Category Archives: Freedom

Freedom Never Dies

The Sojourners | thesojourners.ca

All opinions on the film and accompanying album aside, there is no denying that Kanye Wests Jesus is King has given gospel music more attention than it usually gets. The Donald Trump-adoring rappers take on the whole Jesus thing appears to be more about his personal relationship to the Lord being better than everyone elses, and trying to sell merchandise. But true gospel music as a genre has its heart in community, caring and civil rights.

The Vancouver-based trio the Sojourners all grew up within the American gospel church tradition. The award-winning groups fourth recording, Freedom Never Dies, begins with a song about famed Florida NAACP activist Harry Moore, and ends with a pledge to Rise Up.

Marcus Mosely (Rails, Tex.), Will Sanders (Alexandria, La.) and Khari Wendell McClelland (Detroit) came together after blues artist Jim Byrnes contacted Mosely to see if he could bring together some singers to perform backup vocals for Byrnes coming album. Everything gelled so well that a new groups career was launched.

From festival stages to church concerts, the Sojourners imbues its music with spirit and passion, and no ego. Here are five things to know about Freedom Never Dies:

1: Freedom Never Dies. No bomb can kill the dreams I hold, for freedom never dies. So declares the opening title track that tells the story of Harry T. Moore and Harriette V.S. Moore, pioneering Florida civil rights leaders and activists who were killed after a bomb was placed under their bedroom floor on Christmas night 1951 exploded. It was the first assassination of any activist to occur during the nascent civil rights movement, but it certainly wouldnt be the last. The song may recount events from 67 years ago, but it could be from a headline today. Either way, the rallying cry of the song keeps being echoed by new generations of fighters.

2: When humming is enough. Great gospel singing is as much about emotional expression as targeted lyrics. The way that Oh Freedom (the classic post-Civil War African-American freedom ballad) opens with nothing more than the group harmonizing with some hmmm-mmm-mmm vocalizing instantly connects to some inner-emotion generator. Its a pure sound, one that the group said that fans wanted to hear more of on the first new recording from the group in five years. We want to hear your voices more! heralds the news release. And did they ever deliver on that request with this EP.

3: Rise Up. The shortest song on the album closes it out with a singalong set to a single bass drum, hand claps and a tambourine as the singers bob-and-weave through a beautifully metered lyric about the gates of the city opening wide and bearing the name of the 12 tribes of Israel. For those looking for the answer to that obvious trivia question, it is: Reuben, Simeon, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Ephraim and Manasseh. The 12 tribes descended all sons or grandsons from Jacob to whom God gave the name Israel. The 12 tribes are described in the Bible and the Quran.

4: Naturalistic production. Every release from the Sojourners has been characterized by great production, but Freedom Never Dies is the best by far. The way that the natural resonance of voices singing in unison is captured on the recording isnt only like being in the room with the trio, its also a perfect introduction to each members unique range. No song delivers this better than Lift Every Voice.

5: Future concerts. To truly appreciate the Sojourners, one has to see them perform. On their own, or with Byrnes, the trio is easily one of the best of its kind on the circuit today. Keep an eye on thesojourners.ca calendar for upcoming performances.

Also out this week:

The Dreadnoughts

Into the North | Stomp Records

This enduring East Vancouver crew has a proven track record for selling suds from coast-to-coast-to-coast and well beyond. Without doubt, the chant-alongs such as Fire Marengo or joyous jigs such as Harpers Frolic Bonny Kate are the sort of thing to get any crowd in a right fine mood. While the band has held its own in punk rock dives and folk festivals alike, Into the North certainly favours the acoustic folky side of things and the addition of some Quebeois tunes such as Pique La Baleine and Joli Rouge is a nice touch. Anyone covering Stan Rogers timeless Northwest Passage or anything else by the late folky is risky. They do the song justice. Plus, the guys have their own custom cider for this album.

Dec. 14, Astoria Hotel. Tickets and info: $20 at eventbrite.ca

Kaeli

Secret | kaelimcarter.com

A self-described indie singer-songwriter living near the edge of the ocean, Kaeli crafts immediately familiar electropop that sounds as radio ready as can be. The title track rides along on a shimmering keyboard passage, dropping into echoing chants and layer-upon-layer of orchestration. La La Land chimes in with a bell passage that bounces around your head if youve got headphones on and then gets into a solid skittering dance groove. There are big, hooky choruses in Haunt Me and Round 2, and the chorus in Freedom (feat. Alex Helton) is downright funky. From the incredibly inventive promo kit that the artist provided with her album to sharp earlier videos, Kaeli is very aware of what shes after and Secret shows it.

Moon Duo

Stars are the Light | Sacred Bones

Portland psyche crew Moon Duo moves beyond its obvious Suicide and Spaceman 3 pulsations on its latest album. Instead, Wooden Ships guitarist Ripley Johnson and sonic cohort Sanae Yamada expands its approach to incorporate much mellower terrain. Where all the bands previous work was imbued with more than a dash of eye-of-newt occult weirdness, new songs such as Lost Heads owe as much to 80s electro-disco as any acid vibes. Fall (In Your Love) is almost like a dub mix of something the Pop Group might have done in the 80s and the guitar riffs on Eternal Shore are like some missing avant-garde surf music from the Bay Area noise rock scene of the 90s. All together, it amounts to the most interesting and genuinely psychedelic album from the band to date.

