Can ANYONE name a SUCCESSFUL country with a LIBERTARIAN ECONOMY??

[Sallow]

USA 1776-1913

Now STFU

Sorry. But thanks for playing.

Sorry yourself, asshole. If Congress proposed to take our laws back to the way they were in 1914, commies like you would call it anarchy.

Is that back when the US government focused solely on protecting the interests of the wealthy?

 

[RKMBrown]

Sorry. But thanks for playing.

Sorry yourself, asshole. If Congress proposed to take our laws back to the way they were in 1914, commies like you would call it anarchy.

Is that back when the US government focused solely on protecting the interests of the wealthy?

huh?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I said the us has an economy that is primarily capitalist. It has socialist components also. SO. Did you have a point??
So, you can not name a PRIMARILY libertarian economy?? By the way, here is the quote of what I posted:"

Then you've solved the mystery. If the U.S. is primarily capitalist as you just said, then it is primarily libertarian. Good work.

Do libertarians advocate for using taxes to prop up private corporations?

No, but it's also not relevant. According to Rshermr the United States is primarily capitalist. Libertarians support capitalism, so, following his logic, the United States must then be primarily libertarian, at least economically speaking.

 

[Rshermr]

Then you've solved the mystery. If the U.S. is primarily capitalist as you just said, then it is primarily libertarian. Good work.

Do libertarians advocate for using taxes to prop up private corporations?

No, but it's also not relevant. According to Rshermr the United States is primarily capitalist. Libertarians support capitalism, so, following his logic, the United States must then be primarily libertarian, at least economically speaking.

Now there is some logic for you. Primarily capitalist, but partially socialist, means it must be a Libertarian economy. So, poor boy does not understand that there is a difference between a capitalist economy and a libertarian economy.
Is it true, me boy, that a brain is a terrible thing to waste???

 

[Coyote]

Shit, can you name a successful country following Republican policies?

Didn't think so. They weren't even successful here.

Policies aren't the same as ideologies and Libertarianism, like Communism or Socialism - is an ideology. Most ideologies look better on paper then in practice because they neglect to take into account human nature

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early 21st century is organized along libertarian lines?
The Breakthrough Institute - The Failure of Libertarianism

Plenty of those who voice what a great idea libertarianism is. But no libertarian country. Hell, we even have a libertarian devote who is having islands MAN MADE to be run as libertarian entities. Now, if that is not devotion, not sure what is.

So, it would seem obvious that being a libertarian is an exercise in futility. Why does that Libertarian utopia never happen??

But it does have a purpose. If I can make the ignorant believe, why, hell, I could get RICH!!! Who cares about libertarianism.

There are no libertarian governments because governments thrive and prosper on control not liberty.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do libertarians advocate for using taxes to prop up private corporations?

No, but it's also not relevant. According to Rshermr the United States is primarily capitalist. Libertarians support capitalism, so, following his logic, the United States must then be primarily libertarian, at least economically speaking.

Now there is some logic for you. Primarily capitalist, but partially socialist, means it must be a Libertarian economy. So, poor boy does not understand that there is a difference between a capitalist economy and a libertarian economy.
Is it true, me boy, that a brain is a terrible thing to waste???

Yes, there is a difference, in that there is no such thing as a "libertarian economy" to begin with. Libertarianism is a political ideology which supports capitalism in the economic sphere.

Your weak trolling only served to make you look ridiculous.

 

[AmazonTania]

So, Amazon, having provided nonworking links to her response to what who said was a libertarian country, gets them working:
Relative to your links, which now work, they are images. Actually, me girl, I am not into playing games. Most of us are fully capable of using the kings english in responding to a question. Only you would play games.

Reading heritage, I see. I was expecting you to say singapore and hong kong. You always like those right wing sights. Yup. They rank Hong Kong as high in the economic freedom ratings. But, me dear. the question is what is a successful country with a libertarian economy.

Hong Kong is a CITY. Part of China. And far from a libertarian entity anyway, as even heritage says.
Same with Singapore. Except it is a country.

Hong Kong is a country, not a city. Hong Kong has it's own government, own currency, own economy and own legal system. So I guess we can add geographical deficiencies to your list of historical, economical and legal short comings.

Also, Singapore and Hong Kong are the Most Economically Free economies in the world, according to Heritage. Economic Freedom is the from the classical traditions of Libertarians promoting Free Markets.

Economic freedom or economic liberty or right to economic liberty denotes the ability of members of a society to undertake economic direction and actions. This is a term used in economic and policy debates as well as a politicoeconomic philosophy. As with freedom generally, there are various definitions, but no universally accepted concept of economic freedom.[1][2] One major approach to economic freedom comes from classical liberal and libertarian traditions emphasizing free markets, free trade and private property under free enterprise, while another extends the welfare economics study of individual choice, with greater economic freedom coming from a "larger" (in some technical sense) set of possible choices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom

Then again, we're only suppose to refer to 'non-libertarians' when it comes to matters regarding what their ideal libertarian economy should be and we're suppose to refer to non-socialist on matters of socialism. What next, do you go psychologist when you've broken your leg?

