NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you like to live in my country?

This is inspired by Serapindal’s thread. I’m curious whether people (regardless of where you live) would be interested in living in such a country. Questions are encouraged (please refer to specific issues by their respective numbers, unless I haven't covered them).

Government Structure:
1. modeled after the U.S. government, except less bureaucracy

Government Function:
2. spending will be allotted only for defense, law/order, and some for education
3. all transfer programs are abolished (social security, welfare, healthcare, etc.)
-such programs will be privatized
4. education will be a mix of private/public ventures and run as private entities in the market

Taxation: Government has no right to tax products or trade
5. no income or sales taxes unless it is an extreme situation (natural disaster, war, etc.)
6. land tax will be implemented (can generate about 20% of current U.S. budget)
7. taxes will be collected by the small centralized government
8. any deficit spending must be approved by a 3/4 majority in the House

Economy: The market will be largely unmolested by the government
9. no corporate welfare or subsidies of any kind
10. no tariffs, minimum wage laws
11. free movement of trade allowed (including outsourcing for any reason)
12. no monopoly laws (monopolies die off as a natural course of the market)
13. mandatory payments as recompense for polluting

Foreign Policy:
14. non-interventionist unless a provable, imminent danger to sovereignty or the sovereignty of allies
15. relief aid will be given only through private institutions; no government taxation will go towards international relief
16. free trade and free immigration (provided the passing of a minimal background check)
17. no membership to any non-free trade coalition, or any national body that threatens individual sovereignty

Domestic Policy:
18. Abortion: illegal in all cases (except to save the mother’s life)—the rights of the unborn must be preserved and defended
19. Capital Punishment: banned—government has no right to take the life of its citizens
20. Same-Sex Marriage: legal under law
21. Euthanasia: passive allowed, active not
22. all drugs legal (harsher punishments for drug-related crimes)
23. Media: will be all privatized including radio, tv and any other media source
-public/community funding allowed granted government doesn’t directly contribute to it
24. no military draft; military completely voluntary
25. all weapons must be registered; besides that no gun control
26. electricity will be derived by at least 90% nuclear power
27. The rights of all will be enforced and protected regardless or race, religion, sex, and creed
28. Complete separation of Church and State

I have by no means covered everything, but feel free to ask questions.

No way! Why? It isn't MY country.

I disagree with #3, #10, and #18. Otherwise, it's nowhere near as bad as Serapindal's ideal country. I'd live there, but if I had a choice I'd prefer my ideal nation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/-1/target=display_nation/nation=Czardas). :p

No way! Why? It isn't MY country.

Ah, patriotism. :)

I disagree with #3, #10, and #18. Otherwise, it's nowhere near as bad as Serapindal's ideal country. I'd live there, but if I had a choice I'd prefer my ideal nation.

#18 is rather minor. Which part(s) of #10 do you disagree with? I like your country, except I do not understand why you don't have economic liberty as well as social liberty. The two go hand in hand. Ah well.

Compared to Serapindal's country, mine is a downright anarchy! :p

#18 is rather minor. Which part(s) of #10 do you disagree with? I like your country, except I do not understand why you don't have economic liberty as well as social liberty. The two go hand in hand. Ah well.

Compared to Serapindal's country, mine is a downright anarchy! :pI tried to have economic liberty, but my taxes keep increasing lol... I'd prefer something around 15%, but never had below 49%. Ah well.

I disagree with the no minimum wage laws of #10, because I believe that people deserve to be paid enough to eat. You can't say that people don't deserve to eat and leave it at that. And I know people will exploit that.

Sorry, too far right of centre for my liking.

My only real beef is the land tax, from what I can tell. Short of that, it's pretty much spot-on.

no monopoly laws (monopolies die off as a natural course of the market)

Out of curiosity, do you have any support for that assertion?

Sorry, too far right of centre for my liking.

Fair enough.

I disagree with the no minimum wage laws of #10, because I believe that people deserve to be paid enough to eat. You can't say that people don't deserve to eat and leave it at that. And I know people will exploit that.

I sympathize with your position. I think you have to look at both sides of the issue. From a purely economic viewpoint, minimum wage laws cause unemployment amongst those people who need a job the most. With no income/sales tax, even a relatively low wage would go a long way. Furthermore, companies can afford to hire more people without wage restrictions, and become more efficient.

