How Should We Treat Our
Neighbor ? Episode 4 : Understanding Freedom and Liberty, part C
In this episode, I will conclude the discussion of freedom and liberty that was the subject of episodes two and three. You may recall that I was considering objections which claim that we are not free or cannot be free. Here is the final objection I will consider –
“How can you say I'm free when I can't make any real choices
? Everything I believe, think or do is pre-determined"
This objection makes reference to a long-lived debate about whether humans possess free will or are subject to determinism. The idea of physical determinism goes back to at least 400 BCE, when the Greek philosopher Democritus held that causal necessity was the explanation of any event. By the time of the early Stoic philosophers in 108 BCE, the idea was extended to rational determinism of the human mind.
The meanings of the concept determinism are –
· "The doctrine that everything that happens is determined by a necessary chain of causation."
· "The philosophical doctrine that human action is not free but necessarily determined by motives, which are regarded as external forces acting upon the will."
That position should be contrasted with the meanings of the concept free will, which are –
· "Spontaneous or unconstrained will; unforced choice; (also) inclination to act without suggestion from others"
· "The power of an individual to make free choices, not determined by divine predestination, the laws of physical causality, fate, etc. Also: the doctrine that human beings possess this power and are hence able to direct and bear responsibility for their own actions"
[ Note 2 ]
In the case of the physical world, the deterministic view seems plausible. Maybe the action of each particle of matter is dictated by previous actions of itself and other particles of matter, all following natural laws, going back to the origin of the universe. This is sometimes referred to as a "billiard-ball" theory of causation.
The doctrine of determinism claims that human thought and action are also determined in a similar way. Historically, the supposed determinism of human behavior has been attributed to different factors, such as social culture, climate, geography, language, economy, or technology. Today, determinism is generally attributed to physics or genetics or child-rearing.
In this view, humans are just complex billiard balls. Each action we take is due to preceding causes, as is each of our beliefs. It is hopeless to think we could do something different, or believe something different. If we think that we made a choice to act or made a choice to believe, we are fooling ourselves.
This means there is no morality, as our actions are just things that we are pre-determined to do. The murderer, rapist or arsonist does not deserve to go to prison, as each was hopelessly pre-determined to commit the crime and cannot be held responsible for his act. The researcher who discovers a cure for cancer does not deserve praise or an award as she was pre-determined to make the discovery. The winning team in a basketball game does not deserve a trophy as the outcome was pre-determined before the game began. Similarly, the student does not deserve a good grade or a bad grade, or a diploma or a degree. The student’s performance was pre-determined.
Also, under determinism, there is no knowledge. We can only say that we are hopelessly pre-determined to believe certain things for reasons we probably cannot understand. Whether you believe that ghosts exist or reject that belief, it was pre-determined.
So, the person who promotes the theory of determinism says that all actions and beliefs are pre-determined. But he insists that his belief in determinism is not pre-determined; rather, he claims he has freely chosen that belief based on some evidence. By excluding himself from the theory, he admits that determinism is not universal, so it may be that some or all of us are also exceptions. This is known as the fallacy of self-exclusion. If determinism is true, no one can examine evidence and make a choice to believe in determinism. If you believe, that was pre-determined. If you reject determinism and believe in free will, that was pre-determined too. The proponent of determinism must accept that he is hopelessly determined to believe in determinism.
For example, the physicist will say that everything in the universe is comprised of elementary particles whose behavior is controlled by fundamental forces. Everything that happens can be described by mathematical equations that are referred to as “natural laws”. Since the human body and mind are ultimately comprised of those elementary particles which are controlled by the fundamental forces, everything done by the body or mind must be subject to the natural laws. This means free will is impossible as it would violate the natural laws. Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder makes this argument in an online video titled "I don't believe in free will. This is why.". See the transcript for a link to that video [ Note 3 ].
