SHOW me one developed first world nation that uses libertarian economics

[dblack]

After 4 pages what this thread has essentially done is demonstrated that there is no viable argument in favor of the idea of a libertarian nation. These nations would fail. That is why a first class libertarian nation does not exist.

All this thread has demonstrated is how much statists like a circle jerk. You may enjoy the mutual fantasy that you're doing something more substantial, but in the end, you're just diddling yourselves.

The reason no one takes the OP seriously is because it's a contradictory demand. It's like asking for an example of successful corporations that have adopted socialism, or a military that's won a war via pacifism.

Libertarians fundamentally reject the concept of the authoritarian nation state. Libertarianism seeks to solve most problems without resorting to government, and you're asking why governments don't embrace it. If you're trying to imply that libertarian ideas don't work as a means of solving social problems, the proof is all around you that you're wrong. Most people, most of the time, solve their problems with resorting to laws and government. Coercive state government is the pathological exception, not the default mode of conduct, for the vast bulk of our social interaction. Think about that.

 

[bripat9643]

The closes we ever came to libertarisanism is probably 1880-1900 when you had giant businesses forming monoplies.

Which monopolies where those?

The entire reason for the Unions and regulations was in response to how fucked this period in history was.

Nope. It was the result of Marxist propaganda.

Certainly, outside of this private sector, it wasn't libertarian as the government had some control over a public sector, but it wasn't pretty.

So outside the libertarian part of the economy, it wasn't libertarian? No shit? The public sector is the government, nimrod.

Businesses could do as they damn well pleased and their workers were paid like southeastern Asians.

Nope. American workers were paid more than the workers in any other country.

Everything you know about American history is propaganda.

 

[Billy000]

For any good governmental system, there must be central leadership that dictates rules that EVERYONE follows including the designers themselves.

The problem this type of discussion is going to run into is that different people are going to have different interpretations of libertarianism. From the context of your quote it appears that you assume that libertarianism is anarchy where there are no rules. I, on the other hand, took libertarianism to mean that there are indeed rules that everyone follows but the number of rules is more limited and their scope more narrowly defined than what we see in big liberal welfare states which arrest mothers for leaving 11 year old children sitting in a car or expel 8 year old boys from school because they ate a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun.

The parameters I am referring to are the ones laid out by Matthew. That is the kind of libertarianism we have been discussing the entire time.

 

[AbsoluteFreedom]

SHOW me one developed first world nation that uses libertarian economics of super limited government without investment within its own borders. Maybe once you do, we can talk about if it is a good idea or not.

Show me....ONE..
-That doesn't Invest in tech outside of the private sector doing it for their own benefit.
-Doesn't have an Educational system that allows for a large percentage of the population to be educated. Yes, you either have a shit load of money to send your children to private or you don't get it..
-No regulations on the business sector and monopolies' are welcome.
-Doesn't allow science institutions for the benefit of the nation. Want warning? Pay a private corp for it or you're out of luck.
-Allows a monopoly to pave the roads and charge as much as it damn well wishes.
-That allows slave labor or child labor. You see there's no federal laws and businesses shouldn't be regulated, you say.
-Environmental laws that demand that we don't fuck up the air or water. India or china you could say, but I wouldn't say they're first world in that area.

Show me one with a federal government that sit there with its finger up its ass looking at a wall. One with at least $20,000/year per capita for the common man would be a good clue on what I am talking about.

Sure, as soon as you show us one developed country that has no incidents of murder.

Oh wait, you mean there aren't any? I guess we shouldn't try to eliminate murder then, since it's clearly vital to human development and progress.

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

USA 1921-1928

The Roaring Twenties

Hoover and FDR went Keynesian and gave us a Depression worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years

If libertarianism was so successful, why did the bubble of the Roaring 20s burst and cause the Stock Market Collapse that started the Great Depression?

The FED pumping up the economy with cheap money during the 20s is an example of Libertarianism? I thought you moonbats were always talking about getting rid of the central bank now you are taking credit for what it did in the 20s and ignoring the results of such a policy in the 30s?

I used to kind of respect Libertarians, I even supported Ron Paul(no better option) and read some of Rothbard and Mises, but most "libertarians" today are shallow glenn beck listeners.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The closes we ever came to libertarisanism is probably 1880-1900 when you had giant businesses forming monoplies. The entire reason for the Unions and regulations was in response to how fucked this period in history was. Certainly, outside of this private sector, it wasn't libertarian as the government had some control over a public sector, but it wasn't pretty.

Businesses could do as they damn well pleased and their workers were paid like southeastern Asians.

Right on target here. It was the period in which the marketplace was trusted to create our society and it was a freakin' mess. Unless you happened to be one of the few very wealthy families that created these monopolies.

Anyone who wants to go back to this period clearly needs a history class.

