1. Amy Turner
PPE 400
Final Paper
April 25, 2016
O’er the Land of the Free:
A Consideration of American
Economic and Political
Freedom

2. 2
Introduction:
Francis Scott Key’s popular song Star Spangled Banner famously refers to the United
States of America as “the land of the free” (Key, 1). Thousands and even millions of immigrants
come rushing to the U.S. every year in order to escape the vast injustice present in their origin
countries. The American populace are largely convinced that any definition of a free nation will
indubitably include their own. Yet, to what extentis this assumption correct? The majority of
America’s forefathers upheld liberal values and wrote the basis of our government upon those
values. As our nation has evolved (or devolved) over the centuries, many would argue that
America has moved away from those original liberal standards. Today, an excess of political
and economic power has been placed into the hands of corporations, greatly diminishing the
freedom of the American people.
Throughout this essay, I shall reveal that the unjust political reality of the United States
government has resulted in a glaring absence of economic and political freedom within our
nation’s borders. The facets involved in the debate over America’s freedom are certainly too
numerous to be adequately explored in this one essay, so I will focus on the interaction between
political and economic freedom in the United States today. To begin the discussion, I shall
firmly establish the liberal definitions of political and economic freedoms by expressing the
liberal argument for the necessity of government to achieve both types of freedom. Next, I will
explore Milton Friedman’s argument that economic freedom can be used to further political
freedom. Finally, I will close with an example of how the practice of American politics places a
disproportionate amount of political and economic power in the hands of corporations.
Throughout the progression of history, philosophers have developed multiple
arguments for the definition of liberalism. For the entirety of this writing, I shall use the most
traditional and simplified version of the liberal perspective, which is that the preservation of

3. 3
individual liberty is the utmost political aspiration. This liberal perspective emphasizes
individual rights and equal opportunity for all people, and proves wary when any government
should obtain such a strong concentration of power as to encroach upon personal freedoms.
The discussion of what exactly those personal freedoms ought to entail is almost as
expansive as that on liberalism itself, branching from Locke’s declaration that we are not to
spoil or destroy anything God has placed upon the Earth (Locke, 132) to Mill’s Harm Principle
that society has no right to stop a man from harming himself (Mill, 22). Here I shall focus
specifically on developing the liberal definitions of economic and political freedom,
disregarding the numerous other aspects of freedom which together amount to total freedom.
Political Freedom:
In its purest definition, political freedom is liberty as it pertains to government. “Political
freedom means the absence of coercion of man by his fellow men” (Friedman, 15). For a man to
be politically free means that he is not forced by any government to behave in a certain way.
When a man lives under the rule of law set forth by a government, he is required to comply
with that government’s rules and regulations. However, if that man consents to submit to this
government and obey their laws, then it is no longer considered coercion for a government to
levy its laws upon the man. One must then construe a clear framework for what constitutes as
consent. In his Two Treatises of Government,Locke establishes a differentiation between tacit and
express consent. He argues that express consent includes all verbal, written, or otherwise
explicit agreement communicated by the individual to allow the government to rule over him.
Tacit consent is just as binding as express consent, according to Locke, and is such that “every
Man, that hath any Possession or Enjoyment, of any part of the Dominions of any Government,
doth thereby give his tacit Consent” (Locke, 21). From a Lockean perspective, anyone living in

4. 4
the United States has given their consent by not choosing to emigrate and cease to enjoy the
benefits of the American government’s influence. This is not in any way coercive so long as
people have the option to exit the domain of a government or even live in a land which lacks
any government at all. Presently, the quantity of government-free land available is shrinking
dramatically, but a sufficient number of wilderness areas still exist on Earth so that living in an
anarchic society is still possible. Thus, no individual today can viably say that they are being
forced to comply with the laws of the United States government.
However, one cannot consider a country politically free simply because the citizenry is
able to emigrate out of the country the moment they wish to remove their tacit consent. Queen
Elizabeth I of England was beloved by her citizens (Hanson, 1) and most of them chose to stay
in England under her rule. British citizens were politically free in that they were able to flee the
country and remove themselves from British governance whenever they wished, yet they did
not because they loved her so. Despite this aspect of political freedom, the British monarchy of
1608 was not at all free in the liberal sense of the word. Laws and decrees came either from
Queen Elizabeth herself or Parliament. No one was permitted to contradict the Queen,lest they
be charged with Treason and executed (Thomas,1). The liberal fears large concentrations of
power in the hands of a few political leaders, making monarchs one of the least free forms of
government. For a government to be considered politically free to a liberal, very specific
parameters must be met to prevent too much power accumulating in any one area of
government.
If government is such a potential hindrance to political freedom, one may be inclined to
believe that anarchy would be preferable to any government at all—though this hypothesis
would be poorly founded. Consider the State of Nature which Hobbes describes in Leviathan
(Hobbes, 10). This state is simply the societal design in which humanity found itself at the start