I am not saying it is perfect, but merely that the benefits outweight the costs. I also think on an ideological level, the government has no right to restrict the economy.

Uhh...
NO.

I sympathize with your position. I think you have to look at both sides of the issue. From a purely economic viewpoint, minimum wage laws cause unemployment amongst those people who need a job the most. With no income/sales tax, even a relatively low wage would go a long way. Furthermore, companies can afford to hire more people without wage restrictions, and become more efficient.

I am not saying it is perfect, but merely that the benefits outweight the costs. I also think on an ideological level, the government has no right to restrict the economy.
There lies our primary difference. I believe that the economy should be restricted slightly to prevent corporations from taking advantage of the poor and unemployed, by exploitation in the workplace or taking control of the assets of the poor, etc. Naturally, this sort of thing will happen under a communistic system as well, which is why I'm moderate at Civil Rights Lovefest (as opposed to Anarchy or Left-wing Utopia).

Out of curiosity, do you have any support for that assertion?

Of course. :)

A company that maintains a monopoly on a certain market sector does so at great risk. First, they have to continually expand and maintain efficiency to prevent up and coming buisnesses from competing. This fact alone prevents the monopoly from charging exorbitant prices. As a result, they use the "economy of scale" method to be the most efficient. However, like all economic expansionism, there are limits. If you were to graph the profit vs. costs of maintaining a monopoly it would be a parabola. There would be a point of peak efficiency at the top, but from there the monopoly would suffer losses as a result from having to continually buying out competitors and the cost of capital goods. In fact the point at which a monopoly would start losing profit is when it becomes big enough where the capital goods outweigh profit. This is what happened to the railroad and oil monopolies during the U.S. Industrial Revolution. Rockerfeller and others began to lose profit (in fact venture capitalist made competing companies just to reap profit by selling them out to the monopolies).

You speak as though you have knowlege in economics.

Have you any formal education in Economics?

You speak as though you have knowlege in economics.

Have you any formal education in Economics?

I am very interested in economics, and am fairly well read in the subject. I have taken several classes in economics, and done research into capitalism. I am by no means an expert. If you disagree with my ideas or if you think they are wrong, by all means correct me.

There lies our primary difference. I believe that the economy should be restricted slightly to prevent corporations from taking advantage of the poor and unemployed, by exploitation in the workplace or taking control of the assets of the poor, etc. Naturally, this sort of thing will happen under a communistic system as well, which is why I'm moderate at Civil Rights Lovefest (as opposed to Anarchy or Left-wing Utopia).


But do you disagree with my assertion that minimum wage laws cause unemployment among the unskilled and uneducated? Because whenever you make a choice between "two evils" one must consider both sides. Believe me, there are risks in both cases.

My only real beef is the land tax, from what I can tell. Short of that, it's pretty much spot-on.

First of, are you an anarcho-capitalist? If so, I can see why you are against taxation of any kind. However, the only tax that doesn't really have any effect on the market is land tax because there is a finite amount of land. Therefore it doesn't inhibit market growth. Perhaps I should clarify the tax a bit. It is NOT a continue rent-like tax, but rather an initial tax when one buys it. I cannot remember the area by name, but there was a part of China that ran entirely on a land tax, and was quite effective (and no, I am not referring to Hong Kong). I'm interested to hear your comments.

First, they have to continually expand and maintain efficiency to prevent up and coming buisnesses from competing.

Or they could forego short-term profits and drop their price to drive out competition.

As a result, they use the "economy of scale" method to be the most efficient. However, like all economic expansionism, there are limits. If you were to graph the profit vs. costs of maintaining a monopoly it would be a parabola. There would be a point of peak efficiency at the top, but from there the monopoly would suffer losses as a result from having to continually buying out competitors and the cost of capital goods.

Hmm... cost/profit... I have never seen an efficiency diagram set up that way before.

Nevertheless, there is a trick here, buying out competitors isn't an economic reason [1], meaning that such an event is outside the model and dependant on specific circumstances. If the profit maximization price was so close to the market clearing price so that no company, no matter how efficient, could challenge the monopoly then there is absolutely no reason that the monopoly should start to lose out.

