Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Most Libertarian nations

PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 1:25:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm curious to hear suggestions for which countries, if any, most closely could be identified as classical libertarianism. Explain how you arrived at your conclusion.

In somewhat of order from most economic/personal freedoms:

1. Estonia
2. Hong Kong
3. Switzerland
4. New Zealand
5. Costa Rica
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 1:48:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
How the Hell does Costa Rica get on there? Are you nuts? Same with New Zealand. Have you ever been to these places? If they're the "most libertarian," or anywhere near the Top 5, then we're all in some pretty hefty authoritarian states.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 2:06:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 1:48:56 PM, Volkov wrote:
How the Hell does Costa Rica get on there? Are you nuts? Same with New Zealand. Have you ever been to these places? If they're the "most libertarian," or anywhere near the Top 5, then we're all in some pretty hefty authoritarian states.:

Costa Rica is starkly contrasted with 3rd world sh!t holes like Honduras and Nicaragua. It's a well-known fact (at least I thought it was) that Costa Rica, "the Switzerland of the America's," was a very free society by comparison of almost all nations on earth.

Same with New Zealand. The Kiwi's usually rank very in almost all categories related to personal freedom and economic freedom.

http://www.heritage.org...

By all means, though, plead your case.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 2:08:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 1:52:07 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not so sure about Switzerland. Economically, maybe. Socially not so much, considering they banned Minarets and such.:

So because they banned minarets, they can't be social libertarians? I did say "most" libertarian. There is no nation on earth that perfectly embodies any form of political and economic philosophies.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 2:12:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 2:08:36 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 9/4/2010 1:52:07 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not so sure about Switzerland. Economically, maybe. Socially not so much, considering they banned Minarets and such.:

So because they banned minarets, they can't be social libertarians? I did say "most" libertarian. There is no nation on earth that perfectly embodies any form of political and economic philosophies.

Banning Minarets takes away absolute religious freedom, something libertarians should probably be supporting.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 2:16:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hong Kong is becoming more democratic and getting a minimum wage.

I would add monoco and luxembourg. Look at the statistics cus they crazy.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The basic answer is that the smaller states become, the more they behave like private corporations. They either stay out of the way completely or provide very high quality social services like healthcare/pensions etc.

In both cases, it is a victory for the free market because competition and consumer choice have raised the standards of living without badly exploiting the capitalist class (otherwise they'd just leave).
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 3:08:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 2:12:24 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Banning Minarets takes away absolute religious freedom, something libertarians should probably be supporting.

Last I checked minarets were more a cultural/stylistic thing than something of real Religious significance...

it's a bit of a restriction on stylistic/cultural freedom and an intrusion on property rights...

but how does it prevent one from practicing their religion?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 3:09:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 3:08:22 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
but how does it prevent one from practicing their religion?

though in some cases...

I'd want to prevent some people from practicing certain bits of certain religions...

and I wouldn't necessarily think doing so would be un-libertarian.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 3:20:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
maybe if the religious action is human sacrifice or something... but an arbitrary ban on a harmless category of architecture is just ridiculous, whether its a religious symbol or just a stylistic quirk. theres no justification for it.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 3:27:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 3:20:35 PM, belle wrote:
maybe if the religious action is human sacrifice or something... but an arbitrary ban on a harmless category of architecture is just ridiculous, whether its a religious symbol or just a stylistic quirk. theres no justification for it.

Clearly it's b/c they don't want the Mooslims Mooslimifying their pretty Scandinavian countryside...

which I agree is improper for The State to do....

but it's not really preventing the free practice of religion... or taking away religious freedom... just stylistic freedom... and property rights...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 3:30:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
oops... it's not scandinavia is it... :/
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 3:32:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 3:27:30 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/4/2010 3:20:35 PM, belle wrote:
maybe if the religious action is human sacrifice or something... but an arbitrary ban on a harmless category of architecture is just ridiculous, whether its a religious symbol or just a stylistic quirk. theres no justification for it.