But, if determinism is the correct theory, then the physicist can only say that antecedent factors make her hopelessly determined to believe in elementary particles, fundamental forces and natural laws. Yet she insists that her claims consist of justified true belief about facts of reality and her claims are not pre-determined. She might try to say that her knowledge was freely chosen and is a special exception to determinism, but then the determinism of the particles and forces would no longer be universal, defeating her belief in determinism. She might claim that some amazing coincidence caused her to be determined to believe something that is really true, but the person who is pre-determined to reject the belief in natural laws has an equally valid claim.
If the science of Physics is to have any validity, then it seems that physicists must have the freedom of mind to formulate a hypothesis, perform experiments to test the hypothesis, produce results that either validate or refute the hypothesis, reject hypotheses that were falsified, and continue testing more hypotheses until ultimately arriving at a true theory. If this were not possible, then the physicist could never learn about elementary particles and fundamental forces. So, it seems that she must admit that physicists have the freedom to choose beliefs based on the outcomes of their experiments. That is, the human mind appears to be free enough to learn facts about reality, so its beliefs are not pre-determined.
The same sort of argument may be used against those who claim we are pre-determined by our genes or DNA. DNA performs various functions related to the structure and operation of the human body. Scientists had to develop the knowledge of DNA and its functions through much research. Their minds had to be sufficiently free to accept hypotheses that were verified as true by experimentation and reject as false those that were invalidated. If their minds were not free to do so, then they could only say they were hopelessly pre-determined in their beliefs about the existence of DNA and its functions.
Some behavioral scientists claim that our personality traits are determined in childhood by three factors – genes, shared environment and non-shared environment. They assign percentages to the genetic and shared environmental factors based on researching the traits of identical twins raised together, identical twins raised apart, fraternal twins, and unrelated adopted children raised together. Whatever is left unexplained by those two factors is attributed to the non-shared environment. But this model with its three factors is simply assumed as a rational explanation; it is not proved by this research. What they call the non-shared environment may be partly or wholly the free choices made by the child’s own mind.
For what it’s worth, an overview article in the International Journal of Epidemiology claims that the genetic factor only accounts for about 50% of the similarity in the traits of identical twins, while the non-shared environment accounts for most of the remaining similarity. The shared environment includes the parent’s influence in shaping their children’s character. Various studies indicate that it explains little of the children’s personality traits [ Note 4 ].
In spite of those results, it seems reasonable to assume that children learn from and mimic their parents. But a child grows into an adult who can question what has been learned. Each of us is free to focus our mind on expanding our knowledge and changing our beliefs, which may lead us to change our actions as well. If we choose to focus on learning and practicing moral principles, we will be more likely to choose to act in moral ways.
If you think such change is implausible, consider the African-American musician, Daryl Davis, who has engaged with members of the Ku Klux Klan by listening to them and asking questions about their beliefs and assumptions. Daryl Davis says he has directly persuaded 30 to 40 of them to quit the KKK and indirectly influenced many more to do the same [ Note 5 ]. This evidence suggests that we are not hopelessly pre-determined to think and act just like our parents. To avoid that fate, each of us must be committed to using our minds to question what we’ve been taught or assumed, and to learn about other perspectives.
The philosopher Ted Honderich has written extensively on the subject of determinism, which he believes to be the correct theory. The following relevant quotes are taken from his book titled "How Free Are You ?" –
· "Determinism does not say that there are never internal causes of action, actions really owed to the agent. Also, a person's having this power and nothing else is all that is needed in order to be responsible for actions and to be rightly punished for them."