This is what happened to the railroad and oil monopolies during the U.S. Industrial Revolution. Rockerfeller and others began to lose profit (in fact venture capitalist made competing companies just to reap profit by selling them out to the monopolies).

And it was poor strategy on the part of the robber-barons to buyout these companies instead of forcing them to compete and lose.

Also, what, if any, effect did anti-trust laws have on these monopolies?

Now, I think you raised some good points. Given your argument I will agree it is conceivable that there could arise such a situation where a monopoly will eventually be toppled. However, I have pointed out that this situation doesn’t have to arise and that a monopoly could potentially be immune to the threat of competition if it is willing to use its power to set the market price strategically.

But even if you can demonstrate that my concerns are bogus and that all monopolies will eventually be ended by market forces, then I have to ask why tolerate them at all? Taking down a monopoly by way of the market might take weeks, but it could take months, years, or even decades.

Why should we tolerate such inefficiency in an economic model whose saving grace is efficiency?

Why should we tolerate such a threat to economic liberty?

Why is it we should be horrified by a government monopoly? Is it because it is especially sinister because it has the force of law behind it? Or is it because monopolies are privately owned and everyone loves a tyrant?

I'm a free-market kind of guy, but I am honestly baffled when people go so far as to say the government should have absolutely no business in economic interaction at all. For all the threat the government poses to economic liberty, and I agree it is a great threat, it has nevertheless secured our property rights, broken monopolies, created incentives for innovation, and provided protection against and remedy for breach of contract. Without such services our vaunted free-market would consist of a few merchants in the town square every few Sundays.

/Steps down. Picks up soapbox. Walks off.






[1] This is much like the "administrative cost and employee morale" excuses in the standard efficiency diagram for explaining away diseconomies of scale.

I'm a free-market kind of guy, but I am honestly baffled when people go so far as to say the government should have absolutely no business in economic interaction at all. For all the threat the government poses to economic liberty, and I agree it is a great threat, it has nevertheless secured our property rights, broken monopolies, created incentives for innovation, and provided protection against and remedy for breach of contract. Without such services our vaunted free-market would consist of a few merchants in the town square every few Sundays.


It's easier to just repeat the mantra "Governments fail" than to do any serious thinking into when they fail and when they actually out-perform the market. Democratic Governements can do a fine job of regulating the market to avoid externalities, and running key sectors that have a more important output than profit. Otherwise, it's usually best to leave things to the market.

It's easier to just repeat the mantra "Governments fail" than to do any serious thinking into when they fail and when they actually out-perform the market. Democratic Governements can do a fine job of regulating the market to avoid externalities, and running key sectors that have a more important output than profit. Otherwise, it's usually best to leave things to the market.

I totally agree. However, in Capitalist Vikings' defense (which may not be necessary), he put up a good argument. I don't agree with it, but it was a good argument.

Government Structure:
1. modeled after the U.S. government, except less bureaucracy
Ack.
Government Function:
2. spending will be allotted only for defense, law/order, and some for education Ack.
3. all transfer programs are abolished (social security, welfare, healthcare, etc.) -such programs will be privatized ACK.
4. education will be a mix of private/public ventures and run as private entities in the market I would have to see that in practise before I could endorse it.

Taxation: Government has no right to tax products or trade
5. no income or sales taxes unless it is an extreme situation (natural disaster, war, etc.)
6. land tax will be implemented (can generate about 20% of current U.S. budget)
7. taxes will be collected by the small centralized government
8. any deficit spending must be approved by a 3/4 majority in the House

Economy: The market will be largely unmolested by the government
9. no corporate welfare or subsidies of any kindBleh.
10. no tariffs, minimum wage laws ACK.
11. free movement of trade allowed (including outsourcing for any reason)
12. no monopoly laws (monopolies die off as a natural course of the market)
13. mandatory payments as recompense for polluting
Cheer!
Foreign Policy:
14. non-interventionist unless a provable, imminent danger to sovereignty or the sovereignty of allies
15. relief aid will be given only through private institutions; no government taxation will go towards international relief Ack.
16. free trade and free immigration (provided the passing of a minimal background check)
17. no membership to any non-free trade coalition, or any national body that threatens individual sovereignty ACK.