Clearly it's b/c they don't want the Mooslims Mooslimifying their pretty Scandinavian countryside...

which I agree is improper for The State to do....

but it's not really preventing the free practice of religion... or taking away religious freedom... just stylistic freedom... and property rights...

well if its an attempt to prevent the muslims from "muslifying" the country, then it IS an attempt to take away religious freedom. it just so happens that it fails b/c they are too dumb to realize that minarets are not central to the practice of islam... :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 3:53:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 1:25:33 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

1. Estonia
lol @ Estonia, after splitting from the USSR the place is turning to sh*t, crime, poverty, declining/emigrating population. Of the Baltic, only Lithuania didn't get worst from soviet decline. I don't know tbh, I'd assume it's high up there due to being a post "second world" state.
2. Hong Kong
Yes.
3. Switzerland
Yes.
4. New Zealand
Lol wut? It has welfare and a average tax rate.
5. Costa Rica
No, it has a good health care system.

This list is quite bad, none of the above except possibly Switzerland is in the top 10 let alone the top 5. I'd look up Africa and the IMP, the Washington Consensus is one the main reasons Africia is so poor. Singapore is also very libertarian. The Index of Economic Freedom will help too.

From this list I mean fiscally libertarian, so refer to social security, welfare and tax.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 3:56:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Zet, if a private corporation garnishes 40% of my wages to pay for insurance, sick leave, etc... is it "laissez faire" or socialist?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 4:05:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 3:56:08 PM, Sieben wrote:
Zet, if a private corporation garnishes 40% of my wages to pay for insurance, sick leave, etc... is it "laissez faire" or socialist?

If you agreed 100% and it's justified by the terms of your employer and not by law it's laissez faire. Anything else, it's not.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 4:10:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A state has the right to decide who goes in and who goes out regardless of law...

But then again, we have Hume, Rousseau, George and other libertarian political theorists.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 4:18:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The point of this thread is going to be that smaller countries approach voluntary private companies. Swiss welfare isn't evidence of socialism any more than corporate health insurance is. Socialism means economic aggression, and these smaller countries do it less than the larger countries. People to a large extent choose to be part of both these organizations.

As an intermediate step, some anarcho libertarians propose breaking up modern states into about 10,000 smaller states. It may sound like a lot, but it would really just require breaking every government into 50 more states. This would give every country, on average, 15,000 kmsq, more than 10x the size of hong kong.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 4:30:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 4:18:31 PM, Sieben wrote:
The point of this thread is going to be that smaller countries approach voluntary private companies.
Yes.
Swiss welfare isn't evidence of socialism any more than corporate health insurance is.
Aye.
Socialism means economic aggression, and these smaller countries do it less than the larger countries. People to a large extent choose to be part of both these organizations.
Sorry, did I just read "economic aggression"?

As an intermediate step, some anarcho libertarians propose breaking up modern states into about 10,000 smaller states. It may sound like a lot, but it would really just require breaking every government into 50 more states. This would give every country, on average, 15,000 kmsq, more than 10x the size of hong kong.

I see, the benefit of city states. Rousseau and Montesquieu covered the basic idea.

It's a foolish step in the eye's of a true anarcho-libertarian, it's no more of a intermediate step than the idea of dividing the world into non federal supercontinent states. Size means nothing to the theoretical order of government. Tyranny whether larger or small is still tyranny.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 4:32:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 3:20:35 PM, belle wrote:
maybe if the religious action is human sacrifice or something... but an arbitrary ban on a harmless category of architecture is just ridiculous, whether its a religious symbol or just a stylistic quirk. theres no justification for it.

This. Building minarets does no harm to anybody else, which if I'm correct as long as something doesn't harm anybody else, it's allowed in a libertarian society.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 4:36:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 4:32:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/4/2010 3:20:35 PM, belle wrote:
maybe if the religious action is human sacrifice or something... but an arbitrary ban on a harmless category of architecture is just ridiculous, whether its a religious symbol or just a stylistic quirk. theres no justification for it.

This. Building minarets does no harm to anybody else, which if I'm correct as long as something doesn't harm anybody else, it's allowed in a libertarian society.