Nov. 27, 9 p.m. Fox Cabaret, 2321 Main St. Tickets and info: $26.63 at ticketweb.ca

Swans

Leaving Meaning | Young God Records

On its 15th studio album, Michael Gira brings in members of Angels of Light, Anna and Maria von Hausswolff, Ben Frost, the Necks, Baby Dee, a Hawk and a Hacksaw and more to craft a dozen new sonic explorations into the recesses of his mind. Easily one of the nicest sounding records the band has released to date, it still manages to deliver the kind of disturbing, compulsive grooves that made earlier records often get described as terrifying. Just check out the droning, hypnotic The Hanging Man or The Nub, with its almost avant-garde jazz tinges. Always loaded with layered percussions, the resulting music made is akin to the chamber pop of Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds married to the parts of the Bowery you can never scrape off of your boots once youve stepped in it. Since 1982, Swans and Giras various offshoot groups have all held fast to his dark, claustrophobic lyricism and arranging. And they just keep getting better.

sderdeyn@postmedia.com

twitter.com/stuartderdeyn

More here:

Five things to know about Freedom Never Dies, by the Sojourners - Vancouver Sun

Internet freedom has declined in the U.S. and worldwide in 2019 for the ninth consecutive year, according to a report released by Freedom House.

Out of 65 countries reviewed in the report, 33 have experienced an overall decline in internet freedom since June 2018, compared to 16 countries which have seen an increase. The largest internet freedom declines occurred in Sudan and Kazakhstan, followed by Brazil, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

The report detailed how leaders of countries have used social media as propaganda, calling out China, Iran and Saudi Arabia in particular. A new high record of 38 out of the 65 countries had political leaders who recruited others to shape online opinions.

The authors alsosaid authorities are using social media surveillance to track citizens, reducing civil liberties around the world, with 47 countries having arrested users for political, social and religious speech, another record high.

China was named the worlds worst abuser of internet freedom for the fourth consecutive year, with censorship increasing on the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre and with ongoing protests in Hong Kong.

The researchers named Iceland as the best protector of internet freedom.

Ethiopia was cited has experienced the most progress in internet freedom because of the prime ministers efforts to reduce restrictions. But the authors noted that the majority of improved internet freedom scores were marginal.

Original post:

Internet freedom declined in the US and worldwide this year: report | TheHill - The Hill

A film and new typeface inspired by original graffiti from the Berlin Wall have been created as part of a campaign to mark the 30th anniversary since its fall.

Called Voice of the Wall, the campaign's film in which we hear sirens, dogs barking and gunshots depicts the suffering the Wall witnessed. It ends with the warning, "Division is freedoms biggest threat".

The font, meanwhile, is available for everyone to download and use, and the campaign encourages us to make our own statements for freedom, using the anniversary typeface. The statements will be collected and later turned into a book which will be sent as a message to the current leaders of the world.

The idea was created by HEIMAT Berlin for street art association, The Cultural Heirs, a non-profit association committed to integration and violence prevention as well as the prevention of discrimination and inequalities in society.

The campaign explores the threat walls of all kinds can pose worldwide. The starting point was the question: If walls could talk, what would the Berlin Wall say today? "In this way, the typeset allows the Wall a voice and the ability to make a statement about freedom in our world today," explains HEIMAT.

The typeface has been designed using the 26 letters in the alphabet each taken from actual graffiti from the Berlin Wall, which became a politically-charged canvas for numerous street artists over the years.

Matthias Storath from HEIMAT, Berlin, said: "Street art and iconic design can have a dramatic impact on culture, and creating a campaign to celebrate freedom and warn about division to mark this important anniversary was very meaningful to us. We hope that this project will help remind audiences of our hard-won freedoms, which we must cherish and enjoy."

Read the original post:

Make a statement for freedom with a new typeface inspired by original graffiti from the Berlin Wall - Creative Boom

Kids clamored over candy tossed from floats as a few handfuls even soared to the open second-story windows of Sumter's soon-to-be first brewery, construction workers taking a break to watch the parade pass by beneath.

Hundreds gathered along Main Street Monday morning for the annual Veterans Day parade that marched toward the old courthouse, where Sumter County's official ceremony took place and culminated with a food-filled celebration and meet and greet.

The ceremony has been held annually since 1996, according to Valerie Brunson, director of Sumter County Veterans Affairs. She has been with the Sumter VA for eight years and started the parade and subsequent meet and greet six years ago.

This year was the biggest yet.

"We always come here for this parade. It's a good one," said veteran Andre Laperle, daughter on his shoulders and son at his side.

The parade featured about 100 groups, and parade-watchers waved to airmen and soldiers from the 20th Fighter Wing and U.S. Army Central, both of which are headquartered at Shaw Air Force Base in Sumter. They were entertained by marching bands from Sumter's Sumter, Crestwood and Lakewood high schools and Clarendon County's Scott's Branch High School.

The youngest attendees covered their ears for honks from the Sumter County Sheriff's Office, Sumter Police Department, Sumter Fire Department, Sumter Utilities and even the loud horn coming from the small Jamil Shriners truck.

Brunson, Sumter's VA director, said the city and county work hard to stay true to Sumter's motto of "uncommon patriotism."

Veterans permeate Sumter. They are business owners, and they are doctors. They are lawyers, community leaders, elected officials, teachers, historians, taxpayers.

"Honoring them is something I love to do," Brunson said. "We've got to remember what they've done and the sacrifices they have made for our country."