5. 5
of the world: with no government imposing its will upon the people and every man standing
equal to his fellow men. The most effective method for preventing a government from violating
the individual’s rights would seemingly be to remove that government altogether. Yet the
implications of this action prove greater than one initially expects. While a state of nature would
contain no government to oppress the people, it would also possess no government to protect
the people. As Locke determines, God “hath given the world to men in common...and no body
has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind...as they are thus in their
natural state” (Locke, 131). No one begins life with any property or claim to the physical
provisions of the world. While some are born into varying levels of worldly wealth today, the
original humans had no such predecessors. Rather, people acquire property throughout their
lives. Whatever argument for the original allocation of property which you choose, there still
exists the threat of violence driven by covetous thought. “[I]f any two men desire the same
thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy,they become enemies; and in the way to their
end...endeavour to destroy or subdue one another” (Hobbes, 11). Because this constant threat
exists, it is impossible for efficient production and industry to emerge. If man is constantly
needing to be on his guard against possible attackers who may steal or destroy his accumulated
goods, he will be disinclined to invent and discover new ways to enhance the natural resources
he collects. While an absence of government leaves every man to his own free discretion, every
man being left to his own discretion results in a state of unrest, constant vigilance, and violence.
In the interest of peace, government must be allowed to exist, for “as long as this natural right
of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security” (Hobbes, 13). The liberal
considers the presence of government to be preferable to anarchy because without government
there could be no industry, development, or peace—and ultimately no communal society.

6. 6
Liberals are not willing to accept just any form of government, however. “Our minds tell
us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power”
(Friedman, 2). Removing power from the hands of the people and placing it in the possession of
a single ruler or governing collective poses a clear threat to the freedom of the individual. If this
ruling entity refuses to act in the best interests of the populace, or even if it believes that it is, the
subjected individual may well find herself forced into behavior which she would otherwise
avoid. In the earliest forms of government which John StuartMill references in On Liberty, he
describes a “governing One” whose “power was regarded as necessary, but also as highly
dangerous; as a weapon which they would attempt to use against their subjects, no less than
against external enemies” (Mill, 2). Here in lies the danger of a monarchy or oligarchy. The
notion that a governing body should hold all authority and be obligated to answer to none is
tantamount a liberal’s greatest nightmare.
“The liberal view [is] that the justification for government action is to prevent coercion
and to promote voluntary cooperation among responsible individuals” (Friedman, Youtube).
Government ought to protect individuals from harm inflicted by other individuals so that
peaceful coexistence may be possible. There are essentially two main roles which the liberal
argues government should undertake. First, to prevent against coercion, whether this be by
acting as an internal police force or an external defense. Second,government is meant “to
promote voluntary cooperation among people by defining the terms under which we are going
to cooperate with each other and by adjudicating disputes” (Friedman,Youtube). The presence
of government incentivizes entrepreneurial work and development. By clearly defining the
rules regarding private property, for example, and providing the enforcement to maintain those
rules, government generates an environment of peace in which men can work and create
without fear of thievery or destruction. While men are still able to commit these crimes, a

7. 7
successful government will have placed sufficient punishments over these crimes that the cost
exceeds the benefit.
Thus, liberals consider government to be necessary for true political freedom. By
providing protection against coercion and clearly defining the parameters of society,
government generates an environment of peace. This peace enables men to produce and thrive
in ways that would be impossible if it was necessary that they defend themselves from their
fellow men. However, there is a limit to the extent of governmental power which is acceptable
from a liberal perspective. “The aim, therefore, of patriots, was to set limits to the power which
the authority should suffer to exercise over the community” (Mill, 3). Liberals desire a system of
checks and balances to governmental power so that no single entity, be they man or a collection
of men, possesses absolute authority over the nation. In the United States, the three branches of
government—executive, legislative, and judicial—allow for this spread of power. Beyond
political structure, economic freedom can itself act as a check to political authority.
Economic Freedom:
Consistent with the liberal call for the elevation of individual rights, economic freedom
calls for a market system which highlights private property and free markets. “The key
ingredients of economic freedom are personal choice, voluntary exchange, freedom to compete
in markets, and protection of person and property” (Lawson, 1). This means that firms are free
to enter and exit the markets with minimal start-up costs or barriers to entry, property rights are
protected, and prices are able to fluctuate with the markets of supply and demand. The most
effective policy for maintaining market freedom may initially appear to be one in which the
government does not intervene economically in any way. This type of system would be
consistent with Adam Smith’s invisible hand theory that markets are most efficient when free to

