DISQUS

I have already remarked that the EFW index is highly misleading, because it does not properly account for the housing market. I have also remarked on the "human rights" commissions (glad to see that Will is aware of them). Let me add a few more random remarks.

* Michael Drake is right: when Will says: "On the account of freedom, and the weighting of various forms of freedom, that I think is most appealing, I guess Canada or New Zealand would take the top spot", he might as well say: "Canada is better than the USA because I don't like the USA".

* Differences between Canada and the USA are insignificant compared to differences amongst US states and amongst Canadian provinces. I know because I worked there.

* Will appears to have an anglophile bias: what's wrong with Switzerland and Chile? what's wrong with Estonia and Iceland, for that matter? (apart from very cold weather, which in my opinion is good, because it builds character and deters wimps.)

* The US did not become significantly less free (at least economically), it's Canada that became significantly more free. Part of the reason is an Albertan prime minister. An Alaskan president would do wonders for the US.

* There is a case to be made for oversimplification to get the message across, but the Marketplace article oversimplifies to such an extent that it could turn people off.

"The objections to the rankings have so far focused on non-economic freedoms, which are not included in this metric."

Not true for my 2nd objection.

Anybody who thinks about moving to Canada to be free should do a bit of research on the Canadian "Human Rights" Commissions and Tribunals.

In any case, the *economic* freedom that I personally experienced in 5th placed Britain is way below what I experienced in 16th placed Netherlands. The reason is that the British housing market is rigged for the sole purpose of making housing as expensive as possible. The Dutch housing market is regulated in a way which leaves most people able to buy or rent, sell or let depending on their needs. Of course, it's even better here in unregulated Estonia.

What about the Iliad? Lots of gratuitous violence, and the idea that our destiny is in the hands of the gods undermines personal responsibility.

Mike: you are completely right, but my comment (as well as Will's post) is not about life expectancy and wealth: it is about culture. With the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, free trade, and the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery, Britain led the way to a longer, wealthier, freer, and happier life for the entire World; but what have they been doing for us lately?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against people who take it easy as long as they don't bother me; but it appears that British (or, at least, English) culture is not what it was. Martin Wiener wrote an excellent book on the subject, and comparisons of the productivity of British vs foreign-owned companies in Britain seem to back him up.

I also made the point that Britain is one of the few countries that has become more socialist during the last century (although the Cato index of economic freedom does not go that far back, so I cannot be sure). Sure, Britain has also become fully democratic, more egalitarian, and more sexually liberal; but, again, that is true for every country in Europe, and a lot of countries outside Europe.

Why do I focus on Britain? because it was kind of a libertarian paradise a century ago (apart from sex), and the leader of the free World: if they have gone backwards, anybody can.

Can we leave immigration and multiculturalism aside for just a moment, and discuss something that does not arouse such strong reactions?

My problem with Will's position is that, with or without mixing of cultures, it is not at all obvious to me that a culture will necessarily improve, in the sense of providing longer life expectancy, more material welfare, more freedom, and more happiness. Elsewhere, I mentioned England as an example: not only England has been in relative decline in wealth and life expectancy over the last century (and it's more than just other countries catching up with it: it's other countries overtaking it), but it has become more socialist and less liberal (although possibly more "liberal", with quotation marks). The part of the World where our distinguished host lives, appears eager to go the same way. I admit that most of the World has been improving: all what I am saying is that improvement cannot be taken for granted.

Before the cartoon jihad, I would have been in agreement with this essay; not only in agreement, but in strong agreement. Since then, I have changed my mind about a few things. First, "liberal market culture" might be winning in the USA, but European cultures are not winning: immigrants to western Europe do not want to assimilate -- but I cannot blame them, since I escaped from western Europe myself. Second, the intelligentsia does not give a damn about dependency ratios, material welfare, etc: for them, immigration is only useful because it enables them to brand their political opponents as racists; that is the main, if not the *only* reason to oppose immigration.

On one thing I have not changed my mind: the success of the kind of culture that I want to see around me, is not guaranteed. The kind of culture that I want to see is not very different from that of Victorian Britain, when allowances are made for technological progress; but there is no culture in western Europe that repels me more than modern English culture.

Will: perhaps your latest comment was not meant as an answer to me, but I'll answer anyway. I interpreted your post not just as a refutation of Brooks (which I would accept) but as making the opposite claim. In particular, your statement: Almost all the countries that consistently score higher than the U.S. in happiness are much less religious is misleading. The European countries scoring higher than the USA in happiness are very small countries, and they might very well score lower than several red states. On the other hand, the big European countries score lower than the USA as a whole.

As an agnostic (with sympathy for Viking paganism), I have no dog in this fight. What I like about Brooks' work is his challenging the received opinion that people labeling themselves "conservatives" must be grumpy old men. That has nothing to do with religion, of course.

Jason Malloy has got it right, but just to put it in 5 words: correlation does not imply causation. In Europe, increasing income drives both happiness and secularization up. In America, higher house prices in blue states drives happiness down and secularization up.

And yet, I suspect that there is another factor: I suspect that European religion tends to be more gloomy than American religion. I suspect that, in Europe, preachers tell us that we could end up in Hell; in America, preachers tell you that you can go to Heaven.

OK, I'm grossly exaggerating; but please send in some missionaries!