'The strength of our nation'

Brunson and her team wrangled the day together, complete with five ROTC groups, representatives from all the veterans organizations in Sumter, a veteran-owned shaved ice truck, multiple Girl Scout troops and a Sumter firefighter and Continental manager dressed as Lady Liberty and Uncle Sam.

Lt. Gen. Terry Ferrell, commanding general of USARCENT, which provides land domain oversight, support and services for U.S. Central Command in the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia and traces its storied lineage to World War II Gen. George Patton's Third Army, served as the parade's grand marshal and ceremony's keynote speaker.

Veterans Day demonstrates the "strength of our nation," he said.

It doesn't matter the color of the uniform. The chairs at the front of the crowd spilling across the old courthouse lawn, reserved for veterans, sported a spectrum of colors. Dress blues and camouflage greens. Tuskegee red and Marine red. Black and gold, navy and white, purple.

When he started a roll call for veterans to stand up for each war they served in, just a few stood at the beginning. Then Vietnam was called. Then the same veterans started standing again.

Veterans Day is about more than those from different military branches coming together. Mayor Joe McElveen, himself a son, son-in-law, nephew and grandson of a veteran and a veteran himself, said the day is about celebrating every veteran who served, no matter the capacity or marked impact.

Sumter has produced such notable veterans as Medal of Honor recipient George Mabry Jr., who as a lieutenant colonel in World War II led an attack through Hurtgen Forest in Germany before retiring from the Army in 1975 as a major general. The "strength of our nation" lies in both people like Mabry and in every single veteran's contribution.

The spectrum of Sumter's veterans was represented on the courthouse steps at the end of the ceremony. Each year, the Sumter County Veterans Association randomly selects about 30 veterans to be specifically honored. Each received an American flag and a proclamation.

Special this year, veteran Ruth Hoyt gifted each of the honorees a patriotic blanket. The 97-year-old was a flight nurse in World War II, and, with only the help of a walker and a helping hand nearby, she said she is "still going strong."

Veteran Laperle, who took his kids to the parade, said he enjoyed seeing all the ROTC cadets participate. Veterans like when younger generations are interested in the military.

He was stationed at Shaw Air Force Base from 2011 to 2015 before stints in South Korea and Hurlburt Field near Fort Walton Beach, Florida. He now works for Caterpillar in West Columbia but comes to Sumter's Veterans Day program because of the community feel.

His daughter, Ava, 4, said she liked the music. His son, Joey, 10, couldn't decide what he liked most because it was all good, he said. The Sumter Utilities vehicles were cool, though.

Sumter's biggest parade yet represented a community that has grown in the decades since these veterans took up arms. It's a community big enough to line the streets but small enough still for a wife to grab a kiss through the driver's window of a cop car rolling down the parade route. Small enough for an airman to break rank and shuffle to the curb for a quick high five from his son.

The patriotism may be uncommon, but its presence is familiar.

Original post:

Ensuring our freedom: Sumter holds annual Veterans Day celebration with parade, ceremony, meet and greet - Sumter Item

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, known to tell a tall tale or two, is climbing to the top of the totem pole for the Democratic Partys presidential nomination.Warren, who has a tortured history of embellishing her autobiography, is gaining a tribal following as she veers left. Shes gone off the reservation to attract a whole bunch of Warren warriors who will support her to be the next commander in chief.

However, when people take a deep dive into Warrens policy views, they might want to think twice about supporting her run for the nomination. Here are five reasons why Warren should stay as far from the White House as possible:

Warren is a fraud, in the truest sense of the word. Not only is she vastly more disingenuous than the average politician, her stupid schemes would undermine tried and true American principles and policies. If elected to the highest office in the land, Warren would single-handedly threaten the long-term viability of individual freedom, self-reliance, and federalism.

President Reagan once said, Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didnt pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. If Warren somehow wins the presidency in 2020, you can bid a fond farewell to good-old American freedom.

[Originally Published at The Daily Caller]

See the original post:

Five Reasons Why Warren's Policies Will Destroy Freedom as We Know It - The Heartland Institute

The Freedom Wall in Jeffersontown, Ky., includes 15, 4- by 8-foot lites of glass.

This Veterans Day marks the first anniversary of the Freedom Memorial Walls opening in Jeffersontown, Ky., honoring the sacrifice and service of U.S. veterans. The project features 15, 4- by 8-foot glass lites depicting images and stories from each branch of the military. Radiance Glass Studio in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., was chosen to help tell the stories of veterans and their families due to its experience with de-coating technology.

CEO Scott Erickson says the project required a material that wouldnt fade and could withstand large temperature fluctuations. Radiances de-coating technology removes paint from backpainted glass in a controlled manner and etches behind it. Erickson says this process allows his team to create high-definition engraving compared to sandblasting, which creates a positive or negative. Each panel includes a quarter-inch lite of backpainted glass laminated with a quarter-inch lite of low-iron glass.

One of the most challenging parts of the installation was timing. As the fabrication was complete close to the deadline, the Radiance team hand-delivered the glass and Pace Contracting worked around the clock for two days with a team of around 30 to finish the installation on time for the Veterans Day 2018 opening.

Radiance Glass Studio uses a technology called de-coating to create images in glass.

Erickson says the reception to the project has been fantastic. His team has been asked to work on a similar project in Oklahoma in partnership with the local government and local American Legion branch.

Weve started a new relationship with the American legion and we hope to give them some of the proceeds for the projects we do like this moving forward, he says. They have a lot of great outreach programs. Thats an organization we look forward to working with to help them help others moving forward.

