Advertisements must be marked as such and must not be misleading. They are also not allowed to utilize certain psychological tricks such as subliminal stimuli. This is why it is prohibited to show a soft drink in a film for a split-second, because then the advertising is not consciously perceptible while it may still have a subconscious effect. Furthermore, the current widespread collection and processing of personal data is certainly not compatible with the applicable data protection laws in European countries and elsewhere. Finally, the legality of personalized pricing is questionable, because it could be a misuse of insider information.
Other relevant aspects are possible breaches of the principles of equality and non-discrimination—and of competition laws, as free market access and price transparency are no longer guaranteed. The situation is comparable to businesses that sell their products cheaper in other countries, but try to prevent purchases via these countries. Such cases have resulted in high punitive fines in the past.
Personalized advertising and pricing cannot be compared to classical advertising or discount coupons, as the latter are non-specific and also do not invade our privacy with the goal to take advantage of our psychological weaknesses and knock out our critical thinking. Furthermore, let us not forget that, in the academic world, even harmless decision experiments are considered to be experiments with human subjects, which would have to be approved by a publicly accountable ethics committee.
In each and every case the persons concerned are required to give their informed consent. Nonetheless, experiments with manipulative technologies, such as nudging, are performed with millions of people, without informing them, without transparency and without ethical constraints. Even large social networks like Facebook or online dating platforms such as OkCupid have already publicly admitted to undertaking these kinds of social experiments.
If we want to avoid irresponsible research on humans and society just think of the involvement of psychologists in the torture scandals of the recent past , then we urgently need to impose high standards, especially scientific quality criteria and a code of conduct similar to the Hippocratic Oath. Has our thinking, our freedom, our democracy been hacked? Let us suppose there was a super-intelligent machine with godlike knowledge and superhuman abilities: We must be clear that a super-intelligence could also make mistakes, lie, pursue selfish interests or be manipulated.
Above all, it could not be compared with the distributed, collective intelligence of the entire population. The idea of replacing the thinking of all citizens by a computer cluster would be absurd, because that would dramatically lower the diversity and quality of the solutions achievable.
It is already clear that the problems of the world have not decreased despite the recent flood of data and the use of personalized information—on the contrary! World peace is fragile. The long-term change in the climate could lead to the greatest loss of species since the extinction of dinosaurs. We are also far from having overcome the financial crisis and its impact on the economy.
Cyber-crime is estimated to cause an annual loss of 3 trillion dollars. States and terrorists are preparing for cyberwarfare.
In a rapidly changing world a super-intelligence can never make perfect decisions see Fig. This results in disregarding local knowledge and facts, which are important to reach good solutions.
Although still in the domain of science fiction, human judgment is already being replaced by computer programs in many areas. Rich Dad's Conspiracy of the Rich. If we take the wrong decisions it could threaten our greatest historical achievements. Choose the subscription that is right for you. Part of a series on. For collective intelligence to work, information searches and decision-making by individuals must occur independently. Mass screenings for certain kinds of cancer and other diseases are now being viewed quite critically, because the side effects of wrong diagnoses often outweigh the benefits.
Distributed, local control methods are often superior to centralized approaches, especially in complex systems whose behaviors are highly variable, hardly predictable and not capable of real-time optimization. This is already true for traffic control in cities, but even more so for the social and economic systems of our highly networked, globalized world.
Furthermore, there is a danger that the manipulation of decisions by powerful algorithms undermines the basis of "collective intelligence," which can flexibly adapt to the challenges of our complex world. For collective intelligence to work, information searches and decision-making by individuals must occur independently. If our judgments and decisions are predetermined by algorithms, however, this truly leads to a brainwashing of the people.
Intelligent beings are downgraded to mere receivers of commands, who automatically respond to stimuli. How could creativity and thinking "out of the box" be possible under such conditions?
