A "Libertarian" Country

[Dorkington]

Interesting replies/opinions guys. But I haven't seen a whole lot of answers other than "Pre FDR USA", and like another poster has said... that's debatable.

 

Any other countries?

[LeviF]

Interesting replies/opinions guys. But I haven't seen a whole lot of answers other than "Pre FDR USA", and like another poster has said... that's debatable.

 

Any other countries?

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

[ieatcrayonz]

Interesting replies/opinions guys. But I haven't seen a whole lot of answers other than "Pre FDR USA", and like another poster has said... that's debatable.

 

Any other countries?

Dude libertarian is a code word for "let me smoke pot". All the other stuff is just made up crap. What household, let alone country can succeed when everyone is stoned?

[OCinBuffalo]

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.

Apparently you haven't spend any time in a Skilled Nursing Facility that is primarily Meidcaid-driven recently. Comparing that, to the 1930s and before, when charities, and god-forbid...families...took care of the elderly, is no contest. The old way was easily better.

And how did so many elderly, who aren't even supposed to be using Medicaid, end up on it? That's right boys and girls, Medicaid, as designed by idiot LBJ, is for YOUNG PEOPLE. Easy. When you are an idiot, LBJ, and you don't know how to plan very well, LBJ, you make programs like Medicare and Medicaid, LBJ. After 6 months of Medicare keeping Mrs. Jones alive with every conceivable medical advancement...no hold barred...because Medicare spends the big bucks...it runs out. Then, after Mrs. Jones spends/gives away all her assets before she dies, who's left to pay for her care? Medicaid. Why? Because Mrs. Jones is now "poor". This way, the family doesn't pay, Mrs. Jones doesn't pay, and actually, the Feds only allow $30 a day for Mrs. Jones...which doesn't even come close. So in truth, the Feds don't really pay either.

 

Meanwhile, the place goes straight to hell, taking the residents and staff with it. And why? Because the Feds insist that a person who is on Medicaid get the same care that a private pay person does...so, there's no way for a provider to ever get their head above water, because the Medicaid patients keep dragging them down. They cannot offer service commensurate with price. Instead, they have to charge the private pay people more, to compensate for the Medicaid people, and even with that they are still out 20% in revenue.

 

And what I wonder is the result? Over worked staff, under funded facilities, and of course, lawyers coming in an suing everybody. This is FAIL, for everybody but the lawyers.

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.

Yeah, You're RIght.

 

Reagan's 3% growth in government over 6 years...as a way to get us out of a crisis, that produced excellent, tangible results that even Clinton was making a living on....

...is the exact same as a 10% growth in government in 3 years, that has produced exactly jack sh_t. What a cogent comparison!

 

How well did the stimulus, or, Jack "Green Shovel" Shyte, as I like to call him, work? Oh, that's right, spending $3 trillion has no effect...it's only when we spend $5 trillion...that's when Keynesian economics works, right Mr. Idiot Krugman? There is no measurable effect at $3 trillion....and the effect is not incremental or exponential from $3 to 5. No. Only when we hit $5, then its effect is astronomical and instantaneous, until then, it's completely undetectable...(because it secretly runs on magic). It's the "invisible hand...up your ass...because your Krugman's puppet" effect.

 

Go ahead and do some more expounding on Economics. Entertain Us! How about comparisons? Got anymore "golf balls are the same as your wife, because they are both round and have holes" analysis you'd like to contribute?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Apparently you haven't spend any time in a Skilled Nursing Facility that is primarily Meidcaid-driven recently. Comparing that, to the 1930s and before, when charities, and god-forbid...families...took care of the elderly, is no contest. The old way was easily better.

And how did so many elderly, who aren't even supposed to be using Medicaid, end up on it? That's right boys and girls, Medicaid, as designed by idiot LBJ, is for YOUNG PEOPLE. Easy. When you are an idiot, LBJ, and you don't know how to plan very well, LBJ, you make programs like Medicare and Medicaid, LBJ. After 6 months of Medicare keeping Mrs. Jones alive with every conceivable medical advancement...no hold barred...because Medicare spends the big bucks...it runs out. Then, after Mrs. Jones spends/gives away all her assets before she dies, who's left to pay for her care? Medicaid. Why? Because Mrs. Jones is now "poor". This way, the family doesn't pay, Mrs. Jones doesn't pay, and actually, the Feds only allow $30 a day for Mrs. Jones...which doesn't even come close. So in truth, the Feds don't really pay either.