Thanks to his teams involvement in this project, Veterans Day has become an important day at Radiance.

Its a special day and it really helps me and my team to reflect on what the members of our military and their families do, he says. Its become an important and special holiday for us and this helped us realize that even more.

Read the original here:

Glass Freedom Wall Honors Veterans and Their Families - USGlass Metal & Glazing

The Freedom Patriots are extremely familiar foes for Parkland High Schools football team at this point.

But theyre extra familiar for Angel Santos.

The Trojans senior played with the current Patriots until moving out of the Bethlehem Area School District in the eighth grade and his two brothers, Andres and Joseph, competed for Freedom a handful of years ago.

It's a big game for me because I know all the kids there, said Santos, a middle linebacker/running back. I went to school with them. I was supposed to play with them, but I moved over here and now I'm playing for Parkland.

Friday night will mark the fourth straight year the Trojans (9-2) will meet Freedom (10-1) in the postseason. The second-seeded Patriots host third-seeded Parkland in the District 11 Class 6A semifinals at Bethlehem Area School District Stadium.

Parkland has the wind at its back, with seven consecutive wins after a 2-2 start. One of those early setbacks was a 21-18 defeat to Freedom.

I think they've been hungry the whole year, coming from 2-2 with their backs against the wall, Parkland coach Tim Moncman said of his players. This is our fourth time (playing Freedom) in two years and they've won the last three. We just hope to play our best and see what happens.

Parklands early season injuries have been well-reported. The Trojans will enter Fridays semifinal with more tools at their disposal compared to their first meeting with Freedom, particularly as Moncman noted, senior offensive tackle Nick Dawkins, a Penn State recruit.

Parkland has also been clamping down on opposing offenses. The Trojans are allowing an average of 10.3 points per game over their last seven victories.

Defensively, we have a couple bodies back, but we're just clicking, Moncman said. We're playing pretty well running to the ball, swarming to the ball.

Our defense has been key, Santos said. Our defense has been great, and it's been stopping everyone. And our offense is getting better and better every week.

While the team has dealt with ailments at different areas, Santos has been a steady presence in the middle of the D all season.

He's the captain of the defense, Moncman said. He makes all the calls and gets there with a purpose.

Santos, who is listed at 5-foot-10, 210 pounds, can certainly make the pads pop when he reaches the ball-carrier.

He is as blue-collar as it gets, Moncman said.

The middle linebacker and his teammates have a tall task in slowing down the Patriots, who are the defending District 11 Class 6A champions.

(Quarterback Jared) Jenkins makes all the right decisions, Moncman said. I think (Jalen) Stewart and (Matty) Russin are as good a 1-2 punch as you could see. They'd be primary backs for anybody. So, they're explosive on offense and come after you on defense.

Santos leads the Trojans with 88 tackles, including eight TFLs and three sacks.

Hes also an effective change-of-pace back behind junior Isiah Rico (200 carries, 1,289 yards, 16 touchdowns).

We'll use him at running back and he's a beast to bring down, Moncman said.

Santos has taken 39 carries for 302 yards and six touchdowns.

I try to get as much as I can, Santos said of playing running back. I try not to let anyone take me down 1-on-1.

A steady running game will be important for Parkland as sophomore quarterback Ty Tremba (58-for-107, 964 yards, 8 TDs, 5 INTs), who took over near the midway point of the regular season, enters the biggest start of his young career.

I think the switch at quarterback has sparked us quite a bit, Moncman said.

Santos knows the rushing attack is important. He also knows that his strength is a major element of his game, and he credits his work with the Parkland power-lifting team for some of the advancements in that area.

It was a great experience lifting with them, the senior said. Everyone was getting stronger and stronger.

Santos found a little motivation from within his family when he worked in the weight room.

When I was younger and my brothers were playing for Freedom, I used to work out with them all the time, he said. ... When I got here and I saw (the power-lifting team), my goal became to lift more than my brother (Andres).

Has he reached that goal?

Just by a little bit, Santos said with a laugh.

Right now, the senior is more focused on beating his brothers old team.

RELATED: High school football predictions for Week 12

Kyle Craig may be reached at kcraig@lehighvalleylive.com. Follow him on Twitter @KyleCraigSports. Find Lehigh Valley high school sports on Facebook.

See more here:

Familiarity goes beyond the field for Parkland footballs Santos vs. Freedom - lehighvalleylive.com

Note:This is part of the Promise of Republicanism series, which can be foundherein its entirety.

The idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is getting a lot of attention these days, thanks largely to the fact that Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang has made it the centerpiece of his campaign. Yang calls his version of the UBI the Freedom Dividend, a proposal under which every American over the age of eighteen would receive $1,000 a month from the Federal government, no strings attached.

The name Freedom Dividend is, of course, a nice bit of political rhetoric for an electorate largely inclined to view any large-scale scheme of income redistribution as a form of socialism. But beneath the rhetoric lies a legitimate, substantive point. Yang is right: Theres a good case to be made for a UBI based on the importance of individual freedom. Indeed, the foundations of that case have already been laid by none other than the renowned champion of economic and personal liberty, Friedrich Hayek.

Hayeks devotion to the ideals of free markets and limited government is well-known. His most famous book, The Road to Serfdom, argued that economic and political liberties are tightly connected, and that liberal democracies cannot safely curtail the former without also endangering the latter. His later works, especially The Constitution of Liberty, set forth a positive vision of a free society centered on the idea that individuals should be left largely free to act on the basis of their own values and beliefs, rather than those of government regulators or planners, in both the personal and economic dimensions of their lives.