Domestic Policy:
18. Abortion: illegal in all cases (except to save the mother’s life)—the rights of the unborn must be preserved and defended Ack.
19. Capital Punishment: banned—government has no right to take the life of its citizens
20. Same-Sex Marriage: legal under law
21. Euthanasia: passive allowed Cheer., active not Ack.
22. all drugs legal (harsher punishments for drug-related crimes)
23. Media: will be all privatized including radio, tv and any other media source
-public/community funding allowed granted government doesn’t directly contribute to it
24. no military draft; military completely voluntary
25. all weapons must be registered; besides that no gun control BIG BIG ACK.
26. electricity will be derived by at least 90% nuclear power
27. The rights of all will be enforced and protected regardless or race, religion, sex, and creed
28. Complete separation of Church and State


I think I will give it a miss this time around.

It’s pretty good, but I find land tax to be more reprehensible than taxes on goods, so I disagree with that. You have what I consider to be the only justified reason for banning abortion (that it may be infringing on the rights of the unborn child) but I still think it should be legal in the first trimester. I’m also wary about the gun registration, but at least firearms are legal.
Overall, though, far better than the US or anything in the rest of the world.

It's easier to just repeat the mantra "Governments fail" than to do any serious thinking into when they fail and when they actually out-perform the market. Democratic Governements can do a fine job of regulating the market to avoid externalities, and running key sectors that have a more important output than profit. Otherwise, it's usually best to leave things to the market.

I have perfectly good reasons why I am against monopoly laws, besides the mantra "governments fail". You insult not only my intelligence, but my reasoning. I've already given support for my views, and so far you've said nothing informative.

While we are on the talk about monopolies and government, i'll have you know that the monopolies that arguably do need to be eliminated are government monopolies--the most dangerous of them all. Talk about government failing to do what the private sector can. Government monopolies can maintain an unfair advantage in the market by sheer coercion and capital. Private monopolies rise and fall under market laws, but government ones do not. That is dangerous if you ask me.

It’s pretty good, but I find land tax to be more reprehensible than taxes on goods, so I disagree with that. You have what I consider to be the only justified reason for banning abortion (that it may be infringing on the rights of the unborn child) but I still think it should be legal in the first trimester. I’m also wary about the gun registration, but at least firearms are legal.
Overall, though, far better than the US or anything in the rest of the world.

How is land tax more reprehensible than taxes on goods? I'm interested to hear your insight into that issue. Your issue with abortion is, unfortunately, something that I can neither convince you on, nor you me, so I'll leave it alone. The only reason why I would have gun registration (and believe me I've considered dropping it too), is to prevent extremely dangerous/mentally unstable people from using them. To be honest, I am still not sure whether I should have regisration or not.

Well, your country seems to have democracy, so if I lived there, I'd be voting against about 4/5 of what you propose. It wouldn't be necessary to rebel violently. Civil disobedience is always nice, though.

All those women getting coat-hanger abortions and the US style of government are a definitive no go for me. There are a few good ideas in there, though, but some things are just too far right.

Well, your country seems to have democracy, so if I lived there, I'd be voting against about 4/5 of what you propose. It wouldn't be necessary to rebel violently. Civil disobedience is always nice, though.

And you would be perfectly in your right to do so. Civil disobedience is a great thing. It's how many of the great social movements in history began.

All those women getting coat-hanger abortions and the US style of government are a definitive no go for me. There are a few good ideas in there, though, but some things are just too far right.

So using the same logic, I suppose we should legalize murder because it forces psychopaths to become clever and inventive to kill others. I simply wish to defend people's rights--especially those who cannot defend themselves.

In regards to the U.S. style government, I don't want any misconceptions (I was vague because illustrating every facet would take time). I intend to have a bicameral congress, independent judiciary branch, etc. etc.--the U.S. structure of government, not style. I disagree with a ridiculous amount of U.S. "style" when it comes to governing. I simply admire the U.S. govt structure.

How is land tax more reprehensible than taxes on goods? I'm interested to hear your insight into that issue. Your issue with abortion is, unfortunately, something that I can neither convince you on, nor you me, so I'll leave it alone. The only reason why I would have gun registration (and believe me I've considered dropping it too), is to prevent extremely dangerous/mentally unstable people from using them. To be honest, I am still not sure whether I should have regisration or not.
Taxes on goods are a one time thing. You pay them once and you’re done. Taxes on property, however, are paid over and over and over. You essentially pay rent to the government the rest of your life. You don’t ever truly own your land.
All those women getting coat-hanger abortions and the US style of government are a definitive no go for me. There are a few good ideas in there, though, but some things are just too far right.
What specifically is wrong with the US style of government. Not trying to be hostile, but what makes it any worse than any other representative government?

