You are lazily dismissing their data and workings by attacking their character (politically bias) - the very essence of an Ad-hominem fallacy.
Economic freedom is a great predictor of GDP per capita. So there is some law of (human) nature down in there somewhere: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dX5-CL7Zaac/TZfhtnxCz0I/AAAAAAAAAa...
"The property rights component is a qualitative assessment"
They score the US as an 80. Based on their own ratings, I think the US should be a 90.
The [Fiscal Freedom] score is derived from three quantitative factors:
The top marginal tax rate on individual income, The top marginal tax rate on corporate income, and The total tax burden as a percentage of GDP."
That is pure ideological bullshit. Total tax burden as a % of GDP is an actual measure, but why is the only marginal tax rate that matters the top one? The difference in marginal tax rate is actually larger at other steps in the US Tax code, but they want to focus solely on the top one? Also, why measure the marginal corporate tax rate but not the effective corporate tax rate (as they correctly do for personal taxes).
The "Business Freedom" index is trying to measure how much regulation there is - which is what you would think this entire ranking is about. It does a pretty poor job of it, though I think this is a hard task.
It goes downhill from there. Thanks for the providing the link, it proves the original point that the index is ideological nonsense very well.
The methodology's way to assign numeric values to things doesn't relate to intrinsic things about the objects under study, but rather, is a numeric score reflecting the subjective opinion of the reviewer.
That something uses numbers doesn't make it objective, and this is a prime example.
Keep reading. They explain the intrinsic things that make up the numbers they assign to the objects. Eg:
"Each country’s property rights score is assessed according to the following criteria:
100—Private property is guaranteed by the government. The court system enforces contracts efficiently and quickly. The justice system punishes those who unlawfully confiscate private property. There is no corruption or expropriation.
90—Private property is guaranteed by the government. The court system enforces contracts efficiently. The justice system punishes those who unlawfully confiscate private property. Corruption is nearly nonexistent, and expropriation is highly unlikely."Those are subjective criteria, to decide if a country not only "efficiently" settles a matter, but it also does so "quickly".
Similarly, there's not a single country where we'd find there is literally "no corruption", which means it's just a subjectively strong form of "nearly nonexistent", or where we'd find there is "no expropriation" ever in its history, as opposed to it just being "highly unlikely" to happen to you.
These subjective differences account for the difference between a 90/100 and 100/100. So if your example was that only 10% of the score depends on the difference between a figurative "no corruption" and "nearly nonexistent" corruption, you've done a very poor job convincing me it's an objective test.