While everybody knows that Hayek saw himself as a champion of individual freedom, few understand the precise nature of the freedom that Hayek sought to defend. Unlike many libertarians, who understand freedom primarily in terms of non-interference or respect for property rights, Hayek subscribed to a republican theory in which freedom consists of being able to live ones life according to [ones] own decisions and plans, in contrast to one who was irrevocably subject to the will of another.

Understanding Hayek as a commercial republican helps to make sense of many different aspects of his political theory. It explains why, unlike many libertarians, Hayek was never seriously tempted by the idea of anarcho-capitalism. Hayek did not believe that government was necessarily inimical to freedom. Indeed, he believed that government, or at least governance, in the sense of a set of institutions that subject human conduct to general and impartial rules, is a necessary precondition for freedom. For example, traffic laws limit the actions we can perform, but they do so in a way that makes us more free rather than less. They do so by allowing us to form reliable expectations about the behavior of others, which enables us to carry out our own plans more effectively than we could without them. However, a tyrant who can order us to perform or refrain from specific behaviors at a whim deprives us of the ability to effectively set and pursue our plans with any confidence even if the tyrant happens not to interfere at any given time. The fact that it is always in her power to intervene in any way she likes strips us of control over our lives, and thus renders us unfree.

Considerations such as these explain why Hayek continually emphasized the distinction between general rules on the one hand and commands on the other (or between law and legislation) in his writings. To be subject to the commands of a tyrant is to be dependent on the arbitrary will of another person. The actions of those subject to commands are based not on the beliefs and values of the actor, but on the beliefs and values of the tyrant. In contrast, general and impersonal rules do not subject individuals to the will of anyone else. They are, in Hayeks words, like laws of nature stable facts of social existence around which individuals can learn to navigate and plan their lives. They do not place some citizens in a position of subordination, nor do they elevate others to a position of dominance.

Hayeks republican political theory provides one of the main theoretical foundations for his strong support of free markets. Although many contemporary republican theorists have been either overtly hostile or at best lukewarm toward the market economy, Hayek saw correctly that market competition can serve as one of the most effective guarantors of republican freedom.

The essence of market competition is the existence of alternatives, and the right to say no to offers that fail to serve ones interests at least as well as one of those alternatives. In a competitive labor market, an employer who tries to force an employee to do something she doesnt want to do is constrained by that employees ability to quit and find a job elsewhere. A used car dealer who would like to take advantage of a buyer by charging an unfairly high price is similarly constrained by the presence of a competing dealer next door. In general, the more competitive a market is, the more prices and other terms of agreements will be regulated by the impersonal forces of supply and demand, and the less any particular market agent will be able to impose her particular will on her partner in exchange. All market actors are constrained by the general, impersonal rules of the market. But those same rules generally work to prevent any market actors from achieving a position of dominance over others.

Similarly, it is largely because Hayek views competition as such an effective check on coercion that he views government power with suspicion. After all, government is the only institution within society to claim and generally possess an effective monopoly on the use of force. And this monopoly on force is often used to establish and maintain other monopolies: on roads, on the delivery of regular mail, on the creation and enforcement of criminal law, and so on. Because individuals who value these services have nowhere else to go, they are often left with no practical alternative to compliance with the governments demands.

Moreover, as legal rules become more numerous and complex, as ordinary individuals become unable to know in advance what actions are permitted and which are prohibited, as law enforcement becomes practically unable to enforce all the rules that they could, in theory, enforce, the extent of individual discretion within government increases, and so too does the possibility of arbitrary coercion. In that case, individuals are no longer required to comply with the law, but with the edicts of a bureaucrat behind a desk, or an officer behind a badge. When the agents of the state are granted a practically unchecked power to apply the law (or not) in whatever way he sees fit, individuals are no longer fully free.

But while Hayeks republicanism provides strong support for the ideals of free markets and limited government, it also provides a criterion for determining when those institutions are not enough. Market competition generally protects the consumer against predation by unscrupulous sellers, but this protection can be undermined by collusion and natural monopolies. Similarly, competition in the labor market might protect workers from exploitation when those workers have an adequate range of alternatives available to them, but fall short when those alternatives are limited either by features of the local economy (a lack of jobs) or by characteristics of the employee (e.g. limited skills or lack of mobility).

In order to protect individual freedom in these circumstances, Hayek believed that some governmental action was both necessary and appropriate. Indeed, Hayek took great pains even in his most partisan work, The Road to Serfdom, to distance himself from a dogmatic opposition to government action, writing that nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rough rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez faire. Hayek believed that government had a legitimate (though delicate) role to fill in preventing and/or regulating monopolies. He believed that government had important work to do in the areas of sanitation, health services, and public works. And, most strikingly of all, he believed that it was not only permissible but necessary for government to redistribute income in order to provide a social safety net that would ensure a certain minimum income for everyone, or a certain floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself.

Hayek himself did not have much to say about why he thought such a policy might be justified. But Hayeks commitment to republican freedom provides a starting point from which an argument can easily be constructed. Poverty, while not itself coercive, renders people vulnerable to coercion by others. A wife who is dependent on her husbands paycheck may have to put up with abusive behavior simply in order to keep a roof over her head. And as Hayek himself noted, an employee in a slack labor market must do what his boss tells him or else risk destitution. In these cases and many more, people are unable to escape serious and pervasive interference by others because they lack the financial resources to stand on their own. Providing people with money gives them options, and thus the ability to live their lives in accordance with their own will, rather than in subjugation to the will of another.