Taxes on goods are a one time thing. You pay them once and you’re done. Taxes on property, however, are paid over and over and over. You essentially pay rent to the government the rest of your life. You don’t ever truly own your land.

I understand your point. However, I would argue that the government has more of a "right" to tax land, than it does for income or sales. Income and sales of goods are products of a free individual, and therefore should be untouched. Land is not a product of one's toils, it is not something one can just create.

On a more practical level, a 2-3% tax on land once every couple years or so, is not as recurrent as a constant tax on most goods one buys, or on every paycheck. The thing is, private property rights are still enforced because one owns the property, and can do whatever one wants with it. Compared to the ridiculous amount of taxation nowadays, such a small tax so infrequent would be almost unnoticed.

So using the same logic, I suppose we should legalize murder because it forces psychopaths to become clever and inventive to kill others. I simply wish to defend people's rights--especially those who cannot defend themselves.

I'm not going to get into an abortion debate here, but your "ideal" country basically robs women of the right to decide over choices pertaining to their own bodies. And, you know, they will endanger themselves to regain that right. Your poor analogy to "murder" notwithstanding.

In regards to the U.S. style government, I don't want any misconceptions (I was vague because illustrating every facet would take time). I intend to have a bicameral congress, independent judiciary branch, etc. etc.--the U.S. structure of government, not style. I disagree with a ridiculous amount of U.S. "style" when it comes to governing. I simply admire the U.S. govt structure.

Style, structure, whatever. It is not the ideal system - there are better ones out there.

Style, structure, whatever. It is not the ideal system - there are better ones out there.
I can think of no others that I prefer. Simply because I tend to believe that the styles of all “democratic” governments are equally susceptible to corruption as people learn that they can vote benefits out of the government and that the majority can oppress the rights of the individual. Politicians inevitably play on both of these failings of democracy to increase either their power, or the power of their party.

I'm not going to get into an abortion debate here, but your "ideal" country basically robs women of the right to decide over choices pertaining to their own bodies. And, you know, they will endanger themselves to regain that right. Your poor analogy to "murder" notwithstanding.


And your "ideal" would be to rob the rights of an unborn child. The difference is that a woman has tangible rights, whereas an unborn child does not. I'm sorry if you think an unborn child is an inconvenience, but that doesn't mean that their rights should not be supported. Besides, an abortion endangers a woman's life anyway, even in a "safe" environment. There are physical and psychological conditions that many women who have abortions experience.

I have perfectly good reasons why I am against monopoly laws, besides the mantra "governments fail". You insult not only my intelligence, but my reasoning. I've already given support for my views, and so far you've said nothing informative.

Sorry if I made it sound that way, but I wasn't actually referring to monopolies or you in particular. I was talking about the belief that government should have never interfere with the economy in any way. This isn't supported by evidence or logic, just a blind faith that governemts fail in everything they do and the free market always succeeds. Efficiency isn't everything, so government regulation is often positive, and some sectors provide a better service to society in public hands than private hands.

While we are on the talk about monopolies and government, i'll have you know that the monopolies that arguably do need to be eliminated are government monopolies--the most dangerous of them all. Talk about government failing to do what the private sector can. Government monopolies can maintain an unfair advantage in the market by sheer coercion and capital. Private monopolies rise and fall under market laws, but government ones do not. That is dangerous if you ask me.


Well, coercion and capital are available to all monopolies. There are a few industries that can do better as a government monopoly than under the market model. Here in New Zealand we privatised our state-owned electricity monopoly. The market failed miserably and prices went up.

The market is best at lining up supply and demand to create maximum profit, but for key infrastructure, profit should not be the priority because the infrastructure is necessary for the entire economy to function.

Style, structure, whatever. It is not the ideal system - there are better ones out there.

Perhaps you'd care to give us an example?

And your "ideal" would be to rob the rights of an unborn child.

No, fetus.

