Discuss and talk about any general topic.
Let's say I wanted to run for office on a Libertarian ticket and turn a country into a capitalist Koana, which country would be best to run in?
There is no country in the world that is anywhere near "Libertarian." Hong Kong used to be--before the Chi-coms took over the place. I would say in terms of economic freedom--Hong Kong and Singapore come closest.
John Stossel on Hong Kong:
It took John Stossel ONE DAY and ONE FORM to start his own business in Hong Kong! Are you kidding me! Do you know how long it would take me to start my own business in the piece-of-shit city known as New York!
I guess what country would be easiest to transform? I am not saying which country IS libertarian, because that is kind of iffy at best.
Just don't try Russia. I don't think they much appreciated the Chicago Boys shock therapy of the late '90s that turned the country overnight into an impoverished oligarchy, with life expectancy dropping like a stone.
I don't think Iraqis have appreciated the results too much either (understatement). That was supposed to be the purest laboratory for these ahistorical theories.
Sorry, but history is leaving you behind, especially in Latin America, where numerous leftist regimes have been elected in reaction against the imposition of neoliberalism. The "Washington consensus" of the '90s --essentially libertarian economic theory in every respect -- is a swear word in those countries now. Even Chile -- presumably your exhibit A for the validity of these theories -- I think you would find to be much closer to mixed government than pure neoliberalism now.
Libertarianism is just a crackpot religion invented by the Jews to rationalize their depredations, much like communism. It is not really even a theoretical possibility, but even moving some way towards its implementation would lead to rapid economic and social collapse. Therefore no place is suitable for such a coup.
Couldn't be summed up any better in three sentences. And in support of sentence number two, witness Russia, Iraq, etc., etc.
First, the whole Iraq debacle is not the application Libertarianism. Libertarianism would mean sticking our noses to our own business. Neoliberalism does NOT EQUAL Libertarianism.
Second, Russia was asinine. Shock therapy was a bad idea. Of course if you take away a large chunk of the GDP (government) you will be suffering. It was easier on the FSU countries farther away from Russia, such as Latvia and Estonia, which did not rely on government to begin with, so they did not have that far to fall. In addition, during the crisis Yeltsin self out his principles by engaging in crony capitalism. Ever since his second term, Russia has turn more and more fascist by the day. Even Ron Paul, the most libertarian member of the House, never suggested we do away with social programs first. I am in agreement. So to call either of those failures is slightly stupid. It would be like taking a pillar of our society, and casting it away. It does not work like that without problems. The best way is to ease into things, whatever that policy may be.
The proven correct way for people to live is under the jackbooted tyranny of patriarchal families and clans while defending their own patch of dirt. The common thread of Jew religions is that they undermine such functional arrangements by imposing their "equality" bullshit and force people to interact through formal economic systems that the Jews control, thereby allowing the Jews to bully and rob them. Libertarianism, socialism etc. is all just Talmudism repackaged for stupid goyim sheeple.
Look, I am not saying that is bad, but just don't force me to go along. I have no problem if you want to live under a dictatorship, commune, republic, or whatever. My big problem is when morally ignorant people say they have heard from the Heavens, thus it must be made so, even if it means breaking the Golden Rule. I am not asking you to agree with my opinions, all I am asking you to do is allow me to live my live, and I will allow you to live yours. Understand? Why must there be a way to force upon everyone?
You are begging the question here. If people weren't forced to obey family/clan patriarchs then those men would not be family/clan patriarchs.
No. Rhetorical questions don't advance your argument.
One that has learned some lessons from history, like, say, the Western social democracies, circa 1945 to 1975. One that understands private capital will be as swinish and predatory as it possibly can be, that it must be regulated and opposed by countervailing forces such as government and labor (to use Galbraith's expression).
The economic component of libertarianism, as I understand it, is exactly the same thing as neoliberalism -- privatization (i.e., turning over public assets to private predators), deregulation (i.e., letting Wall Street crooks turn the economy into a private casino) and austerity (i.e., starving government and curtailing the social contract). Features such as socialism for large corporations may not be part of the theory, but they invariably become part of the program.
Who is online