[ Note 6 ]
· "The conclusion is not that determinism is true. […] It is that taking in account everything, determinism is very strongly supported, and that certainly it has not been shown to be false." (emphasis original)
[ Note 7 ]
If you find this brief treatment of determinism and free will to be inadequate, I provide links in the transcript to some additional online resources to review –
1. A series of eleven videos about free will by philosopher Harry Binswanger. In those videos, he explains the historical debate and proposes that free will should be seen as the choice to focus one’s mind. This choice is something we can observe in our own lives, as we either let our mind wander or choose to focus on a conversation, radio show or even this podcast. I find this perspective on free will to be persuasive. [ Note 8 ]
2. A debate between Dr. Kevin Mitchell and Dr. Robert Sapolsky titled “The Biology of Free Will”. Dr. Mitchell is an Associate Professor of Genetics and Neuroscience at Trinity College Dublin and the author of the book titled “Free Agents – How Evolution Gave Us Free Will”. Dr. Sapolsky is a Professor of Biology, Neurology and Neurosurgery at Stanford University and the author of the book titled “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will”. [ Note 9 ]
3. An article by philosopher Ben Bayer titled "Why Champions of Science and Reason Need Free Will". [ Note 10 ]
4. An article by philosopher Mark Balaguer titled "Why the Classical Argument Against Free Will Is a Failure". [ Note 11 ]
5. A video about free will by philosopher Mark Balaguer. [ Note 12 ]
6. A lecture about free will by the late psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden. [ Note 13 ]
Here is a brief summary of these three episodes – when libertarians refer to freedom or liberty, it is always in a social context. It is the freedom to do as one wishes without interference of others, whether they are agents of the government or our neighbors. This freedom is restricted by a prohibition on violating the rights of others, and the responsibility to achieve our own goals by our own thought and effort. Freedom is necessary to enable us to think and act such that each may survive and flourish in this world.
To better understand the scope of the freedoms that libertarians promote, let’s consider the many ways that governments interfere with individual freedom. Scholarly work has been done to categorize and measure this interference. The Fraser Institute of Canada and the Cato Institute in the USA co-publish an annual Human Freedom Index report that rates 165 countries with respect to various measures of freedom. For personal freedom, the report has seven categories – Rule of law, Security, Movement, Religion, Association, Expression and Relationships. For economic freedom, the report has five categories – Size of government, Legal system, Sound Money, International Trade, and Regulation. Within those twelve categories are over 80 individual variables that contribute to the rating of each country.
In 2023, the three highest-rated countries were Switzerland, New Zealand and Denmark. The three lowest-rated countries were Sudan, Yemen and Syria. Sadly, the USA was ranked 17th in 2023, having fallen from 7th place in the year 2000. The transcript contains a link to a website from which you can access the Human Freedom Index reports for each year from 2015 to 2023 [ Note 14 ].
The Cato Institute also produces a state-level annual ranking for the USA called “Freedom in the 50 States”. Cato’s analysis defines three dimensions of freedom – Fiscal Policy, Regulatory Policy and Personal Freedom. Fiscal and Regulatory Policy taken together create the rating for Economic Freedom. Within each of those dimensions are categories of 184 individual variables that contribute to the rating of each state. The categories of Fiscal Policy are State Taxation, Government Consumption, Local Taxation, Government Employment, Government Debt, and Cash & Security Assets. Under Regulatory Policy, the categories are Land Use, Health Insurance, Labor Market, Lawsuits, Occupations, and Cable & Telecom. The categories for Personal Freedom are Education, Marriage, Gun Rights, Travel, Campaign Finance, Tobacco, Marijuana, Alcohol, Gambling, Asset Forfeiture and Incarceration & Arrests.
In 2023, the three highest-scored states were New Hampshire, Florida, and South Dakota. The three lowest-scored states were California, Hawaii and New York. Looking at the dimensions individually can be informative and surprising. For example, Texas’ Economic Freedom score puts it in 6th place, but when that is combined with its Personal Freedom score in 50th place, its overall score is in 17th place. The transcript contains a link to a website from which you can access the Freedom in the 50 States reports for years from 2009 to 2023 [ Note 15 ].
At this point, a skeptic of the libertarian position might ask –
What evidence do you have that individual liberty
really benefits our lives ?
To answer that question, the Atlantic Council produces an index of freedom for 164 countries that also includes an index of prosperity for each of those countries. Their freedom index incorporates data from the aforementioned Fraser Institute as well as ten other institutions. Their prosperity index includes measures of income, health, education, environmental quality and religious rights.
Using these indexes, they examine the relationship between freedom and prosperity, finding that the two are very strongly correlated with a correlation coefficient of 0.8 [ Note 16 ]. The coefficient of determination indicates that 63 percent of the variance in the prosperity index can be explained by the difference in the freedom index [ Note 17 ].
