I have a friend who leans libertarian and we have regular discussions. In another thread someone named Somalia as a libertarian country. Looking in the web I see Estoniais listed as a more libertarian country. Ireland as well although both have public financed health care.
In an atmosphere where individuals claim our liberties are being methodically diminished which countries provide positive models of libertarianism , what are the positives, negatives, similarities and differences from the US democratic republic?
Milton Friedman would often point to Hong Kong (before its handover to the PRC) as an exemplar of laissez-faire economics. See generally, Free to Choose, available athttp://www.ideachannel.tv/.
as an example: in a anarcho-capitalism system, or miniarchists, I’m really sure the guys at the bottom of the economic spectrum don’t feel like they have much liberty to do anything.
*it depends how you define libertarian, now doesn’t it.
I think that counts as ‘clever cheap shot’ rather than insightful analysis.
One of Haiti’s big problems has been that its government has been too controlling and corrupt, and the regulatory burden on business severe. There’s no incentive to build a business.
From Wikipedia:
Does that sound even vaguely libertarian to you?
And note that if you don’t know the difference between general lawlessness and libertarianism, you’ve got some reading to do.
the first quote you tender don’t have much to do with the level of government interference in a person’s life.
if you’re merely asking about which countries have higher degrees of personal liberty than others, then you can take a look at your usual suspects - namely the western-style democracies
if you’re really asking about which countries have “less government interference” then you’re not going to be looking at western-style democracies much, except for the US
True, Hong Kong has low taxes and very pro-capital fiscal policy, but it is a heavily regulated society and therefore not “libertarian” by any definition I understand.
Amongst other things, gambling is illegal except through the government-owned Jockey Club; there’s a large and thriving civil service; all taxis are government-licenced and regulated (they are all the same model of car); there is government-funded housing everywhere; they have UHC too; free tax-funded education for all; public transport is partially government owned through public/private financing; while there are no state pensions, there’s still a mandatory Singapore-style Provident Fund; and many other things.
Personally I think they’ve got the balance about right, though they benefit from economies of scale and size - many people, not much room - though it would be better if they could provide some minimum standard of living for the very poor (which can be shocking, especially for the elderly childless), but it’s not libertarian.
Well, libertarianism is sometimes called the “anarchy of the Right” for a reason. And I have heard libertarians claim that Somalia is better off because its government collapsed (not that they seem in any hurry to move there).
I’d say an example of libertarianism being implemented as much as they could manage would be immediate post-conquest Iraq. The Bushies wanted to turn it into a libertarian paradise; they gutted the government’s ability to regulate, made sure that there was no government help for anything as much as they could manage, under the theory that if Evil Government was kept from interfering that business would rush in to the low tax, no regulation Free Market utopia of Iraq and fix everything up in a jiffy. Instead of course there was starvation, chaos and death.
Really; if you want to know what libertarianism looks like in the real world and not in their fantasies, look at failed states.
Libertarianism has two vital components: the government is used to prevent people being subjected to harm by their neighbours without their consent, and it isn’t used for everything else. Remove the first and you have anarchism, remove the second and you have mainstream government.
Der Trihs’s attempt to paint the US’s attempt to turn Iraq into a captive market for the government’s chosen beneficiaries as having anything to do with libertarianism demonstrates just how little he knows about the subject.
Most libertarians oppose government protection from anything, including their neighbors. Especially when it comes to matters like fraud and coercion.
No, it just demonstrates that more than one thing was going on; I did say “early post conquest”. And there was more than one faction involved as well. The point is, they deliberately hamstrung the government and withheld aid according to libertarian principles, and the result was predictable disaster.
A very good friend of mine from college went to work for the federal government. She was an inspector for the FDA. She travelled to various seafood plants and made sure that they were following all the proper procedures for cleanliness and preparation so that their food was safe to eat. Would a libertarian government still provide that service?
Umm… no. Libertarianism is based on the respect for others’ rights, and encompasses the requirement for a government which regulates that. This is not evident in places like Somalia and Haiti. Or even the US with its concept of Eminent Domain. But the US gets it largely right, as does the EU.
This is a nitpick irrelevant to the thread, but there’s a heap of difference between Compulsory Purchase Orders and the situation in Hong Kong, with the government actually owning the land, and releasing tranches of it strategically for development in order to manipulate the market.
Nonsense. It’s based on the idea that the Free Market is the ultimate good, that only property rights matter, and the unfortunate should be left to rot. It has no respect for the rights of others at all. It’s not like I don’t hear and argue with these people often enough to know what they believe. And no, making speeches about how you support rights while pushing for changes that will neuter them doesn’t qualify as respecting those rights.