Ultimately, a centralized system of technocratic behavioral and social control using a super-intelligent information system would result in a new form of dictatorship. Therefore, the top-down controlled society, which comes under the banner of "liberal paternalism," is in principle nothing else than a totalitarian regime with a rosy cover. In fact, big nudging aims to bring the actions of many people into line, and to manipulate their perspectives and decisions. This puts it in the arena of propaganda and the targeted incapacitation of the citizen by behavioral control.
We expect that the consequences would be fatal in the long term, especially when considering the above-mentioned effect of undermining culture. Despite fierce global competition, democracies would be wise not to cast the achievements of many centuries overboard. In contrast to other political regimes, Western democracies have the advantage that they have already learned to deal with pluralism and diversity.
Now they just have to learn how to capitalize on them more. In the future, those countries will lead that reach a healthy balance between business, government and citizens. This requires networked thinking and the establishment of an information, innovation, product and service "ecosystem. Because there is no way to determine the best goal function: Happiness or life expectancy?
Often enough, what would have been better is only known after the fact. By allowing the pursuit of various different goals, a pluralistic society is better able to cope with the range of unexpected challenges to come. Centralized, top-down control is a solution of the past, which is only suitable for systems of low complexity. Therefore, federal systems and majority decisions are the solutions of the present. With economic and cultural evolution, social complexity will continue to rise. Therefore, the solution for the future is collective intelligence. This means that citizen science, crowdsourcing and online discussion platforms are eminently important new approaches to making more knowledge, ideas and resources available.
Collective intelligence requires a high degree of diversity. This is, however, being reduced by today's personalized information systems, which reinforce trends. Sociodiversity is as important as biodiversity. It fuels not only collective intelligence and innovation, but also resilience—the ability of our society to cope with unexpected shocks.
Reducing sociodiversity often also reduces the functionality and performance of an economy and society. This is the reason why totalitarian regimes often end up in conflict with their neighbors. Typical long-term consequences are political instability and war, as have occurred time and again throughout history.
Pluralism and participation are therefore not to be seen primarily as concessions to citizens, but as functional prerequisites for thriving, complex, modern societies. In summary, it can be said that we are now at a crossroads see Fig.
Big data, artificial intelligence, cybernetics and behavioral economics are shaping our society—for better or worse. If such widespread technologies are not compatible with our society's core values, sooner or later they will cause extensive damage. They could lead to an automated society with totalitarian features.
In the worst case, a centralized artificial intelligence would control what we know, what we think and how we act. We are at the historic moment, where we have to decide on the right path—a path that allows us all to benefit from the digital revolution. Therefore, we urge to adhere to the following fundamental principles:. Following this digital agenda we would all benefit from the fruits of the digital revolution: What are we waiting for?
Big data and artificial intelligence are undoubtedly important innovations. They have an enormous potential to catalyze economic value and social progress, from personalized healthcare to sustainable cities. It is totally unacceptable, however, to use these technologies to incapacitate the citizen. Big nudging and citizen scores abuse centrally collected personal data for behavioral control in ways that are totalitarian in nature. This is not only incompatible with human rights and democratic principles, but also inappropriate to manage modern, innovative societies.
In order to solve the genuine problems of the world, far better approaches in the fields of information and risk management are required. What can we do now? First, even in these times of digital revolution, the basic rights of citizens should be protected, as they are a fundamental prerequisite of a modern functional, democratic society. This requires the creation of a new social contract, based on trust and cooperation, which sees citizens and customers not as obstacles or resources to be exploited, but as partners. For this, the state would have to provide an appropriate regulatory framework, which ensures that technologies are designed and used in ways that are compatible with democracy.
This would have to guarantee informational self-determination, not only theoretically, but also practically, because it is a precondition for us to lead our lives in a self-determined and responsible manner. There should also be a right to get a copy of personal data collected about us.
It should be regulated by law that this information must be automatically sent, in a standardized format, to a personal data store, through which individuals could manage the use of their data potentially supported by particular AI-based digital assistants. To ensure greater privacy and to prevent discrimination, the unauthorised use of data would have to be punishable by law.