The difference is that a woman has tangible rights, whereas an unborn child does not.

The living go before the potentially living. The woman's right to her body should be sacrosanct - they are not living incubators, and should not be reduced to such.

I'm sorry if you think an unborn child is an inconvenience, but that doesn't mean that their rights should not be supported. Besides, an abortion endangers a woman's life anyway, even in a "safe" environment. There are physical and psychological conditions that many women who have abortions experience.

Abortions are safer than births, actually. Wanna use the same "endangers life" argument to ban the latter? Seriously, this should not become an abortion thread - I'm just voicing an opinion on the foolishness of that part of your "ideal" country.

Perhaps you'd care to give us an example?

Well, parliamentarianism is a nice one.

Well, parliamentarianism is a nice one.
Why? It still has the same weaknesses I referred to before.

Why? It still has the same weaknesses I referred to before.

I don't see that as a weakness, especially as I suppose this would be a constitutional state, and I don't see how the US system counters it, especially when the electoral college system is de facto democratic. The US government is too far beyond reproach from your legislature for my liking.

Oh, and FPTP-like systems suck in that they maintain a two party system, and those are poor systems.

Nah, I think I'll pass on living in your country.

Though I would very much like to bomb the hell out of it.

Why? It still has the same weaknesses I referred to before.While I wouldn't say that Parlimentary governments are the best type of governments, they would help to reduce some of the weaknesses that you mentioned before. For instance, they run on proportional representation. This means that the country is divided up into subsections. Let's use a U.S. example: the Electoral College. The Electoral College is Winner-Take-All. This means that, using the Electoral College example, if a presidential candidate gets 50.01% of the votes in a state (assuming 2 presidential candidates), he gets all of the electoral votes of that state. If there was proportional representation, it would be different. If a presidential candidate got 60% of the votes from a state, he would get 60% of the Electoral votes, and the other candidate would also get a proportional amount of Electoral votes to citizen votes. This would help to reduce the effect of "majority rule."

Nah, I think I'll pass on living in your country.

Though I would very much like to bomb the hell out of it.

Yeah, freedom sucks doesn't it. :rolleyes:

While I wouldn't say that Parlimentary governments are the best type of governments, they would help to reduce some of the weaknesses that you mentioned before. For instance, they run on proportional representation. This means that the country is divided up into subsections. Let's use a U.S. example: the Electoral College. The Electoral College is Winner-Take-All. This means that, using the Electoral College example, if a presidential candidate gets 50.01% of the votes in a state (assuming 2 presidential candidates), he gets all of the electoral votes of that state. If there was proportional representation, it would be different. If a presidential candidate got 60% of the votes from a state, he would get 60% of the Electoral votes, and the other candidate would also get a proportional amount of Electoral votes to citizen votes. This would help to reduce the effect of "majority rule."

And independent parties, which have no chance of winning a whole state, would get representation based on their overall support across the nation. I've heard of some libertarian plan to move as many libertarians to one area as possible to gain representation. It's just absurd that you should have to do that.

Yeah, freedom sucks doesn't it. :rolleyes:

Of course not, but your definition of it does.

I don't see that as a weakness, especially as I suppose this would be a constitutional state, and I don't see how the US system counters it, especially when the electoral college system is de facto democratic. The US government is too far beyond reproach from your legislature for my liking.

Despite the fact that we impeached a President hardly a decade ago...

Oh, and FPTP-like systems suck in that they maintain a two party system, and those are poor systems.

It is entirely a matter of opinion that the FPTP is a poor system.

Just look at Italy and Brazil to see that multi-party systems work just as bad when implemented poorly.

I'd like a specific example of a governmental system that is better than the US's.

I hardly think that the U.S. has the ideal government in the world, but I'm interested in what exactly, in your opinion, is the "ideal government" in the world right now.

While I wouldn't say that Parlimentary governments are the best type of governments, they would help to reduce some of the weaknesses that you mentioned before. For instance, they run on proportional representation. This means that the country is divided up into subsections. Let's use a U.S. example: the Electoral College. The Electoral College is Winner-Take-All. This means that, using the Electoral College example, if a presidential candidate gets 50.01% of the votes in a state (assuming 2 presidential candidates), he gets all of the electoral votes of that state. If there was proportional representation, it would be different. If a presidential candidate got 60% of the votes from a state, he would get 60% of the Electoral votes, and the other candidate would also get a proportional amount of Electoral votes to citizen votes. This would help to reduce the effect of "majority rule."
Actually, all I see it doing is increasing the ability for the majority to dominate.

