Name Me One Country! Just One!

[AmericaFirst]

Your pride an joy signature.

Here's how you fix it, put me in your ignore list. That's what I'm going to do next with you. Bye bye!

 

[Truthmatters]

Politics of Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I sure did , no more smoking bowls before debate.

I apologise for the bufoonery.



The Swiss Federal Constitution limits federal influence in the formulation of domestic policy and emphasizes the roles of private enterprise and cantonal government. However, the Confederation has been compelled to enlarge its policymaking powers in recent years to cope with national problems such as education, agriculture, health, energy, the environment, organized crime, and narcotics.

 

[Orange_Juice]

There isn't a single perfect example, no. This is not proof that our ideal is inherently unworkable, it's proof that governments like to grab as much power and money as they can, and hand out freebies to voters.

You guys are confusing cause and effect. You assume that the welfare state generates prosperity, when in fact the welfare state is a luxury that europeans can afford because of economic growth. The biggest improvements in living standards came roughly from 1815-1915, when the average western country had relatively restrained spending, relatively free trade, strong property rights, and the gold standard for money.

No, there's no example even remotely close to what you nuts want. The idea is incredibly unworkable, and to say we should have a government on the model of what it was during the industrial revolution is laughable and shows just how deranged you people are. Our society is so different from that one that a laissez-faire government would not only be unworkable now, but down right dangerous. They didn't have traffic lights back then either, does that mean they were more responsible? No, its because they had no automobiles.


And a few other things about that period. Our government may not have given away money, but it sure as hell did give free land to anyone and everyone that was white. And property rights? Ever hear about the trail of tears? We stole millions and millions of acres of land from the Indians. Some property rights! Trade is freer today than back then. The tariff was a big deal upto the 1930's. And going back to the Gold Standard is another crazy idea. What in pray tell is that suppose to accomplish? Limit the money supply? Great idea there!

 

[AmericaFirst]

No, there's no example even remotely close to what you nuts want. The idea is incredibly unworkable, and to say we should have a government on the model of what it was during the industrial revolution is laughable and shows just how deranged you people are. Our society is so different from that one that a laissez-faire government would not only be unworkable now, but down right dangerous. They didn't have traffic lights back then either, does that mean they were more responsible? No, its because they had no automobiles.


And a few other things about that period. Our government may not have given away money, but it sure as hell did give free land to anyone and everyone that was white. And property rights? Ever hear about the trail of tears? We stole millions and millions of acres of land from the Indians. Some property rights! Trade is freer today than back then. The tariff was a big deal upto the 1930's. And going back to the Gold Standard is another crazy idea. What in pray tell is that suppose to accomplish? Limit the money supply? Great idea there!

Oh but is very workable. Ive already posted how.

 

[Truthmatters]

And your arguments to that effect failed.

 

[Red Dawn]

There isn't a single perfect example, no. This is not proof that our ideal is inherently unworkable, it's proof that governments like to grab as much power and money as they can, and hand out freebies to voters.

You guys are confusing cause and effect. You assume that the welfare state generates prosperity, when in fact the welfare state is a luxury that europeans can afford because of economic growth. The biggest improvements in living standards came roughly from 1815-1915, when the average western country had relatively restrained spending, relatively free trade, strong property rights, and the gold standard for money.

Okay, I appreciate the honestly.

But, I can't believe that libertarians would cite the 19th century guilded age of the robber baron capitalists as the ideal economic framework.

this is why libertarians will never hold power anywhere in the world, except for winning an occasional city council seat for some village in Montana.

The robber baron age of capitalism has been roundly rejected by sane people. Its why recent developing countries from taiwan to south korea, to costa rica said "fuck off" to going through a phase of robber baron capitalism, and went straight to a liberal social democracy with a social welfare state infrastructure.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Okay, I appreciate the honestly.

But, I can't believe that libertarians would cite the 19th century guilded age of the robber baron capitalists as the ideal economic framework.

this is why libertarians will never hold power anywhere in the world, except for winning an occasional city council seat for some village in Montana.

The robber baron age of capitalism has been roundly rejected by sane people. Its why recent developing countries from taiwan to south korea, to costa rica said "fuck off" to going through a phase of robber baron capitalism, and went straight to a liberal social democracy with a social welfare state infrastructure.

And on top of that, I can't think of an era with more government corruption than the Boss Tweed era of political machines. They think less government=less corruption, but they just don't know their history

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

No, there's no example even remotely close to what you nuts want.

If you insist on picking one single country that exists right now and is perfect by every single one of my criteria, well sure. I'd like Holland's drug laws, Switzerland's neutrality and decentralization, Taiwan's low levels of spending, Russia's flat tax (if there is to be any income tax, that is) the USA's gun laws of a few decades past, and Britain's currency of the 1800's.

The idea is incredibly unworkable, and to say we should have a government on the model of what it was during the industrial revolution is laughable and shows just how deranged you people are. Our society is so different from that one that a laissez-faire government would not only be unworkable now, but down right dangerous.

Your hysterical hand-waving and predictions of apocalyptic doom are about as convincing as the right's fearmongering about terrorism and illegal drugs.

And going back to the Gold Standard is another crazy idea. What in pray tell is that suppose to accomplish? Limit the money supply? Great idea there!

Yes, it is a great idea--for the people. Not so great for Wall Street and the bankers. Inflation benefits the rich and hurts everyone else. So Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild created a central bank, while pretending to fight it in public.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Okay, I appreciate the honestly.