 

Meanwhile, the place goes straight to hell, taking the residents and staff with it. And why? Because the Feds insist that a person who is on Medicaid get the same care that a private pay person does...so, there's no way for a provider to ever get their head above water, because the Medicaid patients keep dragging them down. They cannot offer service commensurate with price. Instead, they have to charge the private pay people more, to compensate for the Medicaid people, and even with that they are still out 20% in revenue.

 

And what I wonder is the result? Over worked staff, under funded facilities, and of course, lawyers coming in an suing everybody. This is FAIL, for everybody but the lawyers.

 

I'll give you credit, at least you are not afraid of pointing out how far backwards you would like to drag us. Yes, let's dump the old sick people on families. Nothing like having a old parent sitting around the house dying as you are trying to work, raise a family and bang your wife instead of in a care facility where they can have professional care.

[....lybob]

 

Yeah, You're RIght.

 

Reagan's 3% growth in government over 6 years...as a way to get us out of a crisis, that produced excellent, tangible results that even Clinton was making a living on....

...is the exact same as a 10% growth in government in 3 years, that has produced exactly jack sh_t. What a cogent comparison!

 

How well did the stimulus, or, Jack "Green Shovel" Shyte, as I like to call him, work? Oh, that's right, spending $3 trillion has no effect...it's only when we spend $5 trillion...that's when Keynesian economics works, right Mr. Idiot Krugman? There is no measurable effect at $3 trillion....and the effect is not incremental or exponential from $3 to 5. No. Only when we hit $5, then its effect is astronomical and instantaneous, until then, it's completely undetectable...(because it secretly runs on magic). It's the "invisible hand...up your ass...because your Krugman's puppet" effect.

 

Go ahead and do some more expounding on Economics. Entertain Us! How about comparisons? Got anymore "golf balls are the same as your wife, because they are both round and have holes" analysis you'd like to contribute?

excellent points made to counter other points that exist nowhere except in your feverish delusional mind- now if you want to join the actual thread and either explain why Reagan was a Statist president or not a statist president then feel free- or continue to joust at windmills whatever makes you happy.

[Rob's House]

excellent points made to counter other points that exist nowhere except in your feverish delusional mind- now if you want to join the actual thread and either explain why Reagan was a Statist president or not a statist president then feel free- or continue to joust at windmills whatever makes you happy.

Whether you want to consider Reagan a statist (which is relative to what part of the spectrum the current political climate spans) has nothing to do with the OP's question. It was just a tangent. What's irrefutable is that throughout the history of civilization, countries that lie on the side of the spectrum with less govt intervention into economics are the most prosperous. Pointing out that there are no purely libertarian societies is about as insightful as pointing out that we don't have democracy in the strict sense of the word. No society is at the absolute extreme; there's always a mix. The question is really on what end of the interventionist spectrum do you want to be on, and no matter how big the govt gets, and even now that it's bursting at the proverbial seams, rarely if ever do I hear libs say "that's enough govt". You guys always want more.

[....lybob]

Whether you want to consider Reagan a statist (which is relative to what part of the spectrum the current political climate spans) has nothing to do with the OP's question. It was just a tangent. What's irrefutable is that throughout the history of civilization, countries that lie on the side of the spectrum with less govt intervention into economics are the most prosperous. Pointing out that there are no purely libertarian societies is about as insightful as pointing out that we don't have democracy in the strict sense of the word. No society is at the absolute extreme; there's always a mix. The question is really on what end of the interventionist spectrum do you want to be on, and no matter how big the govt gets, and even now that it's bursting at the proverbial seams, rarely if ever do I hear libs say "that's enough govt". You guys always want more.

So you've never heard a progressive say: end the wars, close down most of the foreign bases, legalize drugs, stop spying on Americans, end corporate welfare, stop foreign aid, end the Cuba embargo,end the TSA, legalize prostitution,end giving pharmaceutical companies a monopoly in the American market, and lol end fluoridated water.

