Let’s face a rather uncomfortable truth: among the approximately 200 nations on this globe, not a single one can genuinely claim to be free. If such a country existed, we might expect an official to boldly declare something akin to the following—though I must clarify this is not an actual quote but a hypothetical statement from a fictional government representative:
Regardless of the actions of others, our government has resolved to dismantle the last remnants of tariffs and coercive trade barriers. The individuals of our nation are free agents, able to engage in commerce with anyone—be it a neighbor, a foreign nation, or even a distant entity—who is eager and capable of trading. Only a handful of restrictions apply, such as those against trading in stolen goods, human trafficking, hiring assassins, or the questionable transaction of copper (forgive my dark humor, which is intended to lighten these trying times; the last example is, of course, purely a jest). Any individual or peaceful organization worldwide that wishes to buy from or sell to the free citizens here, whether organized into firms or not, is encouraged to engage. Whether these transactions lead to a trade deficit or surplus, increased foreign investment or decreased, or fluctuations in the production of dolls, deodorants, or watermelons is of no concern to anyone outside this marketplace. In our country, each person and private entity tends to their own affairs in a spirit of reciprocal exchange; the government does the same. Thanks to price signals and enterprising individuals, free markets respond to the desires for prosperity far more adeptly than controlling politicians ever could. This is not just a theory—three centuries of economic analysis and historical evidence back it up.
In the last century, perhaps only one individual could have uttered such sentiments: John Cowperthwaite, the British administrator of Hong Kong from 1945 to 1971. The outcomes of his policies were nothing short of extraordinary (for further details, see my EconLog post, “Hong Kong and John Cowperthwaite”).
It’s essential to recognize that even with the endorsement of electoral majorities, mimicking the oppressive tactics of tyrants does not equate to liberty. A stark example can be found in the Chinese government, which restricts its dual citizens—individuals who are not mere captives—from leaving the country once they are apprehended there (see “U.S. Citizen Who Works for Commerce Dept. Ensnared in Chinese Exit Ban,” Washington Post, July 20, 2025). Should the U.S. government retaliate with a similar ban? The absurdity of such a proposition is glaring.
This isn’t to say that some nations aren’t freer or less restricted than others. However, when we attempt to categorize these nations, particularly when they lie closer to the middle of the freedom spectrum, it becomes increasingly challenging. Freedom encompasses numerous aspects, each holding varying significance for different individuals. What is clear, however, is that the ability to freely exchange goods and services is a hallmark of a liberated society. The reality may be intricate, but the ideal remains straightforward.
Additionally, we must not overlook that certain equilibria are not resilient: a minor shift away from “more freedom” can lead to a significant divergence from liberty. State intervention often begets further state intervention. Isn’t this precisely what we are witnessing today?