 

[AmazonTania]

No, but it's also not relevant. According to Rshermr the United States is primarily capitalist. Libertarians support capitalism, so, following his logic, the United States must then be primarily libertarian, at least economically speaking.

Now there is some logic for you. Primarily capitalist, but partially socialist, means it must be a Libertarian economy. So, poor boy does not understand that there is a difference between a capitalist economy and a libertarian economy.
Is it true, me boy, that a brain is a terrible thing to waste???

Yes, there is a difference, in that there is no such thing as a "libertarian economy" to begin with. Libertarianism is a political ideology which supports capitalism in the economic sphere.

Your weak trolling only served to make you look ridiculous.

The fact that he doesn't understand what 'primarily' means is a tribute to vast intellectual wasteland known as the American Electorate.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Amazon, having provided nonworking links to her response to what who said was a libertarian country, gets them working:
Relative to your links, which now work, they are images. Actually, me girl, I am not into playing games. Most of us are fully capable of using the kings english in responding to a question. Only you would play games.

Reading heritage, I see. I was expecting you to say singapore and hong kong. You always like those right wing sights. Yup. They rank Hong Kong as high in the economic freedom ratings. But, me dear. the question is what is a successful country with a libertarian economy.

Hong Kong is a CITY. Part of China. And far from a libertarian entity anyway, as even heritage says.
Same with Singapore. Except it is a country.

Hong Kong is a country, not a city. Hong Kong has it's own government, own currency, own economy and own legal system. So I guess we can add geographical deficiencies to your list of historical, economical and legal short comings.

Also, Singapore and Hong Kong are the Most Economically Free economies in the world, according to Heritage. Economic Freedom is the from the classical traditions of Libertarians promoting Free Markets.

Economic freedom or economic liberty or right to economic liberty denotes the ability of members of a society to undertake economic direction and actions. This is a term used in economic and policy debates as well as a politicoeconomic philosophy. As with freedom generally, there are various definitions, but no universally accepted concept of economic freedom.[1][2] One major approach to economic freedom comes from classical liberal and libertarian traditions emphasizing free markets, free trade and private property under free enterprise, while another extends the welfare economics study of individual choice, with greater economic freedom coming from a "larger" (in some technical sense) set of possible choices.

Economic freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then again, we're only suppose to refer to 'non-libertarians' when it comes to matters regarding what their ideal libertarian economy should be and we're suppose to refer to non-socialist on matters of socialism. What next, do you go psychologist when you've broken your leg?

Hell. Go to anyone you want to. Make a call to Marx, see if he can help you. Most believe in economists. But for you, listen to whomever you want. Saying that economists who are not communists can not understand socialism, or communism, is butt stupid. But it is up to you.

Why would you ever want to believe an economist about the economy?? Dipshit.

Maybe you would like to explain why we have wealthy libertarians building islands, me boy. Maybe they can not find a libertarian economy. After all these years. We have capitalism, we have socialism, and we have even had communism tried.
But no libertarian economy.

 

[AmazonTania]

Hell. Go to anyone you want to. Make a call to Marx, see if he can help you. Most believe in economists. But for you, listen to whomever you want. Saying that economists who are not communists can not understand socialism, or communism, is butt stupid. But it is up to you.

I never said any such thing. I have said that socialist are better equip in understanding socialism than any other types of economist. You place your faith in economist opinion, but you don't even understand that they're all different, and they devote their careers to studying different aspects to economist.

Karl Marx school of thought is Marxism, Communism, Socialism & Materialism, and his main fields of study where surplus value and the labour theory of value. Luigi Pasinetti is an economist and his school of thought is Post-Keynesianism, but his fields of study were Mathematical formulation of the Ricardian system & The Theory of Value.

Why you would consider someone with very little contribution to the Socialism School of Thought as credible in this subject is beyond me, but you must be those types of people who actually visits a psychologist when you have a physical injury.

I also value the input of forum socialist as well. Thomas Sowell was a Marxist in his youth and has also wrote a book about the teachers regarding Marxism. You haven't offered a single economist with any knowledge similar to Sowell's.

Why would you ever want to believe an economist about the economy?? Dipshit.

A misunderstood response followed by a poor ad hominem. Typical. This isn't about consulting economist about the economy. It's about consulting a particular type of economist about a particular type of economy. Try to focus, and don't go to a psychologist when you have a broken leg.

Maybe you would like to explain why we have wealthy libertarians building islands, me boy. Maybe they can not find a libertarian economy. After all these years. We have capitalism, we have socialism, and we have even had communism tried.
But no libertarian economy.

I don't know why they want to build a libertarian island. Maybe they would like a libertarian country which is primarily English speaking, because Hong Kong and Singapore are not primarily English speaking countries. What they want to create as their own libertarian experiment is not relevant. It doesn't change the fact that Hong Kong and Singapore are Free Markets, ergo, Libertarian Economies.