 

So if you've never heard a progressive say they wanted less government - either you weren't listening or you mean in areas you want less government.

[birdog1960]

So you've never heard a progressive say: end the wars, close down most of the foreign bases, legalize drugs, stop spying on Americans, end corporate welfare, stop foreign aid, end the Cuba embargo,end the TSA, legalize prostitution,end giving pharmaceutical companies a monopoly in the American market, and lol end fluoridated water.

 

So if you've never heard a progressive say they wanted less government - either you weren't listening or you mean in areas you want less government.

 

it's both.

 

and you can add staying out of end of life issues (eg schiavo case), reproductive issues (although, all liberals don't agree here or with a single position on any of these issues)), religious issues (ten commandments in courtrooms, teaching evolution, etc). it's a very selective non involvement of gov't desired by many conservatives including some "liberterians".

Edited August 16, 2011 by birdog1960

[Rob's House]

So you've never heard a progressive say: end the wars, close down most of the foreign bases, legalize drugs, stop spying on Americans, end corporate welfare, stop foreign aid, end the Cuba embargo,end the TSA, legalize prostitution,end giving pharmaceutical companies a monopoly in the American market, and lol end fluoridated water.

 

So if you've never heard a progressive say they wanted less government - either you weren't listening or you mean in areas you want less government.

Context is everything, and being generally libertarian, I more or less agree with you on at least half those issues. However, as it comes to bloated budgets and economic intervention (what we were discussing) you guys ALWAYS want more. And don't even !@#$ing get me started on corporate welfare, which both parties pimp for votes & campaign $$$.

[birdog1960]

Context is everything, and being generally libertarian, I more or less agree with you on at least half those issues. However, as it comes to bloated budgets and economic intervention (what we were discussing) you guys ALWAYS want more. And don't even !@#$ing get me started on corporate welfare, which both parties pimp for votes & campaign $$$.

i'd be interested to know which half of the issues you more or less disagree with and why those gov't interventions are not at odds with your libertarian values.

[KD in CA]

it's a very selective non involvement of gov't desired by many conservatives including some "liberterians".

 

That's a pretty accruate statement for people from almost all points on the political spectrum, no?

[birdog1960]

That's a pretty accruate statement for people from almost all points on the political spectrum, no?

not if a central tenet of your philosophy is gov't non intervention. i find that inconsistent especially in regards to libertarians supporting the interventions i noted since they are so very personal. it's not inconsistent with liberalism or conservatism per se.

[....lybob]

Context is everything, and being generally libertarian, I more or less agree with you on at least half those issues. However, as it comes to bloated budgets and economic intervention (what we were discussing) you guys ALWAYS want more. And don't even !@#$ing get me started on corporate welfare, which both parties pimp for votes & campaign $$$.

Actually on SSI, Medicare and Medicaid we are not asking for more we are asking to maintain- and Medicare and Medicaid have already gone through cuts.

 

but there are places where I'd want more spending- for example on infrastructure

 

I believe in Keynesian stimulus but I believe in the age of globalization that stimulus must be tightly targeted- in the age of globalization money given to consumers is probably going to foreign goods and won't achieve the velocity of money need to achieve unemployment reduction and money to the investment class will probably also end up overseas. An example of targeted stimulus would be 30 year zero rate interest loans for reducing energy usage - geothermal exchange heating and cooling, LEDs, insulation, solar hot water, etc- this is an employment driver, it increases the home values, and if done right the monthly payments would be offset by energy savings.

[erynthered]

Speaking of "LIbertarian Countries". Check this article out.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html

[ieatcrayonz]

Speaking of "LIbertarian Countries". Check this article out.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html

 

The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place.

 

Code for "I want to smoke pot".

[OCinBuffalo]

I'll give you credit, at least you are not afraid of pointing out how far backwards you would like to drag us. Yes, let's dump the old sick people on families. Nothing like having a old parent sitting around the house dying as you are trying to work, raise a family and bang your wife instead of in a care facility where they can have professional care.

Yes, because dumping them on 18-year-old clueless girls who are only going to be here for 3 more days, or will leave whenever it's time to crap out another kid, to be replaced by another crop of dilettantes, and 40 year old battle axes, managed by burnt out, jaded people, and regulated by the clinically insane...

