I’ve been reading up on Ayn Rand :eek: lately and got to wondering if there are any countries that have the kind of pure free market systems that she advocated. What countries come closest and how are they doing?
Objectivism != Libertarianism.
One of the main differences is that Libertarians believe in voluntarily helping others, which would seem to go against the Objectivist belief that giving to others without an anticipation that doing so will help yourself is wrong. Libertarians are also pretty strongly pro-union, which I doubt Objectivists are.
The closest you could probably get to Objectivism would be Somalia, which has no functioning government, and everyone is expected to succeed on a might-makes-right basis. It’s clearly not Objectivism, but there’s probably not much closer.
I don’t know if there’s anything closest to a Libertarian government. Switzerland has a very Libertarian financial system, but they have a lot of social welfare programs that Libertarians would find distasteful. Somalia has no government, which most Libertarians would find abhorrent. I suspect The Principality of Sealand has a pretty Libertarian government, but that’s easy when your entire country is only 550 square meters.
(BTW, I am a registered Libertarian and have been since I turned 18)
Libertarians are pro-union? I thought they just agreed that they should be legal.
Rob
Factually incorrect. You are confusing Objectivism with Anarchy. A common mistake made on this MB whenever Objectivism or Libertarianism is discussed. Ayn Rand never promoted “no functioning government”.
To the OP: I don’t think there is a factual answer to your question. For all practical purposes, you might as well say Objectivism = Libertarianism. If you find the closest thing to a Libertarian country, it’ll also be the closest thing to an Objectivist country. And in that case, just do a search for other threads on this subject-- it’s been done several times in the not to distant past.
Milton Friedman used to say that Honk Kong (under the British) was the most libertarian place on the planet. Or, you might consider the US as it was in the first 100 years of its existence.
Well, you shouldn’t be forced to join one. Here’s what the LP platform said when I joined:
The party has changed since then, and most now seem to be Republicans who got sick of Bush Jr’s spending. Here’s how it reads now:
Ayn Rand is even a featured article on LPedia. I have to admit that I’m not pleased by the way the party has been hijacked. And now I apologize for hijacking the thread.
Yes, let’s consider it. During it’s first 100 years, the US had legalized slavery, routinely engaged in wealth redistribution, routinely subsidized private corporations, and routinely restricted people’s ability to own property or work based on gender or race. It doesn’t qualify as remotely libertarian.
I said that Somalia wasn’t an Objectivist nation. But Objectivism has a strong ethic of Social Darwinism, which Somalia can help effect.
Neither of those places exist today, though. And the US had a long line of charitable organizations (which were altruistic, regardless of whether certain organizations like the Temperance groups actually did anything good) which make it pretty well not Objectivist.
While I can’t really argue with most of your points, the subsidized corporations weren’t as common until the run-up to the Civil War.
-
I’m not surprised that there is no definitive answer to this question, so it might be better suited for GD.
-
I’m not surprised that my understanding of Ayn Rand, Libertarianism and all the rest is flawed.
Still, I think we understand what I’m getting at. Carry on.
But you said it was the closest thing to an Objectivist state. Simply not true. Also not true is that Objectivism has “a strong ethic of social Darwinism”. It’s a common fallacy to think that one person’s success = another person’s failure or demise.
Points taken, although wealth distribution and corporatism were much, much less prevalent than today. Remember, we’re looking for the closest thing to an Objectivist country, not an actual Objectivist country.
And keep in mind that slavery and gender bias were pretty much universal during that time (or just before). So, if you’re comparing countries with their contemporaries, you still get the US as being more libertarian/objectivist than others.
Probably.
Are you looking for the most libertarian country or just the country with a market economy closest to a laissez faire system? When you are talking “country”, it sounds like political plus economic system.
I know that Objectivists like to distance themselves from Libertarians, but the differences are minor when comparing Objectivism to other systems of thought. I wouldn’t worry too much about conflating the two in the context of the question you are asking.
According to these guys, Estonia:
http://footprints.blogs.com/estonia/2006/09/estonia_most_li.html
I’m not sure I agree. I would rather say that Estonia might be the most laissez faire capitalist country right now (pretty close to what the quoted Heritage and Cato surveys mean by “economic freedom”). A related metric, and one that falls in line with Rand’s waterlogged prose, but not one that overlaps entirely.
Corporatism, perhaps, because the size of the governments were smaller, so they couldn’t engage in massive corporatism the way we do today. But subsidies for private infrastructure projects, such as canals and railroads were routine enough, such as for the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal:
But wealth redistribution I’m not about to concede. All the US did during this period was purchase large amounts of land (Lousiana Purchase, Mexican Cessation) and give away the land for free to homesteaders or give away mineral rights for free to prospectors. And when the US wasn’t purchasing the land, it was seizing it from Native Americans and giving it away for free. That’s massive wealth redistribution any way you slice it.
I’m not as familiar with Objectivism as an economic theory as I am with libertarianism (or I should say, from a practical economic standpoint, I’ve never seen much of a distinction), so I’m going to limit my arguments to libertarianism.
Chattel slavery immediately removes a country from being considered remotely libertarian. All you are saying here is that a lot of countries at the time could not be considered remotely libertarian either. And since you seem to be making comparisons over the span of history, there are plenty of examples which we can look at which don’t have chattel slavery.
Libertarians support organized labor (as that’s just the free market at work) but not forced union membership, closed-shop laws, etc.
I would think libertarians would support any type of free association. As long as unions are free associations, then they get the libertarians’ support. Libertarians are (or should be) strongly opposed to any coercive effort to impose or to eliminate a union.
Note that if you only look at the “economic freedom” part, Hong Kong is #1, w/ Singapore being 2nd. Estonia ranks 8th. The US is 6th.
So what’s the difference between a government that exercises no power, and one which doesn’t exist at all? Libertarianism is often associated with the quote “that government governs the best which governs least”, and the government of Somalia certainly governs least.
Social Darwinism has been defined in multiple ways (sometimes even by the same people), but the definition that I was going for is very similar to this one:
By helping the poor, we encourage the social trait of poverty, which propagates not through heredity, but in much the same was as a meme. This sounds very much like every Objectivist I’ve ever heard.
The libertarian position is that the role of government should be limited to protecting fundamental rights, including the right to property, free speech, religion, and so forth. An anarchist failed state certainly doesn’t meet that definition.
This is just plain wrong. There is nothing in the Objectivist ethics that prohibits charity, so long as you can afford it and the recipient deserves it. And of course it must be voluntary, not taken from you by force.
I don’t know what “cut-throat” capitalism is, but it doesn’t sound like free market capitalism. It sounds a lot like one person’s success = another person’s failure. That would be confirmed by the notion that “the ‘superior’ ascending to the top of the heap and squashing the unfit beneath their expensive shoes.”. That ain’t Objectism except in some anti-Objectivistic caricature.