By itself, the strong correlation does not prove that greater freedom causes greater prosperity. Some scholars argue that greater prosperity comes first and causes greater freedom. They claim that growth in prosperity produces an economic middle class, and then that class of people demands a voice in government and this results in a legal foundation of laws and institutions that expand freedom for all.
The reports from the Atlantic Council analyze the data to help resolve the question of causation between freedom and prosperity. In the 2021 report, they show that the freedom score for Venezuela dropped 42 percent in the period from 2006 to 2021, while the prosperity score dropped 24 percent during the same time period [ Note 18 ]. It seems hard to believe that the falling prosperity caused the decrease in freedom.
In the 2023 report, they compared Venezuela with Peru over the time period from 1995 to 2022. In 1995, Venezuela’s freedom score was almost twenty points higher than Peru’s score and Venezuela’s prosperity score was about three points higher than Peru’s score. By 2020, Peru’s freedom score was almost forty points higher than Venezuela’s score and Peru’s prosperity score was about seven points higher than Venezuela’s [ Note 19 ]. Peru transitioned towards greater freedom and enjoyed greater prosperity. Venezuela transitioned to less freedom and suffered a loss in prosperity.
The associated charts show that Peru’s increases in its freedom score began in 1999, while the most noticeable increases in its prosperity score occurred in 2003 and 2007. Venezuela’s decreases in its freedom score began in 1998, while the noticeable decrease in its prosperity score began in 2012. Both of these observations suggest that the changes in freedom come first, but it takes time for the effect on prosperity to be apparent. This seems to be true whether freedom is increasing or decreasing. In either case, the change in freedom caused a change in prosperity in the same direction. Similar charts are shown illustrating that increasing freedom in Rwanda led to increasing prosperity while decreasing freedom in Burundi led to decreasing prosperity.
This concludes my presentation of the libertarian view of freedom and liberty. Our next episode will address some observations and questions submitted by a listener.
I leave you with this quote from Samuel Adams, a leader of the American Revolution –
“No people will tamely surrender their liberties, nor
can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved.
On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners,
they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders.”
[ Note 20 ]
A transcript of this episode is available on the “Podcasts” tab of the website “hswton.com”. The link may be found by expanding the plus sign next to the episode number and title. The transcript also contains supporting notes and links for quotes, definitions and other content contained in this episode.
Thank you for listening. I hope you will continue with the next episode of "How Should We Treat Our Neighbor ?".
Good day.
|
Note |
1 |
|
Source |
Oxford English Dictionary Online |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Publisher |
Oxford University Press |
|
Definition of |
"determinism", meanings 2 , 1 |
|
Definition URL |
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/determinism_n?tab=meaning_and_use#7059660 |
|
Date of entry |
2023 July |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Comment |
The OED.com website requires a paid subscription. Access is also possible via some public library websites. |
|
Note |
2 |
|
Source |
Oxford English Dictionary Online |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Publisher |
Oxford University Press |
|
Definition of |
"free will", meanings 1.a , 2 |
|
Definition URL |
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/free-will_n?tab=meaning_and_use#3680524 |
|
Date of entry |
2023 July |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Comment |
The OED.com website requires a paid subscription. Access is also possible via some public library websites. |
|
Note |
3 |
|
Source |
“Sabine Hossenfelder” page on YouTube |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Speaker |
Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder |
|
Speaker's URL |
|
|
Content title |
"I don't
believe in free will. This is why." |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Date posted |
2023 June 03 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
4 |
|
Source |
Oxford Academic |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author 1 |
