SHOW me one developed first world nation that uses libertarian economics

[dblack]

Somalia!!!! Somalia!!!!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

Is 22% of the economy being controlled directly by the government what you meant when you said "libertarian"?

And yes - I know that the punishment for possession of chewing gum is only a fine. But I think it's pretty safe to say that any authoritarian government that canes it's citizens can't be described as "libertarian".

In the US that figure is 36%.
No one is arguing SIngapore is libertarian paradise as envisioned by Ron Paul. But they enjoy a level of economic freedom we just dont have here.

You are confusing statistics.

The US government spends around 36% of the US GDP, per year.

The Government of Singapore owns majority stakes in companies that generate 22% of it's GDP.

It's sort of a distinction without a difference.

 

[Billy000]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Being fooled by your own imbecile rationalizations doesn't demonstrate a damn thing.

 

[bripat9643]

An automatic long prison term for possession of any firearm is also a hallmark of libertarianism, as are the automatic death sentences for various drug offenses.

Where did you learn this balony?

What the libertarians here are telling us here is that they define libertarianism by one single quality, low taxes. A government can be repressive across the board, but as long as taxes are low, it's still a libertarian nation.

No libertarian ever said any such thing.

 

[Vandalshandle]

USA 1921-1928

The Roaring Twenties

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

It does not seem to dent your theory about Hoover and FDR that the 1930's depression was a worldwide event?

US Worlds # 1 economy

D'oh!

Oh! I see. So, the world wide depression that Hoover and FDR caused, which also caused that rise of the Nazi party in Germany, was actually the fault of Hoover and FDR....which means that Hoover and FDR were directly responsible for WW2, which, of course, means that Japan and Germany were just victims of Keystoneian economics!

Don't answer right away. See if you can get a reading from you tin-foil hat from Pluto, first....

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, nothing screams "libertarian" quite like canning people for possession of chewing gum.

I mean seriously !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who lifts up these countries as "Libertarian"????????

Is it possible for a human being to be that stupid and still stand upright????

Yup, called it. Moving the goal posts. One law and theyre no longer libertarians.
You couldnt define libertarian if you had to.

They use the same logic to claim the Founding Fathers believed in a strong central government. They gave the feds a smidgeon of additional authority, and that means they endorsed our massive welfare state.

 

[Billy000]

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.

Being fooled by your own imbecile rationalizations doesn't demonstrate a damn thing.

Well you are welcome to come up with a well thought out argument against it.

 

[AntiParty]

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 **** 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.

Libertarians are really nihilists. They admit they don't have the ability to discuss any Liberty, it's pretty much Liberty no matter what, no matter the topic. HELL YEA I'm free to do that..They don't understand certain Liberties can infringe the Liberties of others and it becomes a complex discussion after all and not just "hell yea, im free".

Libertarians also like to read the Constitution differently using secondary terms in the place of primary terms. And they will all out avoid the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, it doesn't agree with their platform.

I think Liberty should be a focus of all parties. But once it's the primary focus, it turns into nihilism.

The closest we will ever see a Government ran by Libertarians almost happened and we shut down the Government. The people that hated politics woke up and outnumbered the nihilists.

Somalia is the closest thing to what Libertarians preach.


Libertarians also

 

[Meathead]

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.

Being fooled by your own imbecile rationalizations doesn't demonstrate a damn thing.

Well you are welcome to come up with a well thought out argument against it.

You are assuming there are truly libertarian countries. There are none. As with many things, it is a matter of degree. All the world's successful economies have elements of economic libertarianism and generally the more so, the better. Singapore is an excellent example.

Whether you're deliberately obtuse or just stupid here is of little consequence to anyone but yourself.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Liberals are so damn transparent. We can see what is motivating the question. If you can't point to a libertarian economy, then that signals that a libertarian economy is not feasible.

You know, like asking in 1950 if there was any country in the world which allowed one man to take another man to be his wife would demonstrate that homosexual marriage was just not workable because no country permitted it.

 

[Billy000]

Liberals are so damn transparent. We can see what is motivating the question. If you can't point to a libertarian economy, then that signals that a libertarian economy is not feasible.

You know, like asking in 1950 if there was any country in the world which allowed one man to take another man to be his wife would demonstrate that homosexual marriage was just not workable because no country permitted it.