 

[Rshermr]

So tania says:

I never said any such thing. I have said that socialist are better equip in understanding socialism than any other types of economist. You place your faith in economist opinion, but you don't even understand that they're all different, and they devote their careers to studying different aspects to economist.

That's "equipped", me dear. Learn the kings English. Right. You just made a really simple statement again, apparently thinking it was profound.

Did you know that some clowns think that oil companies refine gasoline in oil tankers. Why would you believe anything that anyone so stupid as to say they refined gasoline in an oil tanker?? Best guess, they are liars. Why would you suggest anyone would listen to such a person??

Karl Marx school of thought is Marxism, Communism, Socialism & Materialism, and his main fields of study where surplus value and the labour theory of value. Luigi Pasinetti is an economist and his school of thought is Post-Keynesianism, but his fields of study were Mathematical formulation of the Ricardian system & The Theory of Value.

And here, we have an example of how to waste the time of anyone who would care to read this drivel. Good deal.

Why you would consider someone with very little contribution to the Socialism School of Thought as credible in this subject is beyond me, but you must be those types of people who actually visits a psychologist when you have a physical injury.

And again, Tania demonstrates that she believes that only marxists know anything about socialism. Which she has yet to understand is but one form of socialism, and perhaps the most extreme form.

I also value the input of forum socialist as well. Thomas Sowell was a Marxist in his youth and has also wrote a book about the teachers regarding Marxism. You haven't offered a single economist with any knowledge similar to Sowell's.

But, Tania says first that the economist should be a marxist, then changes her mind and says that Sowell, an admitted libertarian, should know all about socialism. How about that. Nice of you to admit that you do not have to be a marxist. Or even a socialist of a lesser stripe, to understand communism and socialism. I mean, hell, me girl. Most libertarians convert before they reach puberty. Sowell just wanted to make the big bucks that aligning with the Koch brothers brings him. Hell, the guy actually has over 40 articles in that great bat shit crazy con web site, TownHall. No economist is that nuts. Well, actually
Sowell is.

I don't know why they want to build a libertarian island. Maybe they would like a libertarian country which is primarily English speaking, because Hong Kong and Singapore are not primarily English speaking countries.

Now, one may wonder why anyone would call hong kong or singapore libertarian. But of course, it is because a study funded largely by Heritage said they were the MOST open market in nature. Now, they also said that they were NOT libertarian. So, question is, why should we listen to Tania about this?? She has said that only those of the specific economic type should be listened to. Marxists about marxist socialism, for instance. Oh.....I see, so you are saying you are a Libertarian. That is why you are saying we should listen to you.

If you wonder why they are building a libertarian island, you COULD read the article I linked for you. They tell you. From their own mouths. Mostly, they say, because they can not find a nation libertarian enough. And also, because where voting by the public occurs, libertarian goals loose. Simple enough, if you cared to know. Which I am sure you do not.

What they want to create as their own libertarian experiment is not relevant. It doesn't change the fact that Hong Kong and Singapore are Free Markets, ergo, Libertarian Economies.

No, me dear. Singapore and Hong Kong are mixed economies with primarily capitalist charactoristics. More capitalist, in other words, than socialist. Which would be why you are unable to find a source that believes they are libertarian. Jesus, me dear, you better go check Sowell. Maybe he will have a quote for you. (just kidding. Even Sowell would not be that stupid. That honor goes to TANIA.

Here are a few facts about Hong Kong, your libertarian city:

The Economist has declared the death of laissez-faire in Hong Kong now the city has passed a minimum wage law.

OOOOPS......

Fans of free-market Hong Kong also ignored the major role played by the government in housing, its support for textiles, the port and other sectors, and its transfer of land in lieu of funds to finance projects like the MTR.....

Uh oh.......

Still, Hong Kong has undeniably drifted towards statism. A rise in social expenditure was inevitable following the 1960s, when communist protestors tried to topple the colonial authorities (as they essentially succeeded in doing in Macau). Growing public expectations of government were inevitable after the educated, post-refugee generation became middle class. To some, last colonial governor Chris Patten drove a big nail into the coffin of laissez-faire when he boosted welfare and introduced a compulsory retirement savings

Gov spending growing???
Welfare???? Compulsory retirement savings???
No, Sowell, please say it ain't so.
RIP, Great Libertarian Experiment « Big Lychee, Various Sectors

So Hong Kong is a city, not a state, of 421 square miles (the equivalent of 20 miles by 21 miles) and about 7 million people. Yeah. That would be a great example of a libertarian country. And of course, it is a city within China. And successful, it has not been around long enough in it's current state to qualify as having proven anything.

That is the thing, Tania. Trying to prove that libertarianism is viable makes those trying to do so look really, really desperate.