Moreover, there are strong Hayekian reasons for providing assistance in the form of cash, rather than in-kind benefits. One of the most powerful and consistent themes in all of Hayeks work is the idea that government planners often lack knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place that would be necessary to carry out their plans effectively. For Hayek, that limitation was an important part of the case for decentralized (i.e., free market) economic planning. But these same considerations provide a powerful argument for redistribution taking the form of cash grants, as opposed to in-kind transfers. Cash gives individuals the freedom to decide for themselves what they need, whether that is paying rent, buying groceries, or saving for future consumption. A system of in-kind transfers, in contrast, puts those decisions in the hands of government, where they are at least as likely to be determined by powerful special interests as they are by genuine and accurate considerations of recipients basic needs.

Hayeks support of a minimum income is compatible with his famous rejection of social justice. There is a difference, Hayek argued, between a society that accepts the duty of preventing destitution and of providing a minimum level of welfare and one which seeks to determine the just position of everybody and allocates to each what it thinks he deserves. The latter task requires a level of knowledge on the part of government that Hayek believed was impossible to obtain, and a level of discriminatory power that he believed was incompatible with a free society. The former, in contrast, could be administered by precisely the sort of general, impartial rules that Hayek believed were essential to a genuinely liberal order.

Still, despite all this, it would be misleading to claim that Hayek supported a Universal Basic Income. One of the defining features of a UBI is the idea of unconditionality, meaning that eligibility is not limited to those who are working, or who are willing to work. And this is an idea that Hayek explicitly and repeatedly rejected.

I do not question any individuals right voluntarily to withdraw from civilisation. But what entitlements do such persons have? Are we to subsidise their hermitages? There cannot be any entitlement to be exempted from the rules on which civilisation rests. We may be able to assist the weak and disabled, the very young and old, but only if the sane and adult submit to the impersonal discipline which gives us means to do so.

Still, just because Hayek rejected a UBI does not mean that Hayekians must do so. Indeed, as I argue in more detail elsewhere, Hayeks own fundamental principles provide one of the best arguments for rejecting the kind of work requirement that Hayek himself endorses. In particular, Hayeks own insights into the radically dispersed nature of knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place pose a serious obstacle to conditional schemes such as those he favored.

The problem is this: Hayeks support of a work requirement appears to be based on a kind of reciprocity principle according to which those who seek to benefit from the productive activities of society have a moral obligation to make some reciprocal contribution to society. But it would clearly be a mistake to assume that paid labor is the only way to make such a contribution. Artists, parents, and caregivers, for instance, all make (or are capable of making) an important contribution to society, even if none of them are engaged in the sort of work that would qualify them for benefits under something like the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Furthermore, even if the reciprocity principle is true, presumably some accommodation will have to be made for those who are genuinely incapable of making a reciprocal contribution. Those who are physically or mentally unable to work, for instance, presumably should not be excluded from receiving benefits even if one thinks that those who are able but unwilling to work should not be eligible.

So, in order to correctly apply Hayeks principle, governments would have to know both (a) what sorts of activity count as a legitimate reciprocal contribution and which do not, and (b) which particular individuals are genuinely incapable (as opposed to just unwilling) to make such a contribution. But how could we expect governments to accurately arrive at this information? What standard should they apply to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate contributions to social welfare? What sort of intrusive powers will they require to distinguish between a genuine inability to find work and mere shiftlessness? The Hayekian case for an unconditional benefit is that it economizes on governments scarce knowledge, and that it errs on the side of protecting individuals who truly are in danger of subjugation due to their economic vulnerability, even if that means erring on the side of supporting some individuals who do not truly need it.

Hayeks republicanism provides an attractive way for reconciling a commitment to free markets and limited government with support for a social safety net. Moreover, Hayeks particular emphasis on the significance of dispersed knowledge push in favor of that safety net taking the form of a UBI.

This principled case for a UBI leaves many concerns of a more practical nature unanswered. Wouldnt the UBI cost too much? Wouldnt it discourage work? Wouldnt it turn the United States into a welfare magnet or, on the flip side, lead voters to push for even tighter restrictions on immigration?

But these concerns are not really objections to a UBI as such. Rather, they are objections to particular ways in which a UBI might or might not be set up. It is probably best to think of the UBI not as a single policy but as a family of policies, all of which involve cash transfers, but which vary according to the size of those transfers, whether or not they are means-tested, what sort of citizenship and residency requirement are attached to them, and so on.

My own inclination is to favor a UBI in the form of a Negative Income Tax (as Niskanens Samuel Hammond has argued, UBI is really just a NIT with a leaky bucket), and to address concerns about excessive costs and unemployment effects by altering the size and phase-out rate of the transfer. But as Miranda Fleischer and Daniel Hemel have pointed out, there are a variety of different ways of structuring the Architecture of a Basic Income, each with its own costs and benefits.

The important point is that pragmatic concerns about the UBI can largely if not entirely be addressed at the level of policy design. If the Hayekian argument I have presented here is correct, and there really is a good case to be made for a UBI on grounds of a republican conception of individual freedom, then we should not let such concerns stand in the way of making progress toward a basic income for all.