Individuals would then be able to decide who can use their information, for what purpose and for how long. Furthermore, appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that data is securely stored and exchanged. Sophisticated reputation systems considering multiple criteria could help to increase the quality of information on which our decisions are based. If data filters and recommendation and search algorithms would be selectable and configurable by the user, we could look at problems from multiple perspectives, and we would be less prone to manipulation by distorted information.
In addition, we need an efficient complaints procedure for citizens, as well as effective sanctions for violations of the rules. Finally, in order to create sufficient transparency and trust, leading scientific institutions should act as trustees of the data and algorithms that currently evade democratic control. This would also require an appropriate code of conduct that, at the very least, would have to be followed by anyone with access to sensitive data and algorithms—a kind of Hippocratic Oath for IT professionals. Furthermore, we would require a digital agenda to lay the foundation for new jobs and the future of the digital society.
Every year we invest billions in the agricultural sector and public infrastructure, schools and universities—to the benefit of industry and the service sector. Which public systems do we therefore need to ensure that the digital society becomes a success? First, completely new educational concepts are needed. This should be more focused on critical thinking, creativity, inventiveness and entrepreneurship than on creating standardised workers whose tasks, in the future, will be done by robots and computer algorithms. Education should also provide an understanding of the responsible and critical use of digital technologies, because citizens must be aware of how the digital world is intertwined with the physical one.
In order to effectively and responsibly exercise their rights, citizens must have an understanding of these technologies, but also of what uses are illegitimate. This is why there is all the more need for science, industry, politics, and educational institutions to make this knowledge widely available. Secondly, a participatory platform is needed that makes it easier for people to become self-employed, set up their own projects, find collaboration partners, market products and services worldwide, manage resources and pay tax and social security contributions a kind of sharing economy for all.
To complement this, towns and even villages could set up centers for the emerging digital communities such as fab labs , where ideas can be jointly developed and tested for free. Thanks to the open and innovative approach found in these centers, massive, collaborative innovation could be promoted. Particular kinds of competitions could provide additional incentives for innovation, help increase public visibility and generate momentum for a participatory digital society.
They could be particularly useful in mobilising civil society to ensure local contributions to global problems solving for example, by means of "Climate Olympics". For instance, platforms aiming to coordinate scarce resources could help unleash the huge potential of the circular and sharing economy, which is still largely untapped. With the commitment to an open data strategy, governments and industry would increasingly make data available for science and public use, to create suitable conditions for an efficient information and innovation ecosystem that keeps pace with the challenges of our world.
This could be encouraged by tax cuts, in the same way as they were granted in some countries for the use of environmentally friendly technologies. Thirdly, building a "digital nervous system," run by the citizens, could open up new opportunities of the Internet of Things for everyone and provide real-time data measurements available to all. If we want to use resources in a more sustainable way and slow down climate change, we need to measure the positive and negative side effects of our interactions with others and our environment.
By using appropriate feedback loops, systems could be influenced in such a way that they achieve the desired outcomes by means of self-organization. For this to succeed we would need various incentive and exchange systems, available to all economic, political and social innovators.
This could create entirely new markets and, therefore, also the basis for new prosperity. Unleashing the virtually unlimited potential of the digital economy would be greatly promoted by a pluralistic financial system for example, functionally differentiated currencies and new regulations for the compensation for inventions.
To better cope with the complexity and diversity of our future world and to turn it into an advantage, we will require personal digital assistants. These digital assistants will also benefit from developments in the field of artificial intelligence. In the future it can be expected that numerous networks combining human and artificial intelligence will be flexibly built and reconfigured, as needed. However, in order for us to retain control of our lives, these networks should be controlled in a distributed way.
