|what's the most "libertarian" country? nm||DougSloan|
Oct 7, 2003 12:33 PM
|hong kong, switzerland, new zealand? nm||ColnagoFE|
Oct 7, 2003 12:39 PM
Oct 7, 2003 1:29 PM
|but it wouldn't stop me from moving over there. At least they elected a Socialist PM in 1997. I'm sure someone from there could provide more information.|
|Iraq? Afghanistan? (nm)||TJeanloz|
Oct 7, 2003 12:42 PM
|From the horse's mouth||torquer|
Oct 7, 2003 1:15 PM
|Or, since the WSJ as well as the Heritage Foundation are involved, straight from the horse's a$$:
www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/wm174.cfm - 37k
Notice that Somalia, which has been proposed as the dystopian libertarian example by skeptics, isn't even listed. Funny how "freedom" (at least as defined by this crew) only seems to work for rich folks.
|USA, circa 1791||dr hoo|
Oct 7, 2003 1:35 PM
|That's after the bill of rights.
Google gives the nod on "most libertarian nation" to the USA. And google can't be wrong.
Actually, there are a couple of tiny island nations that are havens for hackers and money laundering that might be closer. But I don't know enough about their political systems to make a call.
Places like Somalia don't count. Anarchy is not Libertarianism, though a roomful of libertarians is hard to distinguish FROM anarchy.
Oct 7, 2003 1:45 PM
|Early USA would be good. Hard to reconcile slavery, though. While owners would be "free" to own slaves or not, it's not very attractive from the slave's point of view. I would think that there also would have been a lot of imposing religious dogma, despite the 1st Amendment. It didn't mean the same thing then that it does now.
No, anarchy the same as Libertarianism. Iraq and Afghanistan are now close to anarchy, simply due to inabilty to govern. Libertarianism is systematic, planned refusal to govern.
|I thought about 1920.||dr hoo|
Oct 7, 2003 2:50 PM
|No slavery, women get the vote. But then there was also prohibition and segregation, along with much larger government.
Extremely limited government is not the same as refusing to govern. Libertarians are for national defense, and a court system (at the least to enforce contracts).
|that's what I meant||DougSloan|
Oct 7, 2003 2:57 PM
|By "refusal to govern," I meant essentially "refusal to meddle and control." I agree. I was focusing on the conscious decision to do so, as opposed to chaotic anarchy.
Oct 8, 2003 8:31 AM
|A good argument can be made for the US being the best example. I think one needs to look at the essential effect a political system has on its citizens as much as the system itself when examining liberties.
What I mean is, you do have many freedoms in this country. There are plenty of rags to riches stories in this country's history, spanning all demographics, because it's not all that uncommon. The government doesn't lock you into a career path from age 14 like they do in Holland, for example.
I also think that one can defy laws and do illegal things with nary a wrist slap, which when enough people do it, leads to the laws themselves being reconsidered. Hell, it used to be illegal to spit on the ground. In a weird way, I think that is very libertarian rather than anarchic behavior. It's a planned upheaval of law by citizens rather than an adherence to law for law's sake.
After all, we grade abherrent behavior based on how important society deems the crime, therefore, as public opinion changes on a certain issue, it becomes more acceptable to do things like elect politicians who have "scars" on their record, i.e., Arnold's or Gore's pot smoking.
|good point; de facto libertarian vs. legally nm||DougSloan|
Oct 8, 2003 8:36 AM