8. 8
fluctuate autonomously. However, in the exchange of goods and services, just like any other
aspect of society, there are definite threats to individual liberty in an environment completely
sans government intervention. Internal policing, external policing, and clearly defined societal
parameters are just as necessary in economic situations as in other social interactions. To
maintain optimal economic freedom, government involvement on issues such as product
regulations and trade restrictions prove desirable to many liberals.
When it comes to deciding whether or not product regulations may be enforced by
governments without violating individual rights, liberal perspectives diverge on what degree of
paternalism is acceptable from a government. Locke might argue that it is permissible for a
government to outlaw certain goods which may cause its citizens harm. One example of such a
good outlawed today is the delicacy haggis, originating in the United Kingdom. Concerned for
the health of the American people, the United States government has banned haggis, a dish
made from “sheep innards, including the intestines, heart, and perhaps most problematically,
the lungs” (Fiegerman, 2). In Locke’s opinion, it is permissible for government to prevent its
citizens from harming themselves or others by consuming such an unhealthy food (Locke, 18).
Mill, on the other hand, would argue that no government may prevent its citizens from
harming themselves (Mill, 22) and so find this expression of paternalism acceptable only so far
as it prevents a man from harming others. The liberal must decide whether they agree with the
view of paternalism held by Locke or Mill in order to determine the degree to which product
regulations violate their individual rights.
Continuing with Mill’s argument that men cannotstop other men from harming
themselves, it follows that it is only permissible for the government to ban the selling of a
dangerous product, such as haggis, within its borders. In selling the good, the vender is clearly
not consuming it himself, but giving it to another person to whom it will likely be destructive.

9. 9
Since Mill’s argument is that a person may harm themselves, the government would be
violating the individual’s rights if they forbade them to purchase the haggis with the intent to
consume the sheep innards and jeopardize their own health.The vender can, however, be
deterred from sharing the harmful product with his fellow people. If the selling of haggis is
banned within the United States, it follows that the consumer would have to purchase haggis
abroad since no American business could sell it to them.
It seems less clear whether or not the consumer should be permitted to bring the haggis
back within U.S. borders after purchasing it legally abroad. If this individual merely intends to
enjoy the delicacy of haggis alone in his own home, then he is harming no one other than
himself, so seemingly it is permissible. However, there is no clear manner in which to verify
that every individual bringing haggis into America only intends to eat this exotic delicacy alone
and share none of it with his friends and family or even mortal enemies. If he did share the
haggis, this would constitute harming others and could be punishable by law. Thus, there is no
easy way for government to enforce a law requiring individuals to consume haggis alone within
U.S. borders, so the only liberal way to ensure that individuals do not use these goods to harm
others is to ban their sale and entry into the country. From a liberal perspective, governments
are justified in banning harmful goods from entering their borders, whether for their sale or
purchase.
Another area in which governmentintervention has the potential to further economic
freedom is international trade policy. Numerous American firms prosper by exporting their
goods internationally to sell in foreign markets. Due to the distribution of natural resources and
the proportions of labor and capital present in each country, some countries have a comparative
advantage in producing some goods over others (Landsburg, 1). By exporting the goods in
which these countries have a comparative advantage and trading for the goods in which they