 

[AmazonTania]

So tania says:

I never said any such thing. I have said that socialist are better equip in understanding socialism than any other types of economist. You place your faith in economist opinion, but you don't even understand that they're all different, and they devote their careers to studying different aspects to economist.

That's "equipped", me dear. Learn the kings English. Right. You just made a really simple statement again, apparently thinking it was profound.

Did you know that some clowns think that oil companies refine gasoline in oil tankers. Why would you believe anything that anyone so stupid as to say they refined gasoline in an oil tanker?? Best guess, they are liars. Why would you suggest anyone would listen to such a person??

It's no big secret that when you are losing a debate with a poor constructed argument, you like to change the subject. How about you actually respond the the point in question?

And here, we have an example of how to waste the time of anyone who would care to read this drivel. Good deal.

Be we all understand that you cannot read very well, which is why you have no response to it. Most people here want to learn, and they find my input valuable.

But, Tania says first that the economist should be a marxist, then changes her mind and says that Sowell, an admitted libertarian, should know all about socialism. How about that. Nice of you to admit that you do not have to be a marxist. Or even a socialist of a lesser stripe, to understand communism and socialism. I mean, hell, me girl. Most libertarians convert before they reach puberty. Sowell just wanted to make the big bucks that aligning with the Koch brothers brings him. Hell, the guy actually has over 40 articles in that great bat shit crazy con web site, TownHall. No economist is that nuts. Well, actually
Sowell is.

I see the problem with your 'King English' is that it prevents you from being able to read very well. I said that I also consider the words of FORMER SOCIALIST as well. I've said, Thomas Sowell WAS a Marxist. Whether or not he is currently a libertarian is irrelevant. I have also explained that he has written a book about Marxism as a philosophy, regarding it's economics, and his personal experiences.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Philosophy-economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688064264]Marxism: Philosophy and economics by Thomas Sowell[/ame]

Now, one may wonder why anyone would call hong kong or singapore libertarian. But of course, it is because a study funded largely by Heritage said they were the MOST open market in nature. Now, they also said that they were NOT libertarian.

Libertarians support Open Markets, therefore, those economies are libertarian.

I'll explain this to you using basic algebra:

Open Markets = Free Trade = Libertarian.

Let me know where I have confused you.

If you wonder why they are building a libertarian island, you COULD read the article I linked for you. They tell you. From their own mouths. Mostly, they say, because they can not find a nation libertarian enough. And also, because where voting by the public occurs, libertarian goals loose. Simple enough, if you cared to know. Which I am sure you do not.

Key word: Libertarian enough. All that simply means is that there are no nations which are Libertarian the way they want it to be. It doesn't change the fact that they are libertarian.

No wonder Kennedy is having a field day with you. You keep proving his point for him. You're a living self contradiction.

No, me dear. Singapore and Hong Kong are mixed economies with primarily capitalist charactoristics. More capitalist, in other words, than socialist. Which would be why you are unable to find a source that believes they are libertarian. Jesus, me dear, you better go check Sowell. Maybe he will have a quote for you. (just kidding. Even Sowell would not be that stupid. That honor goes to TANIA.

As I've said before, the fact that you don't understand what 'primarily' means just shows what little education Americans yield. I guess this is attributed to your 'King English' and you inability to fathom basic words my 9-year-old niece can understand.

1. It cannot be a Mixed Economy if it's 'primarily' Capitalist. Primarily is synonymous with the word, 'mainly' or 'most.' Most is defined as the greatest in number. Some is defined by a small amount. Now that you understand what these basic words mean, lets use them in a sentence:

Most of the Hong Kong and Singapore Economy is Capitalist, with a some (small amount) of Socialist Aspects. Or in the case of Hong Kong and Singapore, next to none.

2. We can already sum up the state of the Hong Kong economy, using your logic:

Partially. But they believe themselves to be primarily socialist. You may want to go argue with them.

Welcoming the news today (December 9), the Financial Secretary, Mr Henry Tang, said the government was firmly committed to maintaining Hong Kong as a free market economy that accords maximum scope to the private sector.

"We see the role of the government as a facilitator that provides a business-friendly environment where all firms can compete on a level playing field," he said.

"The government will also maintain an appropriate regulatory regime to ensure the integrity and smooth functioning of a free market."

Hong Kong remains world's freest economy

Again, you need to argue that with them. And a whole lot of economists, who believe what they say.

What is the freest economy in the world? Hong Kong. Hong Kong has relatively low taxes, a good legal system, sound money, free trade, and minimal regulations; and it has had these institutions and policies in place for several decades.

Economic Freedom: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

So, using your own ignorant vernacular, 'they believe themselves to be libertarian, and economist agree with them.'

Here are a few facts about Hong Kong, your libertarian city:

The Economist has declared the death of laissez-faire in Hong Kong now the city has passed a minimum wage law.

OOOOPS......

[/quote]

It appears you gathered your information from a blog, so I can understand where your inaccuracies originate from.

