Dorkington Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Has there been a successful developed country with a weak centralized government? I'm under the impression that Libertarianism doesn't work on a large scale much like Socialism, but I could be wrong.
LeviF Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 There is a notable difference, I think, between a "weak" central government and a non-intrusive central government.
Rob's House Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Has there been a successful developed country with a weak centralized government? I'm under the impression that Libertarianism doesn't work on a large scale much like Socialism, but I could be wrong. http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/ If you would like a much deeper understanding of libertarianism, and economics in general, check this out.
Dorkington Posted August 10, 2011 Author Posted August 10, 2011 There is a notable difference, I think, between a "weak" central government and a non-intrusive central government. Alright, by your definition, what has been the most successful country with a "non-intrusive" central government?
Rob's House Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) Alright, by your definition, what has been the most successful country with a "non-intrusive" central government? The absolutist nature of your verbage makes the question almost unanswerable. I would say that countries with less-intrusive central governments have tended to prosper across the board, while the more intrusive central governments have led to economic stagnation and collapse. Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan are examples of countries whose economies have prospered with limited intervention. Western Europe and the U.S. grew to prosperity with limited government intervention as well. The west has incrementally moved further to the interventionist side in recent decades, but were on the opposite side of the spectrum from the centrally planned countries like China, India, and the U.S.S.R., and lesser countries like Yugoslavia, North Korea, Cuba, etc. The anomaly are the Scandinavian countries, but that's a whole different story, with circumstances that don't exist in much of the world, and certainly not here. Edited August 10, 2011 by Rob's House
Peace Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) Alright, by your definition, what has been the most successful country with a "non-intrusive" central government? The United States did a pretty good pre-FDR job. On a spectrum of freedom, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, USA, Ireland are probably tops. Really no Libertarian country exists. Lichtenstein always comes up in this conversation. Edited August 10, 2011 by Peace
....lybob Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Has there been a successful developed country with a weak centralized government? I'm under the impression that Libertarianism doesn't work on a large scale much like Socialism, but I could be wrong. Before you accept any of the countries given on this thread as examples of "Libertarian countries" I suggest you check out their Health Care systems, Minimum wage laws, social welfare programs, Labor rights laws, Environmental and safety regulations, personal and corporate tax rates, education systems, property taxes, Land ownership and use laws, and so on.
DaveinElma Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Not a country but North Dakota is a good example of the success of libertarian/conservative principles.
birdog1960 Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Before you accept any of the countries given on this thread as examples of "Libertarian countries" I suggest you check out their Health Care systems, Minimum wage laws, social welfare programs, Labor rights laws, Environmental and safety regulations, personal and corporate tax rates, education systems, property taxes, Land ownership and use laws, and so on. . yeah, but besides those things... go to a supermarket in switzerland and see how much food costs when workers are paid a living wage. but then they can actually buy food without foodstamps.
....lybob Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Not a country but North Dakota is a good example of the success of libertarian/conservative principles. Check out the Bank of North Dakota before you consider this a libertarian/conservative success
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 The United States did a pretty good pre-FDR job. On a spectrum of freedom, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, USA, Ireland are probably tops. Really no Libertarian country exists. Lichtenstein always comes up in this conversation. Debateable. Not in regards to Civil Rights. Economic downturns were much worse. Criminals had an easier time getting away with crime and the elderly have it much, much better post FDR.
Dante Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 The United States did a pretty good pre-FDR job. On a spectrum of freedom, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, USA, Ireland are probably tops. Really no Libertarian country exists. Lichtenstein always comes up in this conversation. Strike One: FDR Strike Two: LBJ Strike Three: Obama Leftist, marxist, collectivism, state-ism strike out.
LeviF Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) Strike One: FDR Strike Two: LBJ Strike Three: Obama Leftist, marxist, collectivism, state-ism strike out. Let's face it, we haven't had a president that wasn't some form of statist in 50+ years. Edited August 11, 2011 by LeviF91
Dante Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 Let's face it, we haven't had a president that wasn't some form of statist in 50+ years. I agree. Accept for Reagan. But the three strikes are by far the worst. No one worse than our current guy.
....lybob Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 I agree. Accept for Reagan. But the three strikes are by far the worst. No one worse than our current guy. Ronald Reagan's faithful followers claim he has used his skills as the Great Communicator to reverse the growth of Leviathan and inaugurate a new era of liberty and free markets. Reagan himself said, "It is time to check and reverse the growth of government." Yet after nearly eight years of Reaganism, the clamor for more government intervention in the economy was so formidable that Reagan abandoned the free-market position and acquiesced in further crippling of the economy and our liberties. In fact, the number of free-market achievements by the administration are so few that they can be counted on one hand—with fingers left over. Let's look at the record: Spending In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income." Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted. The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987. Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund. His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have." The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight. This from the progressive attack dogs of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute
Dante Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) This from the progressive attack dogs of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute Dems controlled the House for both of Reagans terms. House is responsible for spending. Dems controlled both the House and the Senate for the last two years of Reagans second term. Reagan repeatedly tried to get a balanced budget amendment passed but didn't have total control like the ahole in office now had for two years. It just shows you what kind of damage can be done when a child is given the keys to the car. Edited August 11, 2011 by Dante
GG Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 This from the progressive attack dogs of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute Absolutely true. But you needed to spend money to defeat the evil empire, and good 'ol Ronnie's policies set the stage for the biggest non-post war expansion in a century. I can't quite say the smae about the current occupant, who's simple content on living of the seeds planted over a generation ago.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 The bad joke known as the Confederate States of America really loved decentralized government. Got those racists really far!
....lybob Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 Absolutely true. But you needed to spend money to defeat the evil empire, and good 'ol Ronnie's policies set the stage for the biggest non-post war expansion in a century. I can't quite say the smae about the current occupant, who's simple content on living of the seeds planted over a generation ago. Ronnie improved the economic growth through deficit spending- that's what it's called when you take in less but spend more- but that's not a bad thing that's one of the things government is suppose to do, run debt when growth is slow and unemployment is high and pay it back down when growth is good and unemployment is low.
Peace Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 Strike One: FDR Strike Two: LBJ Strike Three: Obama Leftist, marxist, collectivism, state-ism strike out. And yet the USA is still one of the most Libertarian countries in the world. Not even really debatable. Debateable. Not in regards to Civil Rights. Economic downturns were much worse. Criminals had an easier time getting away with crime and the elderly have it much, much better post FDR. Civil rights, true. Pre-FDR eonomic downturns, criminals getting away with crime, and elderly care have zip to do with the discussion.
Recommended Posts