10. 10
have a comparative disadvantage, any nation can benefit from international trade. Initial entry
into the global market can be extremely difficult for a young firm. They will likely not be
efficient enough at producing to be able to profit by selling their goods at the competitive world
price. Governments can intervene and assist infant industries to further their economic freedom
by enabling them to enter the market they choose.
For example, consider the mango industry in the United States. Since mangoes require a
tropical climate to grow properly, there are few areas in the U.S. where mango production is
possible. High startup costs must be paid to enter the American mango industry, including
extensive technological research to grow the fruit efficiently, especially given America’s less-
than-ideal climate. Agricultural equipment must be purchased to maximize the mango harvest,
and food safety licenses must be earned to sell the fruit safely. In addition, young firms must
consider the cost of seeds, hired workers to plant and harvest, and fertilizer. The initial price for
starting a mango industry is extremely high, making it difficult for American firms to enter the
mango market. Once production has begun, however, the mango trees provide the seeds for the
next planting and the technology merely requires minor updating (Mango.org).
Because of these intense start-up costs, young mango companies cannot afford to sell
their first few crops of mangoes at the competitive price which the global market demands.
Thus, many producers find their economic freedom hindered when they are prevented from
participating in the markets to sell their mangoes. In order to protect these producers from the
coercion generated by the free market, the United States offers subsidies to many industries
which experience high start-up costs. The extra money from the subsidies closes the gap
between the producer’s costs and profits. In time, the gap between mango companies’ profits
and costs will decrease in size because the costs will progressively fall after the initial start-up
costs. Government subsidies will ideally shrink along with the gap until the mango firms are

11. 11
able to compete with the global price without government assistance. The economic freedom of
the experienced firms on the market will not be violated because they are still able to sell their
mangoes at the world price. The firms entering the market will be so small that they will not
alter the world price and thus experienced mango companies will be unaffected by the new
entrance. Government intervention in the free markets can protect the economic freedom of
young firms such as the American mango farmers by allowing their free entry.
Economic Freedom Encourages Political Freedom
While political freedom and economic freedom have thus far been defined separately,
there are clear areas of overlap and support between the two. Milton Friedman even argues that
economic freedom can be used to encourage and promote political freedom. The latter type of
freedom requires that governmental powers be checked and balanced so that no single entity
possesses such a great concentration of authority that they can inflict their will upon the
populace without being checked by another authority. Economic freedom creates one area in
which power can be removed from political leaders. “Viewed as a means to the end of political
freedom, economic arrangements are important because of their effect on the concentration or
dispersion of power” (Friedman, 9). When free markets are permitted to maintain some
autonomy, economic power can be removed from the control of political leaders and distributed
to areas of the free market, and by extension the populace. Economic freedom can then actas a
check to political authority, ensuring a stronger system of checks and balances.
Capitalism is the economic structure which Friedman, and most liberals, promote as
being the most economically free. In competitive capitalism, the markets of supply and demand
are free to fluctuate without interference by government authority. This allows producers to
independently decide how to set their prices so as to maximize their profits. As an example,

12. 12
consider the puppy industry. Dog breeders set the price of golden retriever puppies based upon
their costs of breeding the dogs, feeding the dogs, offering medical care to the canine mothers,
paying workers to care for the dogs, and paying medical bills when the dogs bite the workers.
While the consumer does not know specifically about any of these inputs, they do see the price
which the producer sets for the puppy. This price gives the consumer all of the information that
they need in order to decide whether or not they wish to buy a golden retriever puppy. The
consumer then weighs the costs of buying the dog, feeding the dog, paying veterinary bills, and
foregoing the alternative purchase of a cat with the benefit that they would get from a fluffy
golden retriever puppy licking their toes. Being a rational human being and finding the benefit
of the puppy sufficiently higher than the cost of the puppy, the consumer will choose to
purchase the puppy. Similarly, the producer does not know anything about how the consumer
came to the decision that the benefit of the puppy was worth the cost of purchasing it. Rather,
all that the producer knows, andindeed all he need know, is that consumers will purchase his
golden retriever puppies at this price. In this way, prices act as market signals and are
ultimately the only information that a consumer or producer need know in order to successfully
interact in the free market.
When the market is free to function in this way and price signals are not altered by
government intervention, political freedom is also encouraged. “The kind of economic
organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also
promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in
this way enables the one to offset the other” (Friedman, 9). By placing economic power in the
hands of the people, one gives the populace an influence over the workings of the country
which the political leaders lack. However, the political reality of the United States is such that