1. Minimum wage is irrelevant. Most countries have minimum wage laws, and Hong Kong is the lowest among any advanced economy: $3 dollars an hour. That've very low considering that the country is ranked 7th in terms of GDP Per Capita.

GDP per capita, PPP (current international $) | Data | Table

2. There is no socialist aspect to the minimum wage. At all. Karl Marx spent most of his time studying the mechanics of Capitalism regarding the Labour Theory of Value and discovered that "Wages therefore are only a special name for the price of labour-power, and are usually called the price of labour; it is the special name for the price of this peculiar commodity, which has no other repository than human flesh and blood."

He wrote all about it in a pamplet of his in 1847 called Wage Labour and Capital:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch02.htm

Wages, as he under stood it, was a struggle between the capitalist class and the worker. Lowest possible costs in order to realize the greatest margin of profit. The minimum wage is generally the lowest possible cost for the capitalist class and many businesses. As such, Karl Marx and Fredrick Frederick Engels did not support a minimum wage. They instead supported what is called 'The Natural Price for Labour.'

3. Socialist support a living wage, not a minimum wage. One would have thought you understood something so basic.

We'd like a living wage with that order | SocialistWorker.org

What we can gather, the minimum wage in Hong Kong is low. It is not distributed according to The Natural Price for Labour, and it definitely was not designed to keep up with the cost of living. The minimum wage in Hong Kong is low, just how Libertarians like it. If you don't understand what libertarians support, all you have to do is just ask them:

The Libertarian Party believes government regulations in the form of minimum wage laws drive up the cost of employing additional workers.[47] This is why Libertarians favor loosening minimum wage laws so that overall unemployment rate can be reduced and low-wage workers, unskilled workers, visa immigrants, and those with limited education or job experience can find employment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

Fans of free-market Hong Kong also ignored the major role played by the government in housing, its support for textiles, the port and other sectors, and its transfer of land in lieu of funds to finance projects like the MTR.....

Uh oh.......

What is interesting is that your blog doesn't even know that 49.7% of all housing in Hong Kong are private ownership housing. Only 31 percent of housing are public housing.

Still, Hong Kong has undeniably drifted towards statism. A rise in social expenditure was inevitable following the 1960s, when communist protestors tried to topple the colonial authorities (as they essentially succeeded in doing in Macau). Growing public expectations of government were inevitable after the educated, post-refugee generation became middle class. To some, last colonial governor Chris Patten drove a big nail into the coffin of laissez-faire when he boosted welfare and introduced a compulsory retirement savings
Gov spending growing???

Yeah, we can clearly see that big growth in Government Spending:

Welfare???? Compulsory retirement savings???

Obviously, you are unaware of the retirement situation in Hong Kong and the blog you have sourced doesn't due a good justice in educating you. The compulsory retirement savings you are referring to is the Mandatory Provident Fund. It's nothing more than Social Security. Hong Kong already has a Social Security, but it is currently being phased out for a much better pension program. With Hong Kong's rapidly aging population, Social Security is no longer sufficient enough to provide for the retirees. At least they've realised this problem much earlier than you Yanks.

In this scheme, it's only mandatory that you contribute to a pension scheme. The voluntary part is that it can be a personal savings or insurance policy of your choosing. And the best part about of it all: You can opt out at any time you wish. This is basically no different from Galveston County, Texas using a loophole in the US Tax Code to opt out of Social Security and create their own Pension Program.

http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/mpf.pdf

No, Sowell, please say it ain't so.
RIP, Great Libertarian Experiment « Big Lychee, Various Sectors

Thanks for showing us how getting our information from 'independent, credible sources.' LMAO, embarrassing.

So Hong Kong is a city, not a state, of 421 square miles (the equivalent of 20 miles by 21 miles) and about 7 million people. Yeah. That would be a great example of a libertarian country. And of course, it is a city within China. And successful, it has not been around long enough in it's current state to qualify as having proven anything.

Your ignorance would actually be staggering if I didn't think there were nations inhabited with morons like you...

Hong Kong is not a city, it's country. You can even find it within it's list of countries on the State Department's website.

A-Z List of Country and Other Area Pages

And the Census Bureau which tracks trade statistics:

Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade by Country

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/schedules/c/country.txt

And many more institutions. Far too many for me to name. You're probably the only living, breathing human being who honestly believes Hong Kong is not a country. That's fucking pathetic.

Also when Great Britain has regained control of Hong Kong since 1945, they've maintained a strict policy of non-interventionalism. That's almost 70 years of the Free Market experiment, and they've amassed a greater amount of prosperity than any other Western Economy.

You are very clueless if you believe that doesn't prove anything.

That is the thing, Tania. Trying to prove that libertarianism is viable makes those trying to do so look really, really desperate.

Sort of like obtaining their facts about a country from a blog.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry. But thanks for playing.

Sorry yourself, asshole. If Congress proposed to take our laws back to the way they were in 1914, commies like you would call it anarchy.