Read the rest here:

Hayek, Republican Freedom, and the Universal Basic Income - Niskanen Center

Investors are increasingly concerned about the impact of their money on the world, and the emergence of portfolios geared toward investing in freedom and democracy are one example.

As well as determining which factors contribute to varying levels of civil, political or economic freedom in emerging market countries, a key issue for fund managers and economists has been whether to allocate capital to countries with current quantifiably high levels of freedom, or those in the early stages of transition to open market economies and democracy.

China accounts for almost 32% of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, but is excluded entirely from the Alpha Architect Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM), which is sponsored by "freedom-weighted" portfolio provider Life + Liberty Indexes.

Russia and Saudi Arabia also miss out. The fund directs the highest proportions of its capital to Taiwan, South Korea, Chile and Poland.

Life + Liberty Founder Perth Tolle told CNBC that the fund still permits indirect exposure to China. For example, it holds Naspers, which has a stake in Tencent, while Chile has significant trade ties to China.

"The happy accident here is that South Korea and Taiwan are the freest emerging markets in our universe so they have a very high weight in our index and those are highly correlated with China, so we get a lot of correlation without actually having direct China exposure," Tolle told CNBC via telephone.

"We do have indirect China exposure through trade and investments that other countries do with China, and we don't penalize those countries for that free trade."

Ed Smith, head of asset allocation research at Rathbones, contended that the development of South Korean and Taiwanese economies owed some thanks to state intervention policies, and suggested that the academia had moved toward a focus on the direction of travel as the key driver of returns.

"The mechanism that led to South Korea's huge success, and also Taiwan, was quite frankly an authoritarian use of the state to raise the investible surplus, but directing it to the industries and firms important to the economy's ability to sustain higher wages in the future," Smith told CNBC.

"That led to much more rapid, intensive cycles of investment than perhaps a free market would have allowed for."

A recent study conducted by Marshall Stocker, vice president and head of country research at investment firm Eaton Vance, concluded that countries with a low level of economic freedom outperform their freer counterparts over a five-to-10 year period.

This is primarily due to the risk premium of investing in countries with low rule of law, large governments which impose high taxes and inconsistently applied regulations. Beyond the 10-year investment horizon, however, returns even out.

Stocker's team focuses on trying to anticipate policy change in specific countries during an investment horizon which will affect various asset class returns.

"What happens over a longer period than 10 years? They come along and steal your stuff, so all that profit you accrued gets stolen," Stocker told CNBC.

"It could be from outright theft, like what might be going on in Zambia today, it could be from monetization through hyperinflation the Zimbabwe story and lo and behold, those returns go back to being equal across the levels of economic freedom."

With investors becoming more concerned with ESG (environmental, social and governance) factors, Stocker suggested that ESG is moving from version 1.0, which centered around negatively screening out countries with low levels of ESG, to version 2.0, which involves engagement.

"Here's what's encouraging when countries increase economic freedom they have the salutary benefit of ESG gains," he said, adding that by investing in countries where economic freedom is increasing, investors become "missionaries" for ESG improvements.

Over a longer period, there is a broad correlation between equity markets and GDP (gross domestic product) per capita, according to Jon Harrison, managing director of EM macro strategy at TS Lombard.

"We find that there is a high correlation between GDP/capita and a small number of indicators, categorized as: Human capital, institutional & regulatory environment, trade liberalization and financial system development," Harrison told CNBC via email.

"We find that these are roughly weighted 40%/30%/20%/10% so Human Capital is the most important."

In richer economies with a GDP per capita greater than 30% that of the U.S., this correlation breaks down, but for emerging markets it holds firm.

"Undemocratic countries are able to make substantial progress on human capital without necessarily becoming 'free', but may come up against limitations as the level of wealth increases for example, it may be more difficult to eradicate corruption in a non-democratic country," Harrison added.

The firm also found a high correlation between ESG factors and economic growth, with undemocratic countries able to make greater progress before reaching a ceiling.

"The important point about both our structural change analysis and our ESG analysis is that EM economies offer 'low hanging fruit' both in terms of economic growth and ethical improvement which would seem to be a reason to invest in them," Harrison concluded.

Read the original post:

How the investment world is trying to promote 'freedom' in emerging markets - CNBC

Two of the freest economies in the world are on fire. According to indexes of economic freedom published annually separately by two conservative thinktanks the Heritage Foundation and the Fraser Institute Hong Kong has been number one in the rankings for more than 20 years. Chile is ranked first in Latin America by both indexes, which also place it above Germany and Sweden in the global league table.

Violent protest in Hong Kong has entered its eighth month. The target is Beijing, but the lack of universal suffrage that is catalysing popular anger has long been part of Hong Kongs economic model. In Chile, where student-led protests against a rise in subway fares turned into a nationwide anti-government movement, the death toll is at least 18.

The rage may be better explained by other rankings: Chile places in the top 25 for economic freedom and also for income inequality. If Hong Kong were a country, it would be in the worlds top 10 most unequal. Observers often use the word neoliberalism to describe the policies behind this inequality. The term can seem vague, but the ideas behind the economic freedom index help to bring it into focus.

All rankings hold visions of utopia within them. The ideal world described by these indexes is one where property rights and security of contract are the highest values, inflation is the chief enemy of liberty, capital flight is a human right and democratic elections may work actively against the maintenance of economic freedom.