But think about how glamorous a libertarian nation sounds. The idea would inevitably be attempted. If it was viable, why wouldn't a first world example exist? Smart people who design any stable and successful government understand that libertarianism is not feasible. For any good governmental system, there must be central leadership that dictates rules that EVERYONE follows including the designers themselves.

 

[Billy000]

Being fooled by your own imbecile rationalizations doesn't demonstrate a damn thing.

Well you are welcome to come up with a well thought out argument against it.

You are assuming there are truly libertarian countries. There are none. As with many things, it is a matter of degree. All the world's successful economies have elements of economic libertarianism and generally the more so, the better. Singapore is an excellent example.

Whether you're deliberately obtuse or just stupid here is of little consequence to anyone but yourself.

You seem to be convinced that just because Singapore has a private enterprise that automatically makes it libertarian. No actually because it is still regulated and the gov has a huge stake in the economy. Nothing about it is libertarian.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Liberals are so damn transparent. We can see what is motivating the question. If you can't point to a libertarian economy, then that signals that a libertarian economy is not feasible.

You know, like asking in 1950 if there was any country in the world which allowed one man to take another man to be his wife would demonstrate that homosexual marriage was just not workable because no country permitted it.

Economics is a whole different animal from marriage. To have a successful economy you need supply and demand...Plus fair laws within a stable society.

Economics needs an educated population in order to understand how to make things.
Economics needs a stable, peaceful environment
Economics needs the workers being paid enough in order to increase the size of the population with buying power. DEMAND!
Economics needs to be regulated to make sure one corp isn't running everything and screwing over the consumer. KILLLING innovation!
Economics needs regulations in order to assure that money doesn't mean more than human rights.

The list goes on!

 

[Rikurzhen]

Liberals are so damn transparent. We can see what is motivating the question. If you can't point to a libertarian economy, then that signals that a libertarian economy is not feasible.

You know, like asking in 1950 if there was any country in the world which allowed one man to take another man to be his wife would demonstrate that homosexual marriage was just not workable because no country permitted it.

But think about how glamorous a libertarian nation sounds. The idea would inevitably be attempted. If it was viable, why wouldn't a first world example exist? Smart people who design any stable and successful government understand that libertarianism is not feasible. For any good governmental system, there must be central leadership that dictates rules that EVERYONE follows including the designers themselves.

Why wasn't homosexual marriage tried 50 years ago? Weren't the benefits obvious? It would normalize deviant homosexual behavior. It would take it out of seedy bathhouses, night clubs and public restrooms and transport it to suburbia with the white picket fence. And so on.

The "it's not been tried, therefore it's infeasible" argument is fallacious to the core.

What you're searching for is the "it's been tried and failed" argument. We can use that for communism and for social democracy, but we can't use it for libertarianism.

The problem for libertarianism is that every Western society has a.) deadwood population which will pose a problem b.) dependent population reliant on welfare c.) old population which is legacy, in that they paid into retirement schemes their whole life and now you abolish the programs and they're actually too old to work or to start over again.

The only way forward for a libertarian society is to start afresh with a new population. Know any country sized parcels of land that are free to move into?

There is another way but it involves conducting a national experiment. You create an experimental cohort. Young people who volunteer to join and they're taxed differently than everyone else, they don't contribute to a nation's taxes but instead to the experimental tax authority, they never qualify for benefits, etc. They occupy the same country as you but they operate under different economic, tax, and welfare laws. Then you see how matters play out.

This is also known as a pilot project.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

 

[dblack]

Somalia!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

USA 1921-1928

The Roaring Twenties

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

Hoover was a Republican and not progressive at all...

Hoover was in office all of six months before the Depression started. Hard to create an economic collapse of that magnitude in just six months

We can thank the hands off, deregulation policies of Harding and Coolidge for the Great Depression

 

[bripat9643]

Liberals are so damn transparent. We can see what is motivating the question. If you can't point to a libertarian economy, then that signals that a libertarian economy is not feasible.

You know, like asking in 1950 if there was any country in the world which allowed one man to take another man to be his wife would demonstrate that homosexual marriage was just not workable because no country permitted it.

But think about how glamorous a libertarian nation sounds. The idea would inevitably be attempted. If it was viable, why wouldn't a first world example exist? Smart people who design any stable and successful government understand that libertarianism is not feasible. For any good governmental system, there must be central leadership that dictates rules that EVERYONE follows including the designers themselves.

The phrase "good governmental system" is an oxymoron.