Is that back when the US government focused solely on protecting the interests of the wealthy?

When government treats everyone equally, turds like you call it "focusing solely on protecting the interests of the wealthy."

That was before we all became mules for the government to dispose of as it wished.

 

[Rshermr]

So, amazon makes another of her long, blathering, mostly incoherent, and fact free posts.
Got it, Amazon. So you can not explain why libertarians are having to build their own islands. Nor why you are unable to find a source that agrees with you that HK is a country. Or that it is libertarian. Poor dear.

Makes you so angry. But then, that is the thing with libertarian tools. They want to be angry.
Perhaps the funniest thing I have seen you post was that HK is obviously libertarian since ONLY 30% of their housing is socialist. Or the one where you proclaim of yourself that everyone believes that your posts are valuable.

So, we have it. You can not name a predominantly libertarian nation. You think a city is a nation. You think your posts are valuable. You believe the owned and paid for economist, Thomas Sowell is a great source.

Any more comedy routines coming along, me libertarian tool??

I wonder if anyone actually reads the meandering drivel that you post. Not me. Unjless I am really, really board. Probably just other libertarian tools like yourself. You know, ci's like kennedy. Jesus.
Between the two of you, perhaps you can say a single thing that is true???

 

[AmazonTania]

So, amazon makes another of her long, blathering, mostly incoherent, and fact free posts.
Got it, Amazon. So you can not explain why libertarians are having to build their own islands.

Already explained that.

If you wonder why they are building a libertarian island, you COULD read the article I linked for you. They tell you. From their own mouths. Mostly, they say, because they can not find a nation libertarian enough.

Key word: Libertarian enough. All that simply means is that there are no nations which are Libertarian the way they want it to be. It doesn't change the fact that they are libertarian.

No wonder Kennedy is having a field day with you. You keep proving his point for him. You're a living self contradiction.

Nor why you are unable to find a source that agrees with you that HK is a country.

Ignores the State Department and the Census Bureau as a source:

Hong Kong is not a city, it's country. You can even find it within it's list of countries on the State Department's website.

A-Z List of Country and Other Area Pages

And the Census Bureau which tracks trade statistics:

Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade by Country

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/schedules/c/country.txt

Or that it is libertarian. Poor dear.

Hong Kong has a Free Market and the great amount of economic freedom, according to Hong Kong, Heritage Foundation and an economist I have quoted.. Libertarians support Free Markets, ergo, Hong Kong is libertarian.

Another basic algebra course: Economic Freedom = Free Market = Libertarian.

Makes you so angry. But then, that is the thing with libertarian tools. They want to be angry.
Perhaps the funniest thing I have seen you post was that HK is obviously libertarian since ONLY 30% of their housing is socialist.

I didn't say they were socialist, I said it was public housing, meaning, that it was publicly funded or subsidised. Prehaps you should learn real English. This king English isn't working out for you.

Or the one where you proclaim of yourself that everyone believes that your posts are valuable.

I didn't say everyone either. Do I really have to go back and explain what 'Most' entails again after already educating you?

So, we have it. You can not name a predominantly libertarian nation. You think a city is a nation. You think your posts are valuable. You believe the owned and paid for economist, Thomas Sowell is a great source.

Any more comedy routines coming along, me libertarian tool??

Yes: You. You're the biggest comedic routine around and you've already shown what a full on troll you are. Some people just don't want to deal with you. I, on the other hand, take great pleasure in showing everyone how stupid some people can be.

Thanks. You're provide great entertainment on my off days.

I wonder if anyone actually reads the meandering drivel that you post. Not me. Unjless I am really, really board. Probably just other libertarian tools like yourself. You know, ci's like kennedy. Jesus.

Well, thanks for at least admitting that you do not read anything written in response to you. You've just confirmed to everyone else on the forum that you are indeed a great waste of time.

Between the two of you, perhaps you can say a single thing that is true???

First, you admitted in your first paragraph that you didn't read my post. Then you admitted that you did read it in the second paragraph. Now you are saying that you didn't read my post in the final paragraph. LMAO, too funny! It's like someone removed the frontal lobe of your brain. You can't decide on whether to tell the truth or to wing it and just lie.

If you've already admitted that you haven't read a single part of my post (or any other post for that matter), how do you know I haven't already said anything truthful?

Contradicts himself, once again. Thinking is really not your strong suit, so maybe they've removed more portions of your brain than necessary.

 

[Rshermr]

So, I could not resist this little piece of nonsence proving the dishonesty of the self proclaimed economic expert, TANIA:

Your ignorance would actually be staggering if I didn't think there were nations inhabited with morons like you...

Hong Kong is not a city, it's country. You can even find it within it's list of countries on the State Department's website.
A-Z List of Country and Other Area Pages

Really, Amazon is so authoritative. It is obvious that anyone who would say honk kong is not a naition is obviously an ignorant moron:
So, she provides sources for countries and "other areas". And if you click the State dept link she provides, and go through the simple process and click on hong kong, it brings you to the page for CHINA. Yup, the nation of the People's Republic of China. So, I guess one could infer that the state dept thinks hong kong is an other region.
uh oh. Caught again, me poor libertarian tool. Seems the state dept. believes as does china, that Hong Kong is a city in China.