13. 13
even with the organization of competitive capitalism, economic freedom is still being abated by
political authority.
American Political Injustice is too great for Economic Freedom
The American political system is designed to allow every citizen to influence
government policies. Individuals have the privilege of lobbying to their Congressmen and
asking them to make political reforms (Drutman, 1).In theory, this should produce an
atmosphere of political freedom as Congressional power is balanced by voter lobbying.
Legislatures are elected by voters, who in turn lobby the legislators. It is in legislators’ best
interests to listen and comply with the majority of voter requests so they are more likely to be
reelected the next term. If any one Congressman ceases to respect the desires of his people, the
people are able to remove him from power at the next election. The hope is that through this
system all citizens will be able to influence their government.
Unfortunately, this is typically not the case. The general populace often fails to lobby
legislators because of collective action problems. The theory behind collective action problems is
that although the cumulative benefit to the entire populace may be enormous, the benefit felt by
each individual is actually quite small. The cost for any individual to act and generate the
shared benefit is greater than that individual’s personal benefit, so ultimately no one acts and
the collective benefit is never realized (Oatley, 79). The benefit which any individual voter gains
from policy changes is typically smaller than the cost of taking the time to go to the local
governance and lobby for that policy change. While the cumulative economic benefit for a
policy change, such as an import tariff raising the price of bananas by ten cents a pound, may
actually be in the billions of dollars, the change will never be lobbied because no single
individual will gain more than ten cents a pound. The only citizens who typically lobby

14. 14
legislators are businessmen whose firms will benefit so greatly from a policy change that the
cost of sending one employee to Congress for the afternoon is tantamount insignificant. Because
of this, the American political system is largely overpowered by corporate lobbyists (Oatley, 79).
From a liberal perspective, this creates an incredibly unfree environment since aspects of both
economic and political power are transferred into the hands of a few CEOs.
One stark example of lobbying injustice can be found in the American sugar industry.
Due to the uncertainty of weather conditions and the great importance of agriculture to our
nation, nearly all farming sectors of the U.S. economy receive government subsidies. Although
this violation of the free market system is usually seen as permissible so as to ensure that infant
industries are able to thrive in the global market system, there is nothing permissible about the
coercion taking place in the sugar industry. Accounting for less than half of one percent of the
agricultural sector, sugar producers receive more money in government subsidies than any
other major U.S. crop. Further,tariff quotas are in place on any imports of sugar coming from
foreign markets (“Sugar Import Program”, 1). These tariffs make foreign sugar more expensive
for American consumers, allowing domestic producers to sell their sugar at a price
approximately double that of the world market. The combination of tariffs and subsidies
ensures that American sugar companies are becoming rich off an industry that is neither
competitive nor efficient. Geographically, America is not an ideal location for growing sugar.
There are very few areas warm enough for the sugar beets to thrive, making the cost of
producing American sugar quite high. If the subsidies and quotas were not in place, domestic
sugar companies would quickly go bankrupt. As it is, there is currently so much protection on
the sugar industry that this inefficient production is proving profitable, despite what market
signals might expect.

15. 15
Since America is such an inferior competitor in sugar, it seems absurd that the U.S.
government would invest so much money in their subsidies. Unfortunately, the answerlies in
the political structure of the U.S. legislature. American trade policy is constructed by legislators
who are elected by their districts. In theory, these legislators have the best interests of the nation
at heart as they vote on various bills and propose legislation, but, in practice, they are proving
more perceptive to the influence of corporate lobbying than to economic wisdom.
The situation is only worsened by the presence of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is
the practice of “drawing political boundaries to give your party a numeric advantage over an
opposing party” (Ingraham, 1). Each of the fifty states is divided into a certain number of
districts, each of which elect their own legislators. Depending on how those district lines are
drawn, a particular interest group (such as an industry, socioeconomic class, or race) may be
overly represented in the district. Figure 1 (next page) exemplifies this concept by showing
three different ways to divide a single area, such as a state or country, into five districts.
Depending on how the lines are drawn, either the blue or red party may be given the majority
influence across the five districts, despite the fact that as a whole there are more blues than reds
present.
The sugar industry in America is the ideal case for gerrymandering. Whether
intentionally or simply by happy accident, sugar beet farms are almost exclusively positioned
along and across state and district lines. In Figure 2 (below Figure 1), the green areas represent
the locations of sugar beet farms in the United States. Almost every green area on the map
overlaps at least one state border. Although the sugar industry itself accounts for less than half
a percent of the national agricultural sector,sugar farms are accounted for in the support
coalitions of quite a few state legislators. Thus, numerous Congressmen have an incentive to
enact policy which will benefit the sugar industry. The excessive subsidies and trade tariffs are

