sovereignty.

I think this is only the case where a clear casus belli is not apparent.

For example: ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, or the existence of Iraqi WMD are still not evident, yet the nation of Iraq sufficiently lacked sovereignty that America did not require a direct attack upon itself in order to attack Iraq, which America believed to be a threat.

Edit:

I take sovereignty to mean the moral right of a nation to exist because the government recognizes the authority of its citizens.

Unfortunately, you may be the only person to use "sovereignty" in that manner. I think the notion that your posting is struggling for is that of a nation which fundamentally respects individual rights -- a rights-respecting nation.

[johngalt1972]

Not only are there ways to objectively measure freedom, but they are numerous. [...] There are countless ways to measure freedom. [...]

“Numerous,” “countless,” and your four examples exemplify what I mean by subjective (selecting criteria based on individual bias). Take your first example:

1.  The number of political prisoners a country has.  That is, those who are imprisoned merely for their politcal thought.  As far as I know, the United States has zero.  China has many.

First, people are not imprisoned anywhere for thinking. Actions, yes. And your statement is still grossly misleading. If I tried to stand in front of the Federal Building in San Francisco right now with a sign reading, “Laissez-faire Capitalism Now,” I would be arrested (a.k.a. “imprisoned”). Now in China I might get shot (if I were a Chinese national). Measuring freedom in terms of the number of actual political prisoners is not a measure of freedom per se. Ironically, it was a similarly misleading statement that got me started on measuring freedom in the first place.

[BurgessLau]

If I tried to stand in front of the Federal Building in San Francisco right now with a sign reading, “Laissez-faire Capitalism Now,” I would be arrested (a.k.a. “imprisoned”).

I am not familiar with the legal situation in San Francisco. What law(s) would ban you from doing such a thing?

I am also not clear why you would be arrested. Because of the content of your sign? If not that, then how would such an arrest prove your point about political prisoners in the U. S.?

[DavidV]

Mr. Veksler’s original post suggested a list with an explanation before it was edited down to “The Economic freedom index” alone (post #4).  I interpret his post now as an edict, rather then a suggestion.

I’m not sure what authority an “edict” issued by me has, but to the extent that I issue any edicts on this forum, they are located exclusively on the “forum rules” page.

If freedom is measured exclusively in terms of economic freedom, then I am simply applying this definition to my quote in your original post.

Economic freedom is a very important aspect of freedom, but ultimately, neither political nor economic freedom is possible without the other.

In post #45 of American intentions in Iraq, I said, “There is no scientific or objective way to measure a State’s freeness” (emphasis added). 

Since freedom has an objective definition and objective standards, it is certainly possible to come up with an objective and scientific method of measuring freedom. The Economic Freedom Index is one such method. An “objective” standard does not mean an “ordinal” one, so the fact that freedom can only be measured by cardinal comparison does not make it any less objective.

By the way, the most important freedoms are those most crucial to the pursuit of life itself. These are the primary individual rights: life, liberty, and property.

[y_feldblum]

"Because there is no way to measure color, you cannot use it as a rationale for choosing one item of clothing over another."

It is true that color cannot be measured by one number. But certain broken-down traits of color can be measured by a single number. For example, the intensity. For another example, the amount of red.

Similarly, it is true that freedom cannot be measured by one number. But break the concept down: certain parts of freedom can by measured in terms of numbers and compared.

Just as one can compare two colors only by comparing one or more of their measurable traits, so one can compare the freedom of two contries only by comparing one or more of their numerically measurable traits.

But just as color is a perfectly valid concept, though its measure is the measures of a combination of traits, so freedom is a perfectly valid concept, though its measure be the measures of a combination of subsidiary traits.

[Ed from OC]

This is a bit off-topic, but as an aside:

"Because there is no way to measure color, you cannot use it as a rationale for choosing one item of clothing over another."

What's the source of this quote?

Color can, in fact, be measured. Color can be given numbers in terms of two coordinates.

Also, I don't see the logical connection between the two clauses in the sentence, even if one couldn't measure color.

[y_feldblum]

The source of the quote is the original poster's question in statement form, with certain words substituted as necessary to serve as an analogy and to reflect my answer.

Color can be measured in terms of three coordinates or more (but not two).

[Alon]

I am not familiar with the history of Ireland, but I think it presents an interesting case given the above discussion. British presence on that island dates to many hundreds of years ago and was extremely oppressive. I assume that in the 19th and 20th centuries the Irish, like other British subjects, gained a very high degree of freedom (although not national freedom). Yet nationalism ran high and the Irish demanded independence, which I believe they gained in 1922, to the detriment of the British. The Irish Free State was equally democratic as its immediate British predecessor. The question is, was the war against the British justified to create a state which was as respective of individual rights as its predecessor for the sake of nationalistic and historical reasons.

Yaron Brooke lectured at my university on the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and mentioned that any group of people may morally declare themselves independent if they intend to create a freer society.

As I said, I am not familiar with Irish history and it may be the case that an independent Ireland of 1922 was far freer (ie. more respective of individual rights) than colonial Ireland of 1921. If this was NOT the case, did the Irish majority's desire for national independence trump British strategic interests if no change was made in the recognition of individual rights of Irishmen?