 

[rightwinger]

SHOW me one developed first world nation that uses libertarian economics of super limited government without investment within its own borders. Maybe once you do, we can talk about if it is a good idea or not.

Show me....ONE..
-That doesn't Invest in tech outside of the private sector doing it for their own benefit.
-Doesn't have an Educational system that allows for a large percentage of the population to be educated. Yes, you either have a shit load of money to send your children to private or you don't get it..
-No regulations on the business sector and monopolies' are welcome.
-Doesn't allow science institutions for the benefit of the nation. Want warning? Pay a private corp for it or you're out of luck.
-Allows a monopoly to pave the roads and charge as much as it damn well wishes.
-That allows slave labor or child labor. You see there's no federal laws and businesses shouldn't be regulated, you say.
-Environmental laws that demand that we don't fuck up the air or water. India or china you could say, but I wouldn't say they're first world in that area.

Show me one with a federal government that sit there with its finger up its ass looking at a wall. One with at least $20,000/year per capita for the common man would be a good clue on what I am talking about.

Sure, as soon as you show us one developed country that has no incidents of murder.

Oh wait, you mean there aren't any? I guess we shouldn't try to eliminate murder then, since it's clearly vital to human development and progress.

I don't understand your analogy

If libertarianism is a viable political theory, why can't you point out some success stories?

 

[ScienceRocks]

SHOW me one developed first world nation that uses libertarian economics of super limited government without investment within its own borders. Maybe once you do, we can talk about if it is a good idea or not.

Show me....ONE..
-That doesn't Invest in tech outside of the private sector doing it for their own benefit.
-Doesn't have an Educational system that allows for a large percentage of the population to be educated. Yes, you either have a shit load of money to send your children to private or you don't get it..
-No regulations on the business sector and monopolies' are welcome.
-Doesn't allow science institutions for the benefit of the nation. Want warning? Pay a private corp for it or you're out of luck.
-Allows a monopoly to pave the roads and charge as much as it damn well wishes.
-That allows slave labor or child labor. You see there's no federal laws and businesses shouldn't be regulated, you say.
-Environmental laws that demand that we don't fuck up the air or water. India or china you could say, but I wouldn't say they're first world in that area.

Show me one with a federal government that sit there with its finger up its ass looking at a wall. One with at least $20,000/year per capita for the common man would be a good clue on what I am talking about.

Sure, as soon as you show us one developed country that has no incidents of murder.

Oh wait, you mean there aren't any? I guess we shouldn't try to eliminate murder then, since it's clearly vital to human development and progress.

Economics needs stability, supply and demand, and regulations. You can't be effin serious to compare economics to murder.

Libertrianism is a system that is clueless of reality and of history.

Lastly, how is it freedom to be ruled by a monopoly corporation without any say? You see, at least we vote for our government.

 

[AbsoluteFreedom]

SHOW me one developed first world nation that uses libertarian economics of super limited government without investment within its own borders. Maybe once you do, we can talk about if it is a good idea or not.

Show me....ONE..
-That doesn't Invest in tech outside of the private sector doing it for their own benefit.
-Doesn't have an Educational system that allows for a large percentage of the population to be educated. Yes, you either have a shit load of money to send your children to private or you don't get it..
-No regulations on the business sector and monopolies' are welcome.
-Doesn't allow science institutions for the benefit of the nation. Want warning? Pay a private corp for it or you're out of luck.
-Allows a monopoly to pave the roads and charge as much as it damn well wishes.
-That allows slave labor or child labor. You see there's no federal laws and businesses shouldn't be regulated, you say.
-Environmental laws that demand that we don't fuck up the air or water. India or china you could say, but I wouldn't say they're first world in that area.

Show me one with a federal government that sit there with its finger up its ass looking at a wall. One with at least $20,000/year per capita for the common man would be a good clue on what I am talking about.

Sure, as soon as you show us one developed country that has no incidents of murder.

Oh wait, you mean there aren't any? I guess we shouldn't try to eliminate murder then, since it's clearly vital to human development and progress.

I don't understand your analogy

If libertarianism is a viable political theory, why can't you point out some success stories?

I will help you understand it better. If you cannot point out success stories of developed countries that have eliminated all murder, then clearly having a murder rate of 0 makes such a policy nonviable.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Sure, as soon as you show us one developed country that has no incidents of murder.

Oh wait, you mean there aren't any? I guess we shouldn't try to eliminate murder then, since it's clearly vital to human development and progress.

I don't understand your analogy

If libertarianism is a viable political theory, why can't you point out some success stories?

I will help you understand it better. If you cannot point out success stories of developed countries that have eliminated all murder, then clearly having a murder rate of 0 makes such a policy nonviable.

I get where you are trying to go with this - but imho - it's a whiff. The two are way too different to try to draw an analogy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You are assuming there are truly libertarian countries. There are none.

And THAT is the point.

