Could be. I've always thought that to be the case, but then all the modern economies until very recently were either Western Europe diaspora or Japan, which had rather heavy Western influence, twice, forcing them to adopt a variant of the Western model.

Still, there is contrary evidence in recent years. How far they'll go, I dunno. Plus, history seems to show that, as a middle class develops, they'll demand a greater say in governance.

See, I would argue with you there, especially since I'm conveniently free of any facts on the subject ...

Agreed, economic liberalization can go n distance w/out political liberalization. But then you run into little things like the absence of the rule of law, which makes investors and would-be contractors leery of putting both feet in the water. I seem to recall that being a bit of a problem in China these days.

Similarly, without individual rights, businessmen have a lot to inhibit them -- Russia might be a good example of that particular problem, but I'm sure not the only one.

Historically Speaking (in my best Masterpiece Theatre voice), the past "10-15 years" are a blip. At best, as I said, they show that China has put its left (economic) foot forward; but without bringing the right (political) foot up to stride, they're going to be stuck in place.

Even in “modern societies”, there’s no shortage of people looking to force others to live by their own ideas, ranging from banning smoking on private property all the way up to imposing religious beliefs and rules.

Nobody wants to be ruled by a tyrant (Francis's point), but most people would become one given the opportunity (your point), as Jefferson rightly knew.

It seemed that way until maybe 10-15 years ago. Certainly, though, the Asian Tigers, China, and others have managed to liberalize their economic regulations without much progress in political liberalization. As we saw in South Korea, though, economic prosperity tends to lead to pressure for more say in political matters for the affluent class.

This is demonstrated by the efforts of millions of people each year to move from the developing to the developed world, where they hope to find the political stability, job opportunities, health care, and education that they lack at home.

He distinguishes this from a *liberal* society with "a sphere of individual rights and the rule of law."

So, economic liberty as opposed to political liberty. What's questionable to me is the extent to which you can have one w/out the other. Maybe it's a chicken/egg problem.

True. I think most people want to live free from tyranny but that doesn't mean they don't want to force others to live by their rules.

In what universe can this claim possibly be made without snickering? Maybe Francis goes around proclaiming the "end of History" so that he doesn't have to actually read any. Otherwise, I don't see how you can help but conclude that the idea of living "free of tyranny" is universal. Even in "modern societies", there's no shortage of people looking to force others to live by their own ideas, ranging from banning smoking on private property all the way up to imposing religious beliefs and rules.