In particular, one would also have to be able to log in and log out as desired. A "Wikipedia of Cultures" could eventually help to coordinate various activities in a highly diverse world and to make them compatible with each other. It would make the mostly implicit success principles of the world's cultures explicit, so that they could be combined in new ways.
A "Cultural Genome Project" like this would also be a kind of peace project, because it would raise public awareness for the value of sociocultural diversity. Global companies have long known that culturally diverse and multidisciplinary teams are more successful than homogeneous ones. However, the framework needed to efficiently collate knowledge and ideas from lots of people in order to create collective intelligence is still missing in many places.
To change this, the provision of online deliberation platforms would be highly useful. They could also create the framework needed to realize an upgraded, digital democracy, with greater participatory opportunities for citizens. This is important, because many of the problems facing the world today can only be managed with contributions from civil society. Orwellian Citizen Score, China's credit score system, is a warning for Americans, http: Big data, meet Big Brother: China invents the digital totalitarian state. The worrying implications of its social-credit project.
The Economist December 17, Predicting how people think and behave, International Innovation, http: Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Beneficial and Exploitative Nudges. On the Supposed Evidence for Libertarian Paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 3 , S. Ich habe nur gezeigt, dass es die Bombe gibt [I have only shown the bomb exists]. Health data cooperatives—citizen empowerment.
Methods of Information in Medicine 53 2 , S. The Automation of Society Is Next: How to Survive the Digital Revolution. Handbook of Ethics, Values and Technological Design. Frankfurt Big Data Lab, Thanks to Big Data, we can now take better, evidence-based decisions. However, the principle of top-down control increasingly fails, since the complexity of society grows in an explosive way as we go on networking our world. Distributed control approaches will become ever more important. Only by means of collective intelligence will it be possible to find appropriate solutions to the complexity challenges of our world.
Our society is at a crossroads: If ever more powerful algorithms would be controlled by a few decision-makers and reduce our self-determination, we would fall back in a Feudalism 2. Now, however, we have the chance to choose the path to digital democracy or democracy 2. How would behavioural and social control impact our lives? The concept of a Citizen Score, which is now being implemented in China, gives an idea. There, all citizens are rated on a one-dimensional ranking scale. Everything they do gives plus or minus points. This is not only aimed at mass surveillance.
The score depends on an individual's clicks on the Internet and their politically-correct conduct or not, and it determines their credit terms, their access to certain jobs, and travel visas. Therefore, the Citizen Score is about behavioural and social control. Even the behaviour of friends and acquaintances affects this score, i. Were similar principles to spread in democratic countries, it would be ultimately irrelevant whether it was the state or influential companies that set the rules.
In both cases, the pillars of democracy would be directly threatened:. Such a control of society would turn away from self-responsible citizens to individuals as underlings, leading to a Feudalism 2.
Editorial Reviews. About the Author. Michael Harrington is a political economist, public policy Look inside this book. Common Cents: Economics+Politics+ Finance A Citizen's Survival Guide by [Harrington. Common Cents: Economic+politics+finance a Citizen s Survival Guide. Filesize: MB. Reviews. Most of these publication is the greatest publication offered.
This is diametrically opposed to democratic values. It is therefore time for an Enlightenment 2.
This requires democratic technologies: He who has large amounts of data can manipulate people in subtle ways. But even benevolent decision-makers may do more wrong than right, says Dirk Helbing. Proponents of Nudging argue that people do not take optimal decisions and it is, therefore, necessary to help them. This school of thinking is known as paternalism. However, Nudging does not choose the way of informing and persuading people. It rather exploits psychological weaknesses in order to bring us to certain behaviours, i.
The scientific approach underlying this approach is called "behaviorism", which is actually long out of date. Decades ago, Burrhus Frederic Skinner conditioned rats, pigeons and dogs by rewards and punishments for example, by feeding them or applying painful electric shocks. Today one tries to condition people in similar ways. Instead of in a Skinner box, we are living in a "filter bubble": With personalized prices, we may be even punished or rewarded, for example, for un desired clicks on the Internet.