But, I can't believe that libertarians would cite the 19th century guilded age of the robber baron capitalists as the ideal economic framework.

That's because a lot of what we all learned in school about this era is false or misleading.

John Rockefeller cut the price of oil. Henry Ford cut the price of automobiles. Carnegie cut the price of steel. Westinghouse cut the price of electricity. (Contrast this to kind and loving socialist governments, who have a nasty tendency to cut throats.) This raised the living standards of the common man more than any redistribution program ever did. Redistribution doesn't mean a whole lot when there aren't many goods to redistribute in the first place.

Yes, there was some nasty pollution. They didn't really have any way to limit pollution back then. And yes, it is perfectly legitimate for government to set pollution controls, because pollution is a violation of other people's property rights.

And yes, there were sweatshops with long hours, but the alternative was considerably worse. The bottom line is, we were able to take in gazillions of immigrants from europe without having mass unemployment. Contrast this to nearly any western european nation today, where there are no jobs for their immigrants. Minimum wages and heavy restrictions against firing have made them unemployable, so they resort to black market employment, and periodically have out of control riots.

 

[KittenKoder]

That's because a lot of what we all learned in school about this era is false or misleading.

That goes for almost all history really.

 

[Paulie]

As far as I can see, the original question has been answered sufficiently. Name a country with a decentralized government, with a standard of living like the US, and Switzerland qualifies. Red Dawn agrees, and the rest of the liberals don't for whatever reason, even in the face of the cold hard facts.

If you want a perfect country, you'll have to space travel and settle a new planet because a perfect country doesn't exist on Earth.

 

[Paulie]

LOL, and apparently truthmatters is sitting around smoking herself into a stuper, posting irrelevant links. So her opinion is worth, what...nothing?

 

[Red Dawn]

As far as I can see, the original question has been answered sufficiently. Name a country with a decentralized government, with a standard of living like the US, and Switzerland qualifies. Red Dawn agrees, and the rest of the liberals don't for whatever reason, even in the face of the cold hard facts.

If you want a perfect country, you'll have to space travel and settle a new planet because a perfect country doesn't exist on Earth.

that's some pretty good spin, but you neglected to mention orange juices entire question

Ron Paul cranks sell this hum bug that if you get government "out of the way" the magical markety will provide for everyone.

The premise of the question was obvious to everyone. He was talking about the type of government and economy the libertarians dream of.

Small govern ment, yes decentralized government, and government that "gets out of the way".


That ain't switzerland, and we're still waiting for that example of a libertarian government on the planet that "gets out of the way"

 

[Paulie]

that's some pretty good spin, but you neglected to mention orange juices entire question

No, I didn't. His question was as follows:

That has a small de-centralized government and yet has a standard of living anywhere near as high as ours.

The part about Ron Paul blah blah was the ad hominem that he threw in afterwards.

He asked for a country with a decentralized government and a high standard of living, and he got it. You AGREED with Baron when he explained it to you more completely.

No one claims there is a libertarian government in the world, with a perfect magic market. That is just you liberals putting words in our mouths.

The premise of the question was obvious to everyone. He was talking about the type of government and economy the libertarians dream of.

Small govern ment, yes decentralized government, and government that "gets out of the way".

That ain't switzerland, and we're still waiting for that example of a libertarian government on the planet that "gets out of the way"

As a matter of fact, yes, it IS Switzerland to a certain extent. And so is the US. The way their decentralization is structured, gets their federal government out of the way of local governments. Not COMPLETELY, of course, but then, no one ever claimed that except you liberals anyway.

You're also making the mistake of lumping every single libertarian into one specific group, as if somehow we all have the same beliefs. Some libertarians are so anti-government, that they don't even support local government involvement. I'm not one of those. I'm an advocate of a more proactive local government, free of too much power and control by the Fed.

I'll tell you, you liberals make yourselves look more and more like rabid socialists as each discussion carries on. I'm convinced some of you wouldn't be happy unless the Fed controlled everything.

 

[Truthmatters]

Oh the magical markety goodness!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oh the magical markety goodness!

Oh complete and utter nonsense from you!

 

[Paulie]

Oh complete and utter nonsense from you!

Don't mind her. She's probably got her face buried in her bong, looking for irrelevant links to post, and waiting for a fellow liberal to make a post she can piggy back.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Let's also point out that all these leviathan states with their centrally planned economies are facing an economic disaster that was brought on by their adherence to Keynesian economics. So maybe we shouldn't be so quick to sing their praises.

 

[Paulie]

Let's also point out that all these leviathan states with their centrally planned economies are facing an economic disaster that was brought on by their adherence to Keynesian economics. So maybe we shouldn't be so quick to sing their praises.

This is the irony that seems to be lost on the liberals. Keynesian policies are obviously leading to economic downturns, but somehow we're supposed to sing the praises of those policies as they miraculously pull us back out?

Them pulling us back out is what keeps leading to the next one down the road. How is that not comprehendable? The facts are SCREAMING at you!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is the irony that seems to be lost on the liberals. Keynesian policies are obviously leading to economic downturns, but somehow we're supposed to sing the praises of those policies as they miraculously pull us back out?

Them pulling us back out is what keeps leading to the next one down the road. How is that not comprehendable? The facts are SCREAMING at you!

They want to blame our beliefs for the recession, and then turn around and make fun of us because nobody adheres to Austrian economics. I'm not sure how they can have it both ways, but by God they can!