Robert Plomin |
|
Author 1's URL |
|
|
Author 2 |
Denise Daniels |
|
Author 2's URL |
( could not be found ) |
|
Content title |
“Why are children in the same family so different from
one another ?” |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Date posted |
2011 June 29 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
5 |
|
Source 1 |
“Daryl Davis”
page on Wikipedia |
|
Source 1 URL |
|
|
Date updated 1 |
2024 July 03 |
|
Source 2 |
“Powerful JRE”
(Joe Rogan Experience) page on YouTube |
|
Source 2 URL |
|
|
Content 2 title |
“Daryl Davis Breaks down
His Technique for Talking to Klan Members” |
|
Content 2 URL |
|
|
Date posted 2 |
2022 March 15 |
|
Source 3 |
“All That’s Interesting” (ATI) website |
|
Source 3 URL |
|
|
Content 3 title |
“How Daryl Davis Befriends KKK Members and Gets Them to
Quit” |
|
Content 3 URL |
|
|
Date posted 3 |
2023 November 08 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
6 |
|
Author |
Ted Honderich |
|
Author URL |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Honderich also see https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/ |
|
Title |
"How Free Are
You ? The Determinism Problem" |
|
Publisher |
Oxford University Press |
|
Date published |
1993 |
|
ISBN |
0-19-283139-9 |
|
Page |
98 |
|
Comment |
I am referencing the first edition of the book, published in 1993. A second edition was published in May of 2002. |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
7 |
|
Author |
Ted Honderich |
|
Author URL |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Honderich also see https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/ |
|
Title |
"How Free Are
You ? The Determinism Problem" |
|
Publisher |
Oxford University Press |
|
Date published |
1993 |
|
ISBN |
0-19-283139-9 |
|
Page |
78 |
|
Comment |
I am referencing the first edition of the book, published in 1993. A second edition was published in May of 2002. |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
8 |
|
Source |
“HBTV” playlist page on YouTube |
|
Source URL |
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5_7iEisbmLBQ5TXxnlC6CDfLhpAaWhDV |
|
Speaker |
Dr. Harry Binswanger |
|
Speaker's URL |
|
|
Content title 01 |
"Free Will | HBTV 23" |
|
Content URL 01 |
|
|
Date posted 01 |
2021 November 01 |
|
Content title 02 |
"Free Will: Ayn Rand vs Sam Harris | HBTV 24" |
|
Content URL 02 |
|
|
Date posted 02 |
2021 November 15 |
|
Content title 03 |
"The Mechanics of Free Will | HBTV 25" |
|
Content URL 03 |
|
|
Date posted 03 |
2021 November 29 |
|
Content title 04 |
"Free Will: A New Theory of Self-Control | HBTV
26" |
|
Content URL 04 |
|
|
Date posted 04 |
2021 December 06 |
|
Content title 05 |
"Free Will: What Ayn Rand’s Theory Means to You |
HBTV 27" |
|
Content URL 05 |
|
|
Date posted 05 |
2021 December 13 |
|
Content title 06 |
"Free Will: The Vaccine Against Pandemics of the
Soul | HBTV 28" |
|
Content URL 06 |
|
|
Date posted 06 |
2021 December 20 |
|
Content title 07 |
“Reason in History | HBTV
29” |
|
Content URL 07 |
|
|
Date posted 07 |
2021 December 27 |
|
Content title 08 |
"Free Will Writ Large and Writ Small | HBTV
30" |
|
Content URL 08 |
|
|
Date posted 08 |
2022 January 03 |
|
Content title 09 |
"Determinism as Self-Refuting | HBTV 31" |
|
Content URL 09 |
|
|
Date posted 09 |
2022 January 10 |
|
Content title 10 |
"Free Will Q&A | HBTV 32" |
|
Content URL 10 |
|
|
Date posted 10 |
2022 January 17 |
|
Content title 11 |
"Free Will and Values | HBTV 33" |
|
Content URL 11 |
|
|
Date posted 11 |
2022 January 24 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
9 |
|
Source |
“Philosophical Trials” page on YouTube |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Speaker 1 |
Theodor Nenu |
|
Speaker 1's URL |
|
|
Speaker 2 |
Kevin Mitchell |
|
Speaker 2's URL |
|
|
Speaker 3 |
Robert Sapolsky |
|
Speaker 3's URL |
|
|
Content title |
Robert Sapolsky vs
Kevin Mitchell: The Biology of Free Will | Philosophical Trials #15 |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Date posted |
2023 November 17 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
10 |
|
Source |
Ayn Rand Institute |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author |
Dr. Ben Bayer |
|
Author's URL |
|
|
Content title |
"Why Champions
of Science and Reason Need Free Will" |
|
Content URL |
https://newideal.aynrand.org/why-champions-of-science-and-reason-need-free-will/ |
|
Date posted |
2019 June 19 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
11 |
|
Source |
MIT Press |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author |