The increasing amount of personal information about us, which is often collected without our consent, reveals what we think, how we feel and how we can be manipulated. This insider information is exploited to manipulate us to make choices that we would otherwise not make, to buy some overpriced products or those that we do not need, or perhaps to give our vote to a certain political party.
However, Big Nudging is not suitable to solve many of our problems. This is particularly true for the complexity-related challenges of our world. Although already 90 countries use Nudging, it has not reduced our societal problems - on the contrary. Global warming is progressing. World peace is fragile, and terrorism is on the rise. Cybercrime explodes, and also the economic and debt crisis is not solved in many countries.
There is also no solution to the inefficiency of financial markets, as Nudging guru Richard Thaler recently admitted. In his view, if the state would control financial markets, this would rather aggravate the problem. But why should one then control our society in a top-down way, which is even more complex than a financial market? Society is not a machine, and complex systems cannot be steered like a car. This can be understood by discussing another complex system: To cure diseases, one needs to take the right medicine at the right time in the right dose.
Many treatments also have serious side and interaction effects. The same, of course, is expected to apply to social interventions by Big Nudging. Often is not clear in advance what would be good or bad for society. Therefore, chances are to cause more harm than good by Big Nudging. Furthermore, there is no measure, which is good for all people. For example, in recent decades, we have seen food advisories changing all the time. Many people also suffer from food intolerances, which can even be fatal. Mass screenings for certain kinds of cancer and other diseases are now being viewed quite critically, because the side effects of wrong diagnoses often outweigh the benefits.
Therefore, if one decided to use Big Nudging, a solid scientific basis, transparency, ethical evaluation and democratic control would be really crucial. The measures taken would have to guarantee statistically significant improvements, and the side effects would have to be acceptable. Users should be made aware of them in analogy to a medical leaflet , and the treated persons would have to have the last word. In addition, applying one and the same measure to the entire population would not be good. But far too little is known to take appropriate individual measures.
Not only is it important for society to apply different treatments in order to maintain diversity, but correlations regarding what measure to take in what particular context matter as well. For the functioning of society it is essential that people apply different roles, which are fitting to the respective situation they are in.
Big Nudging is far from being able to deliver this. Current Big-Data-based personalization rather creates new problems such as discrimination. For instance, if we make health insurance rates dependent on certain diets, then Jews, Muslims and Christians, women and men will have to pay different rates. Thus, a bunch of new problems is arising. Richard Thaler is, therefore, not getting tired to emphasize that Nudging should only be used in beneficial ways.
As a prime example, how to use Nudging, he mentions a GPS-based route guidance system. This, however, is turned on and off by the user. The user also specifies the respective goal. The digital assistant then offers several alternatives, between which the user can freely choose.
After that, the digital assistant supports the user as good as it can in reaching the goal and in making better decisions. This would certainly be the right approach to improve people's behaviours, but today the spirit of Big Nudging is quite different from this. Europe must guarantee citizens a right to a digital copy of all data about them Right to a Copy , says Ernst Hafen.
A first step towards data democracy would be to establish cooperative banks for personal data that are owned by the citizens rather than by corporate shareholders. Medicine can profit from health data. However, access to personal data must be controlled the persons the data subjects themselves. In Europe, we like to point out that we live in free, democratic societies.
We have almost unconsciously become dependent on multinational data firms, however, whose free services we pay for with our own data. However, thus far nobody has managed to extract the maximum use from personal data because it lies in many different data sets. In contrast to other assets, data can be copied with almost no associated cost. Every person should have the right to obtain a copy of all their personal data.
In this way, they can control the use and aggregation of their data and decide themselves whether to give access to friends, another doctor, or the scientific community. The emergence of mobile health sensors and apps means that patients can contribute significant medical insights. By recording their bodily health on their smartphones, such as medical indicators and the side effects of medications, they supply important data which make it possible to observe how treatments are applied, evaluate health technologies, and conduct evidence-based medicine in general.