Ever heard of planning permission? There are times when 20 storey buildings aren't allowed be built.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 4:36:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's a foolish step in the eye's of a true anarcho-libertarian, it's no more of a intermediate step than the idea of dividing the world into non federal supercontinent states. Size means nothing to the theoretical order of government. Tyranny whether larger or small is still tyranny.

Why? The difference between city states and anarchy is the initial distribution in property rights. If I make laws in my own home or restaurant, is that tyranny? Maybe. Does it matter? No. Choice matters.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 4:42:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 4:36:55 PM, Sieben wrote:
It's a foolish step in the eye's of a true anarcho-libertarian, it's no more of a intermediate step than the idea of dividing the world into non federal supercontinent states. Size means nothing to the theoretical order of government. Tyranny whether larger or small is still tyranny.

Why? The difference between city states and anarchy is the initial distribution in property rights. If I make laws in my own home or restaurant, is that tyranny? Maybe. Does it matter? No. Choice matters.

A states a state, an authoritarian law is an authoritarian law. You anarchists hate authority.

The true opposite of authoritarianism is anarchism not libertarianism.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 4:48:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 4:42:12 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/4/2010 4:36:55 PM, Sieben wrote:
It's a foolish step in the eye's of a true anarcho-libertarian, it's no more of a intermediate step than the idea of dividing the world into non federal supercontinent states. Size means nothing to the theoretical order of government. Tyranny whether larger or small is still tyranny.

Why? The difference between city states and anarchy is the initial distribution in property rights. If I make laws in my own home or restaurant, is that tyranny? Maybe. Does it matter? No. Choice matters.

A states a state, an authoritarian law is an authoritarian law. You anarchists hate authority.
Err... we hate aggression. You can't smoke pot in my house, but you can in your's. That's not opposition to authoritarianism, it's support for property rights and self ownership. I am a superdictator in my house.

The true opposite of authoritarianism is anarchism not libertarianism.
Actually many lefty-anarchists are highly authoritarian. See anarcho syndicalists etc... Anarchy applies to a whole bunch of scenarios, but states are defined as aggressive monopolies. So pirates aren't governments even though they are aggressive etc.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 5:16:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
With mini-states in terms of geography, there's still no one to enforce your right not to be held captive in a state you don't like.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 5:19:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 4:36:20 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/4/2010 4:32:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/4/2010 3:20:35 PM, belle wrote:
maybe if the religious action is human sacrifice or something... but an arbitrary ban on a harmless category of architecture is just ridiculous, whether its a religious symbol or just a stylistic quirk. theres no justification for it.

This. Building minarets does no harm to anybody else, which if I'm correct as long as something doesn't harm anybody else, it's allowed in a libertarian society.

Ever heard of planning permission? There are times when 20 storey buildings aren't allowed be built.

Which libertarians oppose.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 5:25:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 5:19:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 9/4/2010 4:36:20 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/4/2010 4:32:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/4/2010 3:20:35 PM, belle wrote:
maybe if the religious action is human sacrifice or something... but an arbitrary ban on a harmless category of architecture is just ridiculous, whether its a religious symbol or just a stylistic quirk. theres no justification for it.

This. Building minarets does no harm to anybody else, which if I'm correct as long as something doesn't harm anybody else, it's allowed in a libertarian society.

Ever heard of planning permission? There are times when 20 storey buildings aren't allowed be built.

Which libertarians oppose.

though you should be liable if yer 20 story building falls on my house that was there first :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2010 5:28:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/4/2010 5:19:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 9/4/2010 4:36:20 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/4/2010 4:32:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/4/2010 3:20:35 PM, belle wrote:
maybe if the religious action is human sacrifice or something... but an arbitrary ban on a harmless category of architecture is just ridiculous, whether its a religious symbol or just a stylistic quirk. theres no justification for it.

This. Building minarets does no harm to anybody else, which if I'm correct as long as something doesn't harm anybody else, it's allowed in a libertarian society.

Ever heard of planning permission? There are times when 20 storey buildings aren't allowed be built.

Which libertarians oppose.

I'm just pointing out the rationale, that it's not just an anti-Islam move.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.