And many more institutions. Far too many for me to name. You're probably the only living, breathing human being who honestly believes Hong Kong is not a country. That's fucking pathetic.

This is where it always gets funny. You know when you get multiple 'fuckings" coming from the keyboard of Tania, that she is caught and trying to prove a lie.
Lets see. Now, noticeably, tania has not found a single source that states in the kings english that hong kong is a country. Lets see if a living breathing human being believes hong kong is NOT a country.

Hong Kong is a vibrant city...

Uh, oh. That is from the Honk Kong government web site. Are they living breathing humans? Are they pathetic??

Now, while no source I can find thinks that Hong Kong is a country, it is most often called a city that has been named a Special Administrative Region within the nation of the People's Republic of China, or China for short

Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

Sorry. I could list many other sources stating that Hong Kong is a city, and a special administrative region. And all would tell you that it is part of the People's Republic of China.
Here is the Hong Kong site which explains what Hong Kong is, and from which the above came:
GovHK: Hong Kong ? the Facts

Your ignorance would actually be staggering if I didn't think there were nations inhabited with morons like you...

You are very clueless if you believe that doesn't prove anything.

Sorry, just had to throw some of your invectives back at you, where they belong. And really, amazon. You claimed in one of your posts to be a lady. Most of us would not characterize a person who uses the word fuck as often as you as a "Lady". You really need to learn to control your mouth.

 

[AmazonTania]

Really, Amazon is so authoritative. It is obvious that anyone who would say honk kong is not a naition is obviously an ignorant moron:
So, she provides sources for countries and "other areas". And if you click the State dept link she provides, and go through the simple process and click on hong kong, it brings you to the page for CHINA. Yup, the nation of the People's Republic of China. So, I guess one could infer that the state dept thinks hong kong is an other region.
uh oh. Caught again, me poor libertarian tool. Seems the state dept. believes as does china, that Hong Kong is a city in China.

That's because Hong Kong, like Taiwan and Macau, are territories of China are are geographically very close to China you rather confused individual. There is a difference between a country and an sovereign state.

But according to your faulty logic, Bermuda, Puerto Rico, The Cayman Islands, Montserrat and Samoa are not countries because they're currently under UK and US control.

http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/10543.htm

Get a clue.

This is where it always gets funny. You know when you get multiple 'fuckings" coming from the keyboard of Tania, that she is caught and trying to prove a lie.
Lets see. Now, noticeably, tania has not found a single source that states in the kings english that hong kong is a country. Lets see if a living breathing human being believes hong kong is NOT a country.

Uh, oh. That is from the Honk Kong government web site. Are they living breathing humans? Are they pathetic??

Uh oh, someone doesn't understand what a city-state is!

A city-state is an independent or autonomous entity not administered as a part of another local government whose territory consists of a city and possibly its surrounding territory. Only three sovereign city-states exist: Monaco, Singapore and Vatican City, while two others (Hong Kong and Macau) enjoy a high degree of autonomy despite being under the sovereign rule of another country.

City-state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hong Kong is nothing more than a City-State, which is the same thing as an international city (advanced city): Both simultaneously a City and a State. The entire country of Hong Kong is a city, like Singapore and Monaco, however, the only difference is the country is under Sovereign rule by another country, China.

Now, while no source I can find thinks that Hong Kong is a country, it is most often called a city that has been named a Special Administrative Region within the nation of the People's Republic of China, or China for short

Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

Sorry. I could list many other sources stating that Hong Kong is a city, and a special administrative region. And all would tell you that it is part of the People's Republic of China.

You clearly don't understand what the SARS region of China entails. I could waste my time explaining it to you, but you've already admitted you don't read anything that I have to say. So here is the dummies guide to Hong Kong.

The world’s original international city, many people ask what country is Hong Kong in? The answer isn’t as simple as it may seem; with its own money, passports and legal system Hong Kong isn’t quite Chinese, but with Chinese flags flying from its buildings and Beijing appointing its chief executive it isn’t quite independent. We unravel exactly what country Hong Kong is in.

Until 1997, and the Hong Kong handover, Hong Kong was a colony of the United Kingdom, ruled by a governor. Today, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) is a part of China, although this comes with a biblical size of caveats.

Hong Kong’s Basic Law, as agreed between China and Britain, means Hong Kong will retain its own currency (the Hong Kong dollar), legal system, and parliamentary system for fifty years. This means, for all practical purposes, Hong Kong is actually a separate country to China.