It is also a moral obligation to give citizens access to copies of their data and allow them to take part in medical research, because it will save lives and make health care more affordable. In this way, citizens can use their data to play an active role in the global data economy. If they can store copies of their data in non-profit, citizen-controlled, cooperative institutions, a large portion of the economic value of personal data could be returned to society. The cooperative institutions would act as trustees in managing the data of their members.
This would result in the democratization of the market for personal data and the end of digital dependence. In order to deal with future technology in a responsible way, it is necessary that each one of us can participate in the decision-making process, argues Bruno S. Frey from the University of Basel. How can responsible innovation be promoted effectively?
Appeals to the public have little, if any, effect if the institutions or rules shaping human interactions are not designed to incentivize and enable people to meet these requests. Several types of institutions should be considered. Most importantly, society must be decentralized , following the principle of subsidiarity.
These types of decentralization will continue to be of major importance in the digital society of the future. In addition, citizens must have the opportunity to directly participate in decision-making on particular issues by means of popular referenda. In the discourse prior to such a referendum, all relevant arguments should be brought forward and stated in an organized fashion.
The various proposals about how to solve a particular problem should be compared and narrowed down to those which seem to be most promising, and integrated insomuch as possible during a mediation process. Nowadays, on-line deliberation tools can efficiently support such processes. Another way to implement the ten proposals would be to create new, unorthodox institutions. This lateral thinker would be tasked with developing counter-arguments and alternatives to each proposal.
Another unorthodox measure would be to choose among the alternatives considered reasonable during the discourse process using random decision-making mechanisms. Such an approach increases the chance that unconventional and generally disregarded proposals and ideas would be integrated into the digital society of the future. When technology determines how we see the world, there is a threat of misuse and deception. Thus, innovation must reflect our values, argues Jeroen van den Hoven. Germany was recently rocked by an industrial scandal of global proportions.
The revelations led to the resignation of the CEO of one of the largest car manufacturers, a grave loss of consumer confidence, a dramatic slump in share price and economic damage for the entire car industry. The compensation payments will be in the range of billions of Euro. The background to the scandal was a situation whereby VW and other car manufacturers used manipulative software which could detect the conditions under which the environmental compliance of a vehicle was tested.
The software algorithm altered the behavior of the engine so that it emitted fewer pollutant exhaust fumes under test conditions than in normal circumstances. In this way, it cheated the test procedure. The full reduction of emissions occurred only during the tests, but not in normal use. In the 21st Century, we urgently need to address the question of how we can implement ethical standards technologically.
Similarly, algorithms, computer code, software, models and data will increasingly determine what we see in the digital society, and what are choices are with regard to health insurance, finance and politics. This brings new risks for the economy and society. In particular, there is a danger of deception. Thus, it is important to understand that our values are embodied in the things we create. If these values are self-serving, discriminatory or contrary to the ideals of freedom and personal privacy, this will damage our society.
Thus, in the 21st Century we must urgently address the question of how we can implement ethical standards technologically. If we lack the motivation to develop the technological tools, science and institutions necessary to align the digital world with our shared values, the future looks very bleak. Thankfully, the European Union has invested in an extensive research and development program for responsible innovation. Furthermore, the EU countries which passed the Lund and Rome Declarations emphasized that innovation needs to be carried out responsibly.
Among other things, this means that innovation should be directed at developing intelligent solutions to societal problems, which can harmonize values such as efficiency, security and sustainability. Genuine innovation does not involve deceiving people into believing that their cars are sustainable and efficient. By contrast Amartya Sen argues for an understanding of freedom in terms of capabilities to pursue a range of goals.
It creates positive freedom within the society allowing for freedom of choice for an individual in a free society. Roosevelt included freedom from want in his Four freedoms speech. Roosevelt stated that freedom from want "translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world".
