Is the USA freer today, or was it freer in 1960.?

"In fact, the story of the past 50 years has been that the American economy has become freer and more dynamic.

Think back to 1960. The federal government regulated the price of every airfare. It regulated every rail, truck and shipping route. It regulated the price of natural gas. It regulated stockbrokers’ commissions. It regulated the interest rates that could be paid on checking accounts. It told most farmers how much they could grow of what commodity. It regulated what kind of political and religious comment could be expressed on the airwaves. And of course it conscripted millions of young men beginning their careers into the armed forces.

All of that is gone, gone, gone" – David Frum

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/04/frum.road.serfdom/index.html?hpt=T2

7 Responses to “Is the USA freer today, or was it freer in 1960.?”

  1. cheyenne Says:

    sounds like fun.i wish i knew just how it was from experience.but i think ill take your word for it.its ironic.i would take the word of a liberal democrat because they insists on the facts.and i really mean that.and thanks for the link.i just cant seem to get a handle on what the right is doing to america.

  2. One Winged Angel Says:

    blacks can vote.so yes i think it is

  3. Destructive Politics The Book Says:

    it was freer during the 1960s before the
    Department of Energy
    Department of Education
    EPA

  4. Joe Says:

    Everything you described were regulations on corporations and businesses. But our personal freedoms were much greater at that time.
    The airwaves are still regulated today since most of the airwaves are dominated by corporate giants. There are a few private radio stations that practice free speech, but they get shut down often by the FCC.
    The draft is still technically valid today. If you are registered to vote and/or have your license then you’re registered with the selective service. Although they may never use it again, they still have that option.

  5. Shin Chan Says:

    The form of control has just changed to less blatant methods because those schemes were obvious failures.

    You’d have to be living under a rock to believe that government is smaller than it was 50 years ago.

  6. Chin T Says:

    You really should get more than CNN information before making such a conclusion.
    As there are many who disagree wholeheartedly.

    "“Half-full” people would probably fall for that since they focus on the freedom that’s left, not that which has been taken away. They’d never give a thought to the consequences of putting federal officials in a position to harass those who write what the government does not want the public to read. With a law like that in place, the baseline concept of what freedom means would adjust downward again. No, the freedoms protected by the First Amendment are not secure. Nothing is if people only look at the freedom that’s left, not that which is being taken away."
    http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/freedom-in-america-is-the-glass-half-full-or-half-empty/#

    Steve Pearce says America’s freedoms are slowly being taken away, and that is one of the reasons why he’s seeking a return to Washington.
    http://www.alamogordonews.com/ci_16190750?source=most_viewed

    Defending Freedom in the Age of Obama

    By Brandon Crocker on 7.30.09 @ 6:07AM

    A few months ago Imprimis, the monthly publication put out by Hillsdale College, printed an edited version of an address given at Hillsdale by Mark Steyn. Steyn’s piece, entitled "Live Free or Die," is remarkable, as is typical for his work. Not to compare myself to the great Steyn, but it reminded me of something I wrote for the libertarian publication The Freeman way back in 1993, entitled "A Nation of Children."

    Back then we were facing some of the same assaults to the free market and individual liberty that confront us today. Hillary Clinton was leading the charge for government provided "universal health care" and President Bill Clinton and members of his inner circle, such as economist Robert Reich, had resurrected talk of government guiding the workings of the market through "industrial policy" and advocated the placing additional mandates on employers.

    The fact that we are arguing many of these same issues now, 16 years later, points to the fact that those of us who believe that protecting individual liberty is the primary role of the government, came out, to a significant degree, victorious in those previous battles. "Hillary Care" went down to defeat, industrial policy did not take off, and though we lost the argument on increasing the minimum wage and other employer mandates, we did win on achieving meaningful welfare reform.
    http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/30/defending-freedom-in-the-age-o

  7. Anita Morehead Says:

    Back in 1960 you could smoke in public. You didn’t have to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets. A husband could have sex with his wife and not be accused of rape. He could hit his kid when he deserved it without fear of being visited by the police.

    Back then you could call a spade a spade. No childish euphemisms to make bad things appear better. Rapists were rapists, not "child molesters." You could say Negro without fear of being called a racist.

    On the other hand we did not have computers or the internet back then. Sex on tv was a forbidden subject in 1960. People have more choices today as far as their working conditions are concerned.

    So basically I think we’re better off today because the freedoms we have today are important, not cosmetic like they were back then.