Dr. Mark Balaguer |
|
Author's URL |
|
|
Content title |
"Why the
Classical Argument Against Free Will Is a Failure" |
|
Content URL |
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/ |
|
Date posted |
2022 January 27 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
12 |
|
Source |
"Talks at Google" page on YouTube |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Speaker |
Dr. Mark Balaguer |
|
Speaker's URL |
|
|
Content title |
"Free Will |
Mark Balaguer | Talks at Google" |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Date posted |
2019 October 29 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
13 |
|
Source |
The Atlas Society page on YouTube |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Speaker |
Dr. Nathaniel Branden |
|
Speaker's URL |
|
|
Content title |
"Lecture 5:
Free Will" |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Date posted |
2018 May 21 |
|
Comments |
The audio content was originally recorded in the 1960s |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
14 |
|
Source |
Fraser Institute |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author 1 |
Ian Vásquez |
|
Author 1's URL |
|
|
Author 2 |
Fred McMahon |
|
Author 2's URL |
|
|
Author 3 |
Ryan Murphy |
|
Author 3's URL |
|
|
Author 4 |
Guillermina
Sutter Schneider |
|
Author 4's URL |
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/profile/guillermina-sutter-schneider |
|
Content title |
“Economic Freedom” |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Comment |
After clicking on the URL above, click on the link at the top of the page that says “Human Freedom Index”. The index has been published annually since 2015, and this web page contains a link to the publication for each year. The authors listed here are the ones credited for the 2023 publication. |
|
Date posted |
2023 December 19 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
15 |
|
Source |
Cato Institute |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author 1 |
William P. Ruger |
|
Author 1's URL |
|
|
Author 2 |
Jason Sorens |
|
Author 2's URL |
|
|
Content title |
“Freedom in the 50
States” |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Comment |
The URL above will take you to the most recent edition of the report. The URL below will take you to a page where you can access previous editions of the report. The authors listed here are the ones credited for the 2023 publication. |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Date posted |
2023 November 30 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
16 |
|
Source |
Scribbr |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author |
Pritha Bhandari |
|
Author's URL |
|
|
Content title |
“Correlation
Coefficient | Types, Formulas & Examples” |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Date posted |
2023 June 22 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
Return to related text 16 or 17
|
Note |
17 |
|
Source |
Scribbr |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author |
Shaun Turney |
|
Author's URL |
|
|
Content title |
“Coefficient of
Determination (R²) | Calculation & Interpretation” |
|
Content URL |
https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/coefficient-of-determination/ |
|
Date posted |
2023 June 22 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
Return to related text 17 or 16
|
Note |
18 |
|
Source |
Atlantic Council |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author 1 |
Dan Negrea |
|
Author 1's URL |
|
|
Author 2 |
Matthew Kroenig |
|
Author 2's URL |
|
|
Content title |
“Do Countries Need Freedom to Achieve Prosperity?” |
|
Content URL |
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Freedom-and-Prosperity-Report.pdf |
|
Date posted |
2022 June |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
19 |
|
Source |
Atlantic Council |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author 1 |
Dan Negrea |
|
Author 1's URL |
|
|
Author 2 |
Joseph Lemoine |
|
Author 2's URL |
|
|
Content title |
“Prosperity that
Lasts - The 2023 Freedom and Prosperity Indexes” |
|
Content URL |
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FP-2023.pdf |
|
Date posted |
2023 June |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
|
Note |
20 |
|
Author |
Samuel Adams |
|
Author URL |
|
|
Quote |
"No
people will tamely surrender their Liberties …" |
|
Quote URL |
|
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 July 21 |
Transcript and notes last updated – 2024 July 22
Copyright 2024, by James W. Troy. All rights reserved.