 

[AbsoluteFreedom]

SHOW me one developed first world nation that uses libertarian economics of super limited government without investment within its own borders. Maybe once you do, we can talk about if it is a good idea or not.

Show me....ONE..
-That doesn't Invest in tech outside of the private sector doing it for their own benefit.
-Doesn't have an Educational system that allows for a large percentage of the population to be educated. Yes, you either have a shit load of money to send your children to private or you don't get it..
-No regulations on the business sector and monopolies' are welcome.
-Doesn't allow science institutions for the benefit of the nation. Want warning? Pay a private corp for it or you're out of luck.
-Allows a monopoly to pave the roads and charge as much as it damn well wishes.
-That allows slave labor or child labor. You see there's no federal laws and businesses shouldn't be regulated, you say.
-Environmental laws that demand that we don't fuck up the air or water. India or china you could say, but I wouldn't say they're first world in that area.

Show me one with a federal government that sit there with its finger up its ass looking at a wall. One with at least $20,000/year per capita for the common man would be a good clue on what I am talking about.

Sure, as soon as you show us one developed country that has no incidents of murder.

Oh wait, you mean there aren't any? I guess we shouldn't try to eliminate murder then, since it's clearly vital to human development and progress.

Economics needs stability, supply and demand, and regulations. You can't be effin serious to compare economics to murder.

You appear to be implying that murder doesn't need regulations. Is that your position?

Libertrianism is a system that is clueless of reality and of history.

If this is true to you, then it is also true to substitute "law enforcement" for "libertarianism" in your sentence.

Lastly, how is it freedom to be ruled by a monopoly corporation without any say? You see, at least we vote for our government.

Libertarians seek to separate the government from the economy, not turn the economy into the government. I think a basic misunderstanding of what libertarianism is sits at their heart of your disapproval of it.

 

[rightwinger]

Sure, as soon as you show us one developed country that has no incidents of murder.

Oh wait, you mean there aren't any? I guess we shouldn't try to eliminate murder then, since it's clearly vital to human development and progress.

I don't understand your analogy

If libertarianism is a viable political theory, why can't you point out some success stories?

I will help you understand it better. If you cannot point out success stories of developed countries that have eliminated all murder, then clearly having a murder rate of 0 makes such a policy nonviable.

Sorry, still don't see where your analogy is remotely applicable

But as a libertarian, can you point out a single state that has adopted libertarian values and has been successful? You have 50 to choose from
Can you point to a single nation on earth that has adopted libertarian values and is successfuL? You have close to 200 to choose from

 

[CrusaderFrank]

the closes we ever came to libertarisanism is probably 1880-1900 when you had giant businesses forming monoplies. The entire reason for the unions and regulations was in response to how fucked this period in history was. Certainly, outside of this private sector, it wasn't libertarian as the government had some control over a public sector, but it wasn't pretty.

Businesses could do as they damn well pleased and their workers were paid like southeastern asians.

1920-1928

 

[AbsoluteFreedom]

I don't understand your analogy

If libertarianism is a viable political theory, why can't you point out some success stories?

I will help you understand it better. If you cannot point out success stories of developed countries that have eliminated all murder, then clearly having a murder rate of 0 makes such a policy nonviable.

Sorry, still don't see where your analogy is remotely applicable

But as a libertarian, can you point out a single state that has adopted libertarian values and has been successful? You have 50 to choose from
Can you point to a single nation on earth that has adopted libertarian values and is successfuL? You have close to 200 to choose from

As someone opposed to murder, can you point out a single state that has adopted anti-murder laws and has been successful in stopping all murder? You have 50 to choose from
Can you point to a single nation on earth that has adopted anti-murder values and is successfuL? You have close to 200 to choose from

 

[nodoginnafight]

I will help you understand it better. If you cannot point out success stories of developed countries that have eliminated all murder, then clearly having a murder rate of 0 makes such a policy nonviable.

Sorry, still don't see where your analogy is remotely applicable

But as a libertarian, can you point out a single state that has adopted libertarian values and has been successful? You have 50 to choose from
Can you point to a single nation on earth that has adopted libertarian values and is successfuL? You have close to 200 to choose from

As someone opposed to murder, can you point out a single state that has adopted anti-murder laws and has been successful in stopping all murder? You have 50 to choose from
Can you point to a single nation on earth that has adopted anti-murder values and is successfuL? You have close to 200 to choose from

You may be cited by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for beating a dead horse.

 

[rightwinger]

I will help you understand it better. If you cannot point out success stories of developed countries that have eliminated all murder, then clearly having a murder rate of 0 makes such a policy nonviable.