Hong Kong's Basic Law – The Basics of Hong Kong's Basic Law

The entire concept of 'One Country, Two Systems' was to re-unite the countries once under foreign control. All of the states currently under Chinese control are currently Capitalist States, while China remains a Socialist State. Hong Kong isn't any less of a country under Chinese rule than it was under British Rule. Macau isn't any less of a country under Chinese rule than it was under Portugal's rule. It's a City-State, like Singapore (which is also a country), except it's under Chinese control.

Any more things you need to have dummied down for you?

Sorry, just had to throw some of your invectives back at you, where they belong. And really, amazon. You claimed in one of your posts to be a lady. Most of us would not characterize a person who uses the word fuck as often as you as a "Lady". You really need to learn to control your mouth.

So you don't understand the difference between a sovereign state and a dependent state, you don't understand what a International City, and you don't understand what the SAR Region of China is. However, you keep passing yourself off as intelligent. You really need to smarten up.

 

[Rshermr]

So, tania, still trying to make Hong kong a nation, says:

Uh oh, someone doesn't understand what a city-state is!

Yes. I do. Did you have a point??? you see, me dear, a city state is not a country. A country is not part of another country.
Hong Kong is part of china. Which, me dear, is why that is what the gov of hong kong says.
GovHK: Hong Kong ? the Facts

Now, it is nice you find sources that list hong kong relative to business activities. But again, it is not a country. Which would be why you can not find a reputable source saying it is.

So you don't understand the difference between a country and a dependent state, you don't understand what a International City, and you don't understand what the SAR Region of China is. However, you keep passing yourself off as intelligent. You really need to smarten up.

More of your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion. Maybe you have a source that explains why Hong Kong is a country??? But of course not. So you believe HK to be a city state. Good for you. But at least you know it is NOT a country. Not a Nation. So, I will keep that smarten up thing in mind. But it does seem relatively obvious, to anyone with brain activity, that you should go to the gov of the entity in question to see what that they are. And, since they think they are a city, I think I will just believe that. And they think they are a SAR. I think I will just believe that. And they think that they are part of the Peoples Republic of China. I think I will just believe that. Especially since that is backed up by every authoritative source that discusses the subject.
But perhaps you can convince others that they are a nation, or a country. You know, since you have such substantial credentials. Dipshit.

 

[AmazonTania]

So, tania, still trying to make Hong kong a nation, says:

Uh oh, someone doesn't understand what a city-state is!

Yes. I do. Did you have a point??? you see, me dear, a city state is not a country. A country is not part of another country.

LMAO! Too funny! Reading is fundamental. A City-State is a country.

Only three sovereign city-states exist: Monaco, Singapore and Vatican City, while two others (Hong Kong and Macau) enjoy a high degree of autonomy despite being under the sovereign rule of another country.

You have quite a task ahead of you trying to convince everyone that Singapore and Vatican City are also not countries as well...

Vatican City, a city-state well known for being the smallest country in the world.

City-state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Embarrassing!

Hong Kong is part of china. Which, me dear, is why that is what the gov of hong kong says.
GovHK: Hong Kong ? the Facts

Hong Kong is part of China. It's is NOT on the other hand, a federally administered city created by China. Hong Kong Government says it's a city, because it's a city; however, it did NOT say that it wasn't it's own country. Everyone knows Hong Kong is a country, because Hong Kong is an Autonomous entity.

City-State
an autonomous state consisting of a city and surrounding territory

City-state - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Now, it is nice you find sources that list hong kong relative to business activities. But again, it is not a country. Which would be why you can not find a reputable source saying it is.

I've already done that. You've simply ignored evidence which refutes you, again.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/schedules/c/country.txt

More of your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion. Maybe you have a source that explains why Hong Kong is a country??? But of course not. So you believe HK to be a city state. Good for you. But at least you know it is NOT a country. Not a Nation. So, I will keep that smarten up thing in mind. But it does seem relatively obvious, to anyone with brain activity, that you should go to the gov of the entity in question to see what that they are. And, since they think they are a city, I think I will just believe that. And they think they are a SAR. I think I will just believe that. And they think that they are part of the Peoples Republic of China. I think I will just believe that. Especially since that is backed up by every authoritative source that discusses the subject.

A City-State, Country and Nation are all the same thing. Maybe you should look up the definition of a country and a city-state.

Country:
a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory

country: definition of country in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

City–State
a state that has its own government and consists of a city and the area around it.

City-state - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

That would be from an oxford dictionary and the merriam-webster dictionary. Hong Kong has it's own government, and it's occupying a particular territory. Also, it has it's own economy, it's own laws, it's own currency and it's own political system. It's a country, in every sense of the word. It's part of China because it's a Chinese Territory, in the same way that Puerto Rico is it's own country, despite being an American Territory.

This is really basic for anyone to understand, unless your name is Rshermr.

But perhaps you can convince others that they are a nation, or a country. You know, since you have such substantial credentials. Dipshit.

Your King English probably doesn't allow you to know that Nation, Country and State are all synonymous with one another.

Nation - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I'll dumb this down for you again, using algebra.

Nation = Country = State = City-State