If not, what country comes the closest to following the libertarian ideal?
Unlike communism, no government has self-identified as “libertarian”, or even suggested that the libertarian model was the goal. I’ve seen Milton Friedman (a small “l” libertarian) mention Hong Kong (before unification with China) as being the best example of a free market economy, but that’s relative to other economies. It’s unlcear how close to the libertarian ideal he considered HK to be. MF typically referred to the US as “about 40% socialist” since that represents the amont of GDP collected in taxes by federal, state, and local authorities.
Well, even a completely libertarian state collects taxes in order to fund national defense and the judiciary, so you can’t just translate tax rates into % socialist.
If you will allow past tense, medieval Iceland, according to some people.
No, no more than there any ‘socialist’ countries - libertarianism, like socialism, is surely a utopian ideal - not a practical way to run a country. Maybe a smaller community, like a commune of rugged individualists, might work.
But the nearest thing might be Hong Kong. Nominated ‘World’s Freest Economy’ every year by the Heritage Foundation and others , and comes 18th out of 139 in press freedom .
No tax on overseas income. No capital gains tax.
I have a friend who claims that his native Estonia is about as freemarket as it gets. I’ve been there twice and can confirm that everything is almost laughably cheap (a pint of beer is about 20 cents, for instance), and there’s no sales tax that I remember, but I’ve never really studied their government beyond that.
This is an interesting question, I’ll do some research.
I’d say Beirut. No government to interfer- just various gangs and such. As close to Anarchy as any area has been.
Hong Kong has a tiny problem- the worlds largest land army a mile away ready to march in anytime they get “too free”. This tends to “harsh their buzz”. Their ‘freedoms’ are temporary and illusionary.
Hel*-LO*. Lebanon has been a functioning state again for several years now. Where have you been? There have been other failed states in the world, like Sierra Leone and Somalia, but somehow I doubt that’s what the Libertarians quite had in mind. (Whether it’s realistic to actually run a state on pure Libertarian ideology, now that’s a topic for Great Debates.)
This is GQ, not GD, so your political commentary is not only worthless, it’s actually detrimental to the goal of the forum.
Libertarianism is NOT the same as “no government”. Educate yourself on the GQ subject being discussed before posting garbage, please.
From what I’ve read, not all libertarians believe that government should be funded through taxes.
There is no way to measure this. There are some useful partial measures–for example, the aforementioned Heritage Foundation ranks countries in terms of economic freedom, and Freedom House ranks countries in terms of political rights and civil liberties. Obviously, these rankings aren’t gospel; they depend on a million subjective judgments as to how to score each country in each category (Quick! How much freedom of contract do you have?) and how to weight the categories relative to each other (Is protection from eminent domain seizure more important than a low tax rate?).
Then, too, there are subjects which these indices don’t reach. It would be interesting to see how countries stack up in terms of personal freedom in areas such as sexual behavior and alcohol and drug use. Also, we might attempt to rank how much countries interfere in the affairs of other nations, which violates libertarian principles. I’m not aware of anyone who produces such indices, although I wouldn’t be surprised if someone does.
If you had an index in every relevant area, you would then face further value judgments as to how to combine them into an overall measure.
So there is no one “most libertarian” country, but some are more libertarian than others. Great Britain and her offspring (U.S, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland) tend to score near the top of any reasonable ranking. And yes, Estonia does well! All is relative–to reiterate John Mace’s point, no government has self-identified as libertarian or cited libertarianism as its model or goal.
No, it’s not. But in effect- it is very close to Anarchy or rather “Warlord” rule. No one has yet cmae here and gave us - in detail- how a “Libertarian” government/nation would actually work. What little has been posted seems to show a closeness to a form of Anarchy. No two “Libertarians” agree. Well, they seem to agree that the Government will not “coerce’ it’s citizens, whatever the hell that means. I have seen some that disagree whether or not the “government” will even actively protect it’s citizens from 'coercion” by other citizens.