Sorry, still don't see where your analogy is remotely applicable

But as a libertarian, can you point out a single state that has adopted libertarian values and has been successful? You have 50 to choose from
Can you point to a single nation on earth that has adopted libertarian values and is successfuL? You have close to 200 to choose from

As someone opposed to murder, can you point out a single state that has adopted anti-murder laws and has been successful in stopping all murder? You have 50 to choose from
Can you point to a single nation on earth that has adopted anti-murder values and is successfuL? You have close to 200 to choose from

For the third time, your analogy has no merit

We do not have any "anti-libertarian" laws. Libertarians are free to run in any state. If their theories are so appealing......Why has no country adopted them? Why has no state adopted them?

 

[ScienceRocks]

So you want to unregulate businesses and allow the business owner the right to do as he pleases. Do realize also that laws against murder are enforced by government. Government enforcement is something anti-libertarian.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So you want to unregulate businesses and allow the business owner the right to do as he pleases. Do realize also that laws against murder are enforced by government. Government enforcement is something anti-libertarian.

Not to mention workplace or product safety standards.

"When enough people die - the company will go out of business"

 

[Derideo_Te]

Singapore is one of the world's richest nations and is economically largely, though not completely, libertarian. Economic freedom is its cornerstone.

Economy of Singapore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Singapore has draconian laws!

Gingrich Praises Singapore's 'Very Draconian' Laws That Mandate Executions For Drug Possession | ThinkProgress

Gingrich’s endorsement of Singapore’s drug war is stunning. The country’s “drug laws are among the world’s harshest. Anyone aged 18 or over convicted of carrying more than 15 grams of heroin faces mandatory execution by hanging.” In 2005, Singapore infamously executed an Australian citizen for possession of .4 kilograms of heroin.

Here are a few others;

1. Flush the toilet or face a public caning
It seems nothing is sacred these days. In Singapore, you can’t even pee in private. Apparently, police officers do random checks to make sure public toilets are flushed after use. Note to self, must flush the toilet!

2. Litter bugs pay big time
There’s a reason why the streets of Singapore are almost glistening with cleanliness. A litter law dating from 1968 means litter bugs can be fined $1,000 for the first conviction and $5,000 for repeat convictions. On top of that, you’ll be forced to do community labour. And if you offend three times, you’ll have to wear a lovely sign, which states, “I am a litter lout”.

3. Selling chewing gum is forbidden
Gum chewers, beware – put your chewed gum in the bin or you could face a hefty fine. Singapore prohibited the sale of gum after authorities noticed a prolific amount of chewed gum being stuck in subway stations and on cars. Mints might be the safer option if you have a case of garlic breath.

4. Don’t walk around your house naked
In Singapore, pornography is illegal, and anything to do with it may result in imprisonment or big fines. Along the same lines, the country thinks that nudity has to do with pornography, so better close the curtains when you dress for bed.

5. No hugging in public without permission
Haven’t seen your loved one for a long time? Make sure you ask their permission before giving them a hug in public or you could land yourself in gaol. True story. If you’re lucky, it’s just a fine.

6. No poking adverse comments at religion
If you’re agnostic or atheist, keep it under wraps because in Singapore it’s a highly serious matter and you can be cited for sedition. Ouch.

7. Stranger danger
If you’re introducing a stranger as your good friend and speak well of him and it proves to be false, you’ll be convicted for abetment.

8. Connecting on unsecured Wi-Fi hotspots means hacking
Need to check emails? Better go to an internet cafe rather than logging in on an unsecured network. In Singapore, it’s called hacking and you could end up in gaol or face a big fine.

Visiting Singapore - 8 Weird Laws You Should Be Aware Of


So let's see how it fairs when it comes to gun ownership.

In Singapore: Stiff penalties for unlawful possession

GUN control laws in Singapore are among the strictest in the world.
The two main statutes governing firearms are the Arms Offences Act and the Arms and Explosives Act.

They spell out tough penalties for both illegal possession and unlawful use of guns.
For instance, anyone caught unlawfully possessing a gun or ammunition can be jailed for between five and 10 years, and given at least six strokes of the cane, according to the Arms Offences Act.

Anyone caught using an illegal firearm faces the death penalty. Arms traffickers also face the death penalty, or they can be jailed for life and given at least six strokes of the cane. A licence is required for legal gun ownership in Singapore, for which the applicant must fulfil a series of strict requirements.

Some of these requirements include a genuine reason for possessing a gun, and the ability to prove that there is a "serious threat to his life and no other way of overcoming/removing the threat".

Applicants must pass stringent background checks that would look into their criminal, medical and mental health records. They are also required to pass a shooting proficiency test.

As a result of the tough laws and regulations, private gun ownership in Singapore is among the lowest in the world.

According to a 2007 study by Small Arms Survey, an independent research outfit in Geneva, the rate of private gun ownership in Singapore is about one gun per 200 people.
This is compared with 88.8 privately held guns per 100 people in the United States, which topped the list of 178 countries that were surveyed.

Sure sounds like a libertarian nirvana!