These rankings are not merely academic. Heritage rankings are used to allocate US foreign aid through the Millennium Challenge Corporation. They set goals for policy-makers: in 2011, the Institute of Economic Affairs lamented that a rise in social spending was leading to a fall in Britains ranking. Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith even cited the Heritage index in support of a hard Brexit. Launching the 2018 index at the Heritage Foundation, Trumps commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, expressed hope that environmental deregulation and corporate tax cuts would reverse Americas decline in the ranking. Where did this way of framing the world come from?

The idea for the economic freedom index was born in 1984, after a discussion of Orwells 1984 at a meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society an exclusive debating club of academics, policymakers, thinktankers and business leaders formed by Friedrich Hayek in 1947 to oppose the rise of communism in the east and social democracy in the west. The historian Paul Johnson argued that Orwells predictions had not come true; Michael Walker of the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute countered that perhaps they had. High taxes, obligatory social security numbers and public transparency about political contributions suggested we might be closer to Orwellian dystopia than we thought.

Walker saw this debate as the unfinished business of Milton Friedmans 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, which had suggested that political liberty relied on market freedom but had not proved it scientifically. Friedman was at the meeting, and, with his wife and co-author, Rose, agreed to help host a series of workshops on the challenge of measuring economic freedom.

The Friedmans gathered a crowd of luminaries, including Nobel prize winner Douglass North and The Bell Curve co-author Charles Murray, to figure out whether something as nebulous as freedom could be quantified and ranked. They ended up with a series of indicators, measuring the stability of currency; the right of citizens to own bank accounts in foreign countries and foreign currencies; the level of government spending and government-owned enterprise; and, crucially, the rate of individual and corporate taxation.

When Walkers Fraser Institute published its first index in 1996 with a foreword from Friedman, there were some surprises. According to its historical overview, the second freest economy in the world in 1975 was Honduras, a military dictatorship. For the next year, another dictatorship, Guatemala, was in the top five. These were no anomalies. They expressed a basic truth about the indexes. The definition of freedom they used meant that democracy was a moot point, monetary stability was paramount and any expansion of social services would lead to a fall in the rankings. Taxation was theft, pure and simple, and austerity was the only path to the top.

The right to food, clothing, medical services, housing or a minimal income level, the authors wrote, was nothing less than forced labor requirements [imposed] on others. The director of the index translated the vision into policy advice a few years later, writing in a public memo to the Canadian prime minister that poverty could be eliminated through a simple solution: End welfare. Reinstitute poorhouses and homes for unwed mothers.

Not content with mere economics, the Fraser Institute joined up with the Cato Institute in 2015 to publish the first global index of human freedom. They included all of the earlier economic indicators and supplemented them with measurements of civil liberty, rights to association and free expression, alongside dozens of others but left out multiparty elections and universal suffrage. The authors noted specifically that they excluded political freedom and democracy from the index and Hong Kong topped the list again.

What was going on? One answer is that the project of measuring economic freedom had made some of its authors question their prior assumptions about the natural relationship between capitalism and democracy. By the 1990s, Friedman, who had previously seen the two as mutually reinforcing, was singing a different tune. As he said in an interview in 1988: I believe a relatively free economy is a necessary condition for freedom. But there is evidence that a democratic society, once established, destroys a free economy. An enfranchised people tended to use their votes to pressure politicians into more social spending, clogging the arteries of free exchange.

In the workshops devoted to creating the indexes, Friedman cited the example of Hong Kong as evidence for the truth of this proposition, saying: There is almost no doubt that if you had political freedom in Hong Kong you would have much less economic and civil freedom than you do as a result of an authoritarian government.

Hong Kongs former chief executive, CY Leung, agreed. During the umbrella revolution protests of 2014 he was asked why suffrage could not be expanded. His matter-of-fact response was that this would increase the power of the poor and lead to the kind of politics that favour the expansion of the welfare state instead of business-friendly policies. For him, the tradeoff between economic and political freedom was not buried in an index. It was as clear as day.

Economic freedom rankings exist inside nations, too. Stephen Moore and Arthur Laffer, two of Trumps economic advisers, created comparable league tables for American states which have proved drastically unhelpful in predicting economic success. The system has been rolled out by the Cato Institute in India, too, encouraging a deregulatory race to the bottom within national borders as well as across them. One of the authors of the report, Bibek Debroy, now chairs the Economic Advisory Council to Indian prime minister Narendra Modi.

Pinochet, Thatcher and Reagan may be dead. But economic freedom indexes carry the neoliberal banner by deeming the goals of social justice forever illegitimate and pushing states to regard themselves solely as guardians of economic power. Stephen Moore, who was a favourite earlier this year for Trumps appointment to the Federal Reserve Board, put the matter simply. Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy, he said in an interview. Im not even a big believer in democracy. Hong Kongs financial secretary made much the same argument two weeks ago in London, when he cited the citys top economic freedom ranking and reassured his audience that alongside the protests, the business of business rolls on, unabated.

By colour-coding nations, celebrating victors on glossy paper stock and giving high-ranking countries a reason to celebrate at banquets and balls, the indexes help perpetuate the idea that economics must be protected from the excesses of politics to the point that an authoritarian government that protects free markets is preferable to a democratic one that redesigns them. At a time when the casting of ballots may lead to changes that threaten the freedom that capital has long enjoyed, the disposability of democracy in the vision of the index is what haunts us, from Santiago to the South China Sea to Washington DC.

Quinn Slobodian is a historian and author of Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism

Link:

Democracy doesnt matter to the defenders of economic freedom - The Guardian