If you take the Index of Economic Freedom, by the Heritage Foundation as a reliable measure, the answer is Hong Kong, which is a country I’ve heard mentioned for the honor (or dishonor, if you prefer) many times.
Alaska is one of the few (only?) states with a right to privacy enumerated in its constitution. It was on this protected right that the state supreme court decided it was unconstitutional to criminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana (four ounces) in the privacy of a person’s own home. Of course, federal law still applies.
- it’s not a country.
- fiscally, yes, there’s a very low tax regime, but
- socially, Hong Kong is nowhere near libertarian. They have SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!! :eek: State education!!lordy Government licensed taxis! OMG! A huge civil service!one!twelve!
It’s a great place to live, in fact. Best of all worlds.
And how’s that working out, exactly? Do the feds stalk around trying to bust everybody who looks like they might be hoarding a QP? I always wondered.
New Hampshire and Wyoming are probaly at the top of the list. Check out the Free State Project
The feds couldn’t care less, but Gov. Frank Murkowski has a major stick up his butt about it though. Apparently he got new legislation passed and signed into law this month that recriminalizes pot for private use. The ACLU isn’t waiting for a test case, and has filed suit to block the law on constitutional grounds.
Crandolph. I don’t know if you will come back to read this, or if you are only interested in a drive-by post. But take my words to heart.
Don’t post crap comments like this. Libertarians as a group are not more likely to be wife beaters than the rest of the society in the US. If you have evidence otherwise, post it. Otherwise, please make your snarky comments in the Pit.
samclem GQ moderator
The most libertarian, and worst, place to live would be a failed state. Where there is no effective government. Like Lebanon during most of the '70s and '80s. Or Iraq or Afghanistan now.
how much $ are we talking here ?
OTOH, they are more likely to wear wife-beaters! 
INCORRECT!
Montana had Reasonable & Prudent on their interstates from 12/8 of '95 until 5/28 of 99, but the limit is now 75.
But while we’re on the subject:
[TRUE STORY] We were out there in July of '96. I-94 east bound, circa Miles City, a Montana Highway Patrol car was sitting running radar (I know he was because the Escort Solo I had borrowed was screaming bloody freaking murder). 96 miles perhour and no traffic stop. I know I was going 96 because my wife leaned over and took a picture of the speedo on the '96 Pontiac Grand Prix we were in. It’s one of my favorite vacation pictures of all time. I’ve dubbed it “Ninety six in a '96”.
It’s my understanding that most libertarians favor a strong effective government to protect individuals from force and fraud, and to provide a means for settling civil disputes. This would rule out Somalia and other failed states.
So called “Anarcho-Capitalists” and other extreme libs would like to do away with all government, but how they differ from simple anarchists is beyond me.
Not everyone wants to go without the services paid for by income taxes. It isn’t very efficient, but the income (or any other) tax does produce services.
Last year, the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend was $845.76 for every man, woman, and child. So if you are married and have three kids, your family would receive $4228.80. The amount depends on the performance of the Permanent Fund on the stock market; in past years, the dividend has been as high as $1900.
They’re arriving at the same conclusion from completely contrasting viewpoints. Anarchists think that human nature is perfectable, and that therefore authority is un-necessary considering its intrinisic evils. Anarcho-capiltalists think that authority and regulation are so bad that anything (even, quite literally, anarchy) is preferable. An anarchist society would be people working in commynes for the common good, and settling disputes with education and discussion. An anarcho-capitalist society would be individuals and their families doing what they wanted.
One teeny little problem- the Red Chinese Army massed near the border, which can walk in any day they want, impose martial law, and send every capitalist off to be “re-educated”. Talk about the “Sword of Damocles”!
Montana instituted a speed limit when the Federal Government threatened to withdraw all Federal highway money from the State (as others have mentioned).
There is sales tax in four different communities in Montana, and there’s a fairly large group pushing for a statewide sales tax.
I haven’t seen any Montana armed militias in the news for years, and I’ve never personally met a member of one.
Also, last year Montana instituted a smoking-in-restaurants ban and an open-container law (no more bringing the leftover wine home from your friend’s house). Several areas have banned wood stoves and fireplaces.
I don’t think Montana is quite the libertarian dream you’re envisioning, davenportavenger.
Who said that?
You’re going to have to provide a cite on that. I don’t recall the Feds threatening anything. If I recall correctly, states were given full authority over their speed limits in '95. I believe the reason Montana went to a posted limit had to due with state supreme court rulings not the feds.
But if you can provide a cite I’d love to see it.
That’s not right either, I.W..
Click here and download the Open Container Brochure. One most certainly can transport open containers. You just can’t be drinking from it, that’s all.
Not only that, it’s flat wrong. For instance, it gives Vermont an F- on the issue of concealed carry. Vermont is the only state besides Alaska which lets its residents carry a concealed firearm without a permit of any kind. As long as one may legally own a handgun, it can be carried.