[AnalogReigns]

I just have trouble when freedom is primarily defined in economic, materialistic terms. Marxists and fascists are materialists too, just as was Ayn Rand. I dare say there are those countries on Heritage's list--probably Singapore, actually, or others--where religion and speech are regulated in ways we would find repugnant in the USA. If keeping everything you earn--or just paying sales taxes or the like, is the ultimate measure of freedom, than criminals here, or the elites of the 3rd world may rank as the world's most "free" accordingly. They aren't good company to keep and that's not my idea of freedom, nor I think the Founders idea--though surely modern America is far from the original ideal. It could be much (much) worse however.

Ranking economic freedom as number one may, in subtle ways, make things worse.

[eno_]

In Singapore you have Chinese Catholics, Indian Hindus, local Moslems, Protestant anglos, and a huge variety of other races and religions living together. They manage to do it without a large visible police presence.

Economic freedom, which they have a lot of in Singapore, helps people be both free and peaceful. We need to relearn this lesson and cut our fedgov at least in half.

[eno_]

I am no anarchist. I would gladly go back to the pre-New Deal size of fedgov.

[Texas Federalist]

I just have trouble when freedom is primarily defined in economic, materialistic terms.

I understand your point and I think the focus of the article is on taxation because it is not included in the freedom index. The ultimate goal is to come up with a freedom index that takes into account property rights, taxation, religion, speech, and other factors, as well.