There have never been any “Libertarian” nations- that is a correct answer to the OP. No nation or government has even been close. Yes, some democracies have been “more libertarian” than others. ALL use “coercion” on their Citizens.
This one would seem to be better suited to another forum, rather than GQ.
Let’s try Great Debates.
And, participants, let’s try to keep the discussion civil.
samclem GQ moderator
Oh, and now it IS GD.
But- John- point me to a generally accepted expanation of exactly- in detail- how a “Libertarian” Government would work. Write one yourself if you like. Then show me how that differs from Beirut.
Do “free trade zones” count as microlibertopias? I’m not being facetious, honest. They’re areas (usually) in underdeveloped countries where taxation and other regulations on trade and industry are greatly relaxed or eliminated. Many functions of government are handled by corporations in such zones as well. It’s about the purest form of capitalism and small govt. I can think of in the world; only, as I said, it’s on a very micro scale and quite compartmentalized.
Good question. However, looks like there are some misunderstandings. Thought I’d start with a definition:
Libertarianism isn’t the same thing as Anarchy…in fact Libertarians feel pretty strongly about an effective courts system (well, one branch of them do anyway). They don’t believe in no government…only is limited government. However, the roots of Libertarianism IS in the earlier anarchy movements…and also, interestingly enough with the old style Liberal movements.
I don’t think there has ever been a Libertarian government because the concept of a Free Market is a relatively new concept…and though Democracy has been around for a while, its only recently in history that its made something of a come back in the world. I don’t think Libertarianism is an idealistic or unattainable concept, though perhaps in a modified form. After all, Socialism and Communism have both had their shots…and THEY were both (supposedly) heavily modified to make them work in the real world. 
-XT
A quibble: It is not that libertarianism is not a practical way; it is that libertarianism is not a way. Libertarianism defines the boundaries that should be placed on government but not a specific way of creating them. In the same way, the fact that no one has created a completely socialist society does not mean that it can’t be done, just that it hasn’t been done.
Similarly, libertarianism does not require that people live like individualists, it just does not require that they be forced not to. I have never understood why people equate libertarianism with “every man for himself”. Since most people don’t want to live that way, why would we assume that they would when they had the freedom to choose?
I think the fundamental challege with creating a libertarian government is how to maintain the “boundaries”–who will watch the watchers? I think the US Founders were trying to create something very libertarian, which is why you have the “rock-paper-scissors” division of power among the branches and the specification of rights that are meant to be inviolate. Unfortunately, they backslid even before they were finished creating it–otherwise slavery would not have been permissable.
I don’t think there is any doubt that they intended on limiting the government’s power and that this is why there are so many safety “checks”. In practice, the safety checks can be used to undermine the system. “Rights” can be re-defined. And the electorate can vote for things or people that use their power to violate the precepts.
It becomes somewhat of a vicious cycle: We only continue to have all of our rights as long as those with power (presidents, voters, etc.) continue to insist that we keep them. Unfortunately, the world is not perfect or fair, and people cannot resist the urge to fix it using the most powerful tool available. To me, it is similar to wanting a hole for a basketball goal and dropping a bomb in the yard. You definitely create a hole, but the basketball goal still won’t stand up AND you’ve trashed the rest of the yard.
-VM
Dr. Deth: Libertarianism requires a strong rule of law, and equal treatment under the law. Beirut does not qualify.
The closest state to the Libertarian ideal was probably the United States before the New Deal. In modern times, Hong Kong is certainly closer to that ideal than the U.S. currently is. Or at least Hong Kong was. I don’t know what’s going on there now.
And you won’t find a warlord anywhere near any of those places.
chuckle
Sorry, that’s just perfectly suiting and funny.
Umm, that’s not the way it works around here. You do your own research and show us how Beirut is an example of the libertarian principles. You made the assertion… you back it up. Good luck.