The View From 1776

"Freedom-Centric Theory"  Of Historical Progress
By Bill Greene

The time chart on THE VIEW FROM 1776 shows all the negative forces that tended to reverse progress in economic freedom over the past 2,500 years.

I have examined this course of history and many of the attempts by scholars to explain the  reasons for the Rise of the West over the Rest, so most of the time line is familiar to me. I have used the case method to look at each of the locales where progress occurred throughout this period and found that it may be a harmful generalization to refer to it all as “Western Civilization." 

The advances were first noted in Hebraic and Greek history where the principles of individual responsibility and ethics were formulated. I include with these origins of “Western” success the Phoenician culture where free enterprise first flourished due to the open economy and somewhat democratic mechanics of government.

It is customary to trace these beginnings forward to the Roman Republic, the Basques, the Hanseatic League, the Italian city states, and then to Holland, Flanders, and eventually to England, France and finally to America.

What escapes attention by most writers is, first, that all the rest of continental Europe stagnated during the last 500 years under monarchical and totalitarian rule (think Russia, Poland, most of Spain and Italy and Eastern Europe), and two,  that each of those small enclaves that did enjoy success, did so only as long as they retained their freedom--at least the de facto economic freedom of most of their citizens.

Except for America they all finally fell (or are falling) when they were either invaded from the outside or undermined from the inside. What this means is that there was something unique that happened albeit briefly in each of those success stories that did not happen in most of the continent. Further, because the Phoenicians, Greeks and Basques are quite different from the people of Holland, Scotland and England, I suggest that the common denominator for their progress was not that they were Western but that they were at least temporarily free.

Consequently, I prefer to call it a "Freedom-centric theory"  of historical progress, rather than a Western European-centric theory.  And I suggest it was not the “West” that won, but only those who adopted the proven mechanics of free economies, recognized the inviolable dignity and rights of each individual, and limited central governments. 

This is borne out by the fact that each of those initially successful enclaves was originally undone by growing bureaucracies, new elites who promoted centralized governmental power, or a softening born of success and affluence that weakened the fiber of their citizenry.

This freedom-centric view also has the advantage of explaining why Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Arab Emirates have surpassed most European nations in economic freedom and prosperity.

Charles Murray has observed in “Human Achievement” that political freedom accomplishes little by itself--  “it is de facto economic freedom, autonomy to act, that counts."  Florence prospered under their Republic and also under the Medici Princes, because the latter, for all their autocratic ways, honored Machiavelli’s advice to leave their subject’s private property alone. The Medicis were not intellectual elites, but understood the mechanics of business and free trade.

America’s ongoing decline would be more apt to be reversed under the Medicis than under the leadership of today’s liberal Leftist’s such as Clinton, Obama and Gore. The lesson of history is that economic freedom trumps political freedom or the vote.

There are many new democracies with all the trappings of elected government that stagnate and suffer under the oppressive economic controls administered from on high by their elected officials. It is important to recognize the importance of simple economic freedom--that empowers each individual to exert his innate human initiative--because it explains what works and what doesn’t.

The freedom based theory is also important to counter the environmental-climate-geography-based explanations of history currently dominating the market because the latter deny the more important role of individual freedom at the grassroots micro-economic level. To read Jared Diamond one might conclude that if India with its vast bureacracy could just ban guns, germs, and improve garbage collection, they would rule the world!

The “Radzewicz Rule” outlined in my book, Common Genius, suggests they would be better off downsizing government, giving women full rights, getting rid of the caste system, eating their cattle instead of worshipping them, downplaying the need to live a passive life to avoid downward re-incarnation, and empowering their citizens to be active, involved, and economically literate individuals. Each of those religious-cultural traditions are negatives to individual action.

The successful European locales mentioned above were not just free of economic regulation--they also benefitted from the Judaic-Greek-Christian traditions that honored the individual. Oppression can be both physical and mental-- we have gained because Christianity, instead of burdening the mental and spiritual side of our people, freed them to take advantage of their physical safety and economic freedom.