...y know, making this a Federal, one-size-fits-all, problem, which it patently is not...

is working soooo well. What you don't realize is: for every 1 positive thing there is to say about that approach, there are 5 negatives. This is reality. Want to test that reality and look foolish? Be my guest.

 

On the positive side, the fun part of this for me is I get to make the battle axes and clueless girls jobs better. which means they get along better, and actually start taking real, not melodramatic, pride in what they do. Most of them take a long time to understand that is one of my objectives. But when they do, it's a cool moment...and then it's on to the next gig.

...

 

You asked if the elderly were better off? The answer is absolutely not. In no quantifiable way are the elderly on the whole better off as a result of Medicare/Medicaid. Overall, the elderly were better of in the 30s. That is a fact. Can we find an anecdote here and there? Anecdotes are meaningless, unless you are an emoting assclown.

 

I don't do anecdotes, I do data and process, order and method. More importantly, I have actually been to a hell of a lot of these places, and just like with hospitals, just like with everywhere I have ever worked, it's my job to see the root cause of problems properly, and quickly. In many cases the government itself, in a feeble attempt to solve a problem, becomes the root cause of 3 or more other unintended problems.

 

The ridiculous part is: when you point that out, when it's so obvious you can't stand it, when the government people suddenly realize you are about to have them lined up for a head shot, instead of standing by their banal arguments and pointless hindrances...they turn and run, only to wait until you are gone(or so they think, like I said, I do data ) and return whilst STILL being the root cause of the 3 unintended problems. Nothing will ever get solved this way....until I can take that shot, consistently, and before they can run. Soon.

Edited August 18, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Rob's House]

i'd be interested to know which half of the issues you more or less disagree with and why those gov't interventions are not at odds with your libertarian values.

in re:

So you've never heard a progressive say: end the wars, close down most of the foreign bases, legalize drugs, stop spying on Americans, end corporate welfare, stop foreign aid, end the Cuba embargo,end the TSA, legalize prostitution,end giving pharmaceutical companies a monopoly in the American market, and lol end fluoridated water.

 

So if you've never heard a progressive say they wanted less government - either you weren't listening or you mean in areas you want less government.

-Lybob

The italicized items are too broad to be useful in a meaningful discussion, the underlined part I think is factually incorrect, and the bolded ones are at a point now where I'm not sure you can just pull the plug as if you were never there.

I may think a man would be best served by not getting married, however if he is already married with small children I might not be as quick to tell you to get divorced as I might have been to tell him not to get married in the first place. It's not inconsistent, it's taking different variables into account for different situations. For people that seem to be so enamored with shades of grey, liberals always seem to think in terms of black and white.

 

Also, it's worth noting that guiding principles are just that, they are not absolutes. No society is absolutely libertarian, democratic, or free enterprise. Nor does any government have absolute control over every aspect of life (although some have come damn close). I said I am generally libertarian, which doesn't mean I'm an anarchist, it means that unless absolutely necessary I err on the side of less government. You probably classify yourself similarly but tend to think a whole lot more falls under the heading of "absolutely necessary" and you have a lot more faith in the competence and efficiency of government despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Rob's House

[3rdnlng]

in re:

 

The italicized items are too broad to be useful in a meaningful discussion, the underlined part I think is factually incorrect, and the bolded ones are at a point now where I'm not sure you can just pull the plug as if you were never there.

I may think a man would be best served by not getting married, however if he is already married with small children I might not be as quick to tell you to get divorced as I might have been to tell him not to get married in the first place. It's not inconsistent, it's taking different variables into account for different situations. For people that seem to be so enamored with shades of grey, liberals always seem to think in terms of black and white.

 

Also, it's worth noting that guiding principles are just that, they are not absolutes. No society is absolutely libertarian, democratic, or free enterprise. Nor does any government have absolute control over every aspect of life (although some have come damn close). I said I am generally libertarian, which doesn't mean I'm an anarchist, it means that unless absolutely necessary I err on the side of less government. You probably classify yourself similarly but tend to think a whole lot more falls under the heading of "absolutely necessary" and you have a lot more faith in the competence and efficiency of government despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

Well said.