16. 16
unlikely to be removed because so much political power lies in the hands of the sugar
corporations.
Figure 1

17. 17
Figure 2
Conclusion:
The liberal principles on which the United States were founded called for a system of
checks and balances which would disperse power throughout the nation. Political freedom
requires that no individual entity possess excessive power to inflict its will upon any other
individual. Economic freedom and the distribution of market power among consumers and
producers was meant to encourage political freedom as well. Removing economic power from
the hands of political leaders created an atmosphere of checks and balances which acted as a
catalyst to promote total freedom. Unfortunately, while this design of American government
appears functional in theory, the reality is that American politics have failed to achieve this
liberal ideal. Interest groups and wealthy corporations have excessive influence over American
politics. The problem of collective action has resulted in minimal political participation from the

18. 18
greater American populace.Ultimately, portions of political and economic power have both
concentrated among affluent U.S. businesses. While this ugly reality is merely one aspect of
America’s total freedom, this truth demands that one scrutinize the validity of the phrase “land
of the free.”

19. 19
Bibliography
Drutman, Lee. “What We Get Wrong about Lobbying and Corruption.” Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 16 Apr. 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
Fiegerman, Seth. “Banned in the USA: 12 Forbidden Products.” MainStreet. TheStreet Inc., 07
Feb. 2010. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1962. Print.
Friedman, Milton. “Milton Friedman on Classical Liberalism.” YouTube. Ed. Free To Choose
Network. YouTube, 12 Mar. 2013.Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
Hanson, Marilee. ”Queen Elizabeth I: Biography,Facts, Portraits & Information.”
EnglishHistory.net. 31 Jan. 2015. Web. 21 Apr.2016.
Hobbes, Thomas. “Leviathan.” Philosophy,Politics, and Economics:An Anthology. By Jonathan
Anomaly, Geoffrey Brennan, Michael C. Munger, and Geoffrey Sayre-McCord. New
York: Oxford UP, 2016. 10-18. Print.
“Industry.” Mango.org. National Mango Board, 2016. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
Ingraham, Christopher. “This Is the Best Explanation of Gerrymandering You Will Ever See.”
Wonkblog. The Washington Post, 01 Mar.2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
Key, Francis Scott. “Star Spangled Banner.” 13 Sept. 1814.
Kono, Daniel Y. “Optimal Obfuscation: Democracy and Trade Policy Transparency.” American
Political Science Review. 100.3 (2006):369-84.Web.
Landsburg, Lauren F. “Comparative Advantage.” Library of Economics and Liberty. Liberty Fund,
Inc., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
Lawson, Robert A. “Economic Freedom.” Library of Economics and Liberty. Liberty Fund, Inc.,
2008. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.

20. 20
Locke, John. “Of Property.” Philosophy, Politics,and Economics:An Anthology. By Jonathan
Anomaly, Geoffrey Brennan, Michael C. Munger, and Geoffrey Sayre-McCord. New
York: Oxford UP, 2016. 131-133.Print.
Locke, John. “Popular Basis of Political Authority.” Philosophy, Politics, and Economics: An
Anthology. By Jonathan Anomaly, Geoffrey Brennan, Michael C. Munger,and Geoffrey
Sayre-McCord. New York: Oxford UP,2016. 18-22. Print.
Mastin, Luke. “Liberalism.” The Basics of Philosophy. Luke Mastin, 2008. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
Melanie. “United States Sugar Beet Production.” CTG Publishing. CTG Publishing, 15 Dec. 2013.
Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
Mill, John Stuart. “On Liberty.” Project Gutenburg EBook. Project Gutenburg, 10 Jan.2011. Web.
25 Apr. 2016.
Oatley, Thomas H. International Political Economy. 5th ed. New York: Routledge, 2016. Print.
Rogers, Brad. “Sugar Cane Subsidiaries Discussed in Republican Debate.” YouTube. YouTube,
23 Jan. 2012.Web. 25 Apr.2016.
“Sugar Import Program.” Foreign Agricultural Service. United States Departmentof Agriculture,
n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
Thomas, Heather. “Power & Government.” Elizabethi.org. N.p., n.d.Web. 25 Apr.2016.
Turley, Jonathan. “10 Reasons the U.S. Is No Longer the Land of the Free.” Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 13 Jan. 2012.Web. 25 Apr.2016.