This is yet another example of the broken window fallacy: the idea that we can become more wealthy by replacing things of greater value (in this case, what we would do if we had the freedom) with things of lesser value (what we do because we can't do what we really want).

OK, I think I'm starting to follow what the point of this is.  J is concerned that if our society is too free we won't be able to compete with societies with more restrictive governments.  I think I can address this a couple of different ways.  First, the United States is hardly a free society.  We may be more free than almost every other nation, but we are regulated in almost everything we do.  Try doing something where no law is directly or indirectly impacting what you are doing.  I think you will find it very difficult if not impossible.  So, we undoubtedly have plenty of restrictions and direction to keep us competitive. 

The other way that I look at this is that liberty as a value should have nothing to do with GDP.  If one believes, as I do, that freedom is a right, and any limitation on it should be given carefully and grudgingly, then GDP is irrelevant.  I would rather live in a smaller, less productive country with maximum freedom, then one that further limits freedoms in order to boost wealth.  I am not conceding that more freedom would make us less productive, but simply saying it doesn't matter.

Technology is a powerful force for empowering individuals and precipitating radical change--vis. the middle east protests. And the USSR used to be very good at suppressing revolution, too, but the results of that experiment remind me of an Ovid quote: Dripping water hollows out stone, not through force but through persistence.

Regarding what you said to Sam, so what if China spends all its hoarded US dollars buying up valuable stuff? The US dollar is only valuable because it can buy stuff in the US. The global value of the dollar will drop, which will drive down US imports and drive up US exports and foreign investments in the US and lead to long-run economic growth of the sort the US is desperate for. The only one who can hurt the US in that deal is the US by imposing trade restrictions on the American people and driving up the cost and down the likelihood of foreigners doing business with the US. It doesn't matter who owns the building where your office is when you're free to do business with whoever offers the best office space at the best price.

JS: couldn't agree more.  China is the perfect example of what happens when you restrict personal liberty and loosen the reigns on the economy.  and it's obvious that the markets must be maintained because those in power already know that a mildly corruptable market is still better for them than a failed one.  

IMO, China is run just like a corporation: my corp tells me(tries anyway) what to wear to work, how to work, when to work, how much I get paid, when to open and close, what I'm allowed to do on the clock and not(cell phones, smoking weed lol, eating, etc.). They also determine in large part where I will live, if I can move, and all sorts of other things.  The PRC does exactly the same thing.  The only things that the Corp and the PRC dont restrict as much of is economic growth.  They both want us( or the Chinese people) to make them as much money as possible.  And ok, I'll admit that this is a grossly simplistic example and it sounds like I'm in full support of communism(which i'm not) but I believe it works.  

Never underestimate the chinese people or their government.  I've made a 15 year study of that country and it's people and traditions(especially Taoism-which despite what the modern "white people taoists" would have you believe is surprisingly Paleo; just google "taoism against grains") they are much smarter than we even give them credit for in our jokes about how smart they are.  lol  

peace

Since this is my first post on your blog I have to start by saying that I loved the book and your little corner of the internet.  That being said I think you're opinion of libertarianism is probally being biased from one popular libertarian site on the internet.  I consider myself a Libertarian and definelty do not believe in the protection given by incorporation.  Any tru free market economist would recognize that corporations are just another government intervention in the market place.  Also most libertarian writing I have read do want to get rid of the banks (or at least the current version of it).

While I think your thesis is interesting I personally think that you cant separate personal and economic freedom.  How do you say you are personally free but not economically free?  IMO your labor is the most personal thing that you can own and if you dont own it fully then you are not free.  I realize that by my definition almost no one is free and I think that it probably is an accurate reflection of the world.  That's not to say I don't believe that some people are more free than others or that we are in terrible shape because we dont live in a truly free society.  There are degrees to everything.

I agree with your assertion that markets need to be maintained by rule of law.  But I believe that like many things there is a U shaped curve where at one end government involvement increases output and at the other end it diminishes it.  Both the US and China are both on the end of to much governement involvement.  I also think that they are both to far up the curve for "Freedom"  of any type to matter.  Closer to the bottom of the curve I think "Freedom" would most definetly play a role but both economies are to centrally planned at this point to really have an affect.  At this point it is more a matter of who has the better plan which only time will tell.

Thanks again for a cool little website

Not sure if there is any connection between (finely parsed) degrees of freedom and economic growth.  Economic growth, as we know it in this and the past century, is an artifact of an abnormally high input of energy into the system, in the form of oil, stored in the earth over hundreds of millions of years, and (largely) mined and used up all in one go in the space of around 150 years or so (including an estimated 30-50 years into the future). 

It is very hard to imagine endless economic growth under any other circumstances than this artificial, never to be repeated, energy boost. (PS - as a farmer, I can also tell you it is very hard to imagine cereal-based agriculture under any other circumstances either).  Once we are confronted with the end of the oil supply (peak oil analysts estimate that the "peak" in terms of worldwide production, occurred in 2005/2006 or thereabouts), growth will no longer be as attractive a concept as sustainability. 

Importantly, we will then have to figure out what it is we want to sustain.  For example, lifestyles that have a component of enjoyable, creative leisure time, once we have satisfied our body's wants, may turn out to be what we really want. 

I certainly see freedom as compatible with sustainability.