Herbert Hoover saw economic freedom as a fifth freedom, which secures survival of Roosevelt's Four freedoms. He described economic freedom as freedom "for men to choose their own calling, to accumulate property in protection of their children and old age, [and] freedom of enterprise that does not injure others. The Philadelphia Declaration enshrined in the constitution of the International Labour Organization  states that "all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security and equal opportunity.
The socialist view of economic freedom conceives of freedom as a concrete situation as opposed to an abstract or moral concept. This view of freedom is closely related to the socialist view of human creativity and the importance ascribed to creative freedom. Socialists view creativity as an essential aspect of human nature, thus defining freedom as a situation or state of being where individuals are able to express their creativity unhindered by constraints of both material scarcity and coercive social institutions.
One of the ways to measure economic competitiveness is by comparing an extent of economic freedom that countries have, which as surveys show can also largely explain differences in economic well-being across the world. Generally, countries with higher economic freedom have higher gross domestic product per capita and its growth rates, as well as better health care, education quality, environment protection, income equality, and happiness results. These trends of increasing prosperity are confirmed even when we compare these indicators within territories of countries.
Nevertheless, despite these benefits societies have to be aware that with increasing economic freedom they will have to face going through a phase of increasing inequality , which basically is a result of decreased redistribution, as well as other negative effects from economic liberalization , i. However, on the bright side, these negative effects from economic freedom tend to be felt in a shorter term, and if countries use the opportunities of economic freedom in our increasingly globalized economy in a right way, as research shows their socioeconomic conditions will be significantly better than in a case of less economic freedom.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For another use, see Economic, social and cultural rights. Age of Enlightenment Aristotelianism Classical liberalism. Agorism Anarchism Anarcho-capitalism Autarchism Christian libertarianism Collectivist anarchism Consequentialist libertarianism Free-market anarchism Fusionism Geolibertarianism Georgism Green anarchism Green libertarianism Individualist anarchism Insurrectionary anarchism Left-libertarianism Left-wing market anarchism Libertarian communism Libertarian Marxism Libertarian socialism Libertarian transhumanism Minarchism Mutualism Natural-rights libertarianism Paleolibertarianism Panarchism Right-libertarianism Social anarchism Voluntaryism.
Austrian School of economics Civil libertarianism Constitutionalism Economic liberalism Libertarian conservatism Libertarian Democrat Libertarian hip hop Libertarian Republican Libertarian science fiction Libertarian transhumanism Libertarianism in the United States Objectivism Public choice theory Small government Technolibertarianism.
Indices of economic freedom. This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. The Encyclopedia of Public Choice. Archived from the original on May 29, Retrieved November 10, Freedom and economic growth: Published in Democracy's Victory and Crisis. Foundations of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development.
Journal of Developing Areas. Decomposing the Effects" PDF. Surviving the Soft Depression of the 21st Century. John Wiley and Sons. University of Chicago Press. The political economy of property rights. The Mystery of Capital. No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism. Edited by Daniel Guerin, translated by Paul Sharkey.
Contract and the Common Law. Published in The State and Freedom of Contract. Social Institutions of Capitalism: Evolution and Design of Social Contracts. New York PBS". The University of Chicago. The Road to Serfdom: Freedom, Democracy and Economic Welfare. Economic Freedom of the World , — Retrieved 7 April What Does It Imply for Policy? Is there a growth payoff to economic freedom? Theory and Evidence," Economics Bulletin , Vol.
Freedom in the World: A New Measure of Freedom. Chapter 1 and 2 discusses the context and validity of the new measure. Archived from the original on Pearson Education India, West Sussex, England, UK: Humanities and Social Sciences, pp. Retrieved from " https: Philosophy of economics Political philosophy Social philosophy Human rights concepts Libertarian terms. Webarchive template wayback links All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from December Articles to be expanded from September All articles to be expanded Articles using small message boxes Articles with unsourced statements from February Views Read Edit View history.