And independent parties, which have no chance of winning a whole state, would get representation based on their overall support across the nation. I've heard of some libertarian plan to move as many libertarians to one area as possible to gain representation. It's just absurd that you should have to do that.Exactly. Although Libertarian Party representation is scary. But if they take support away from the Republicans, it would be nice.

Actually, all I see it doing is increasing the ability for the majority to dominate.How do you figure?

Exactly. Although Libertarian Party representation is scary. But if they take support away from the Republicans, it would be nice.

Yeah, us libertarians are scary people. :p

Seriously though, I think that a strong libertarian base could potentially draw bipartisan support. Free market
Republicans, and social liberal Democrats (and vice versa to a lesser extent) could find some common ground. Especially small-goverment advocates because the Libertarian Party is the only current advocate for small government.

Despite the fact that we impeached a President hardly a decade ago...

Your impeachment system is weak, and your government is detached from the legislature. Where is the censoring of ministers? Where are the weekly interpellations? Where is the parliamentary supervision? Your government is far too independent, and your president holds too much power as both head of state, prime minister and commander in chief for my liking.

It is entirely a matter of opinion that the FPTP is a poor system.

Well, duh, this is an opinion thread about what we think about this person's "ideal" (look! another piece of opinion!) and I am giving my opinion (oooh, you better watch out, they seem to be coming all over the place).

Just look at Italy and Brazil to see that multi-party systems work just as bad when implemented poorly.

Yes, but then there are systems that work well because they have been implemented well, while you do admit that FPTP is poor.

I'd like a specific example of a governmental system that is better than the US's.

Oh, let's go with Sweden's, since this thread is apparently about being overly protective of one's own country's system due to nationalism :D :p

I hardly think that the U.S. has the ideal government in the world, but I'm interested in what exactly, in your opinion, is the "ideal government" in the world right now.

I don't have an ideal government in the world right now. They all lack something, it seems. What would be fun to see, though, is a proportional parliamentarian system with a strong constitution, a strong constitutional court to protect it flanked by a "fleet" of independent Ombudsmen to which citizens can complain directly, the head of state abolished in favour of a system where the powers that usually fall upon him/her are distributed between the PM, speaker of parliament and a commander in chief, with a non-jury judicial system and the usual "separation of church and state" type accoutrements.

A nice hodge-podge of desirable bits and pieces, no? :)

I don't have an ideal government in the world right now. They all lack something, it seems. What would be fun to see, though, is a proportional parliamentarian system with a strong constitution, a strong constitutional court to protect it flanked by a "fleet" of independent Ombudsmen to which citizens can complain directly, the head of state abolished in favour of a system where the powers that usually fall upon him/her are distributed between the PM, speaker of parliament and a commander in chief, with a non-jury judicial system and the usual "separation of church and state" type accoutrements.

A nice hodge-podge of desirable bits and pieces, no? :)

I'll buy that for a dollar!

Yeah, us libertarians are scary people. :p
Nah. At the moment, right-wing libertarians aren't scary because they don't have any power. But while I disagree with their economic policies, their social policies are preferable to the Republicans.

Your impeachment system is weak, and your government is detached from the legislature. Where is the censoring of ministers? Where are the weekly interpellations? Where is the parliamentary supervision? Your government is far too independent, and your president holds too much power as both head of state, prime minister and commander in chief for my liking.

First of all, the president cannot be "prime minister", because, to my knowledge, a prime minister is elected to represent a district just like every other legislator in every parliamentary system.

This does not apply to the President, although the President and a Prime Minister share the role of head of the cabinet.

I certainly agree that overall, the ability of the legislative branch to check executive power is lacking in many areas.

This is one reason for the structure of the U.S. Judicial branch, as well as specific legislative powers (overriding a presidential veto and Senate oversight of Judicial appointments, for example)

It is by no means perfect in this regard, but it is better than many (or most) other systems that currently exist.

Well, duh, this is an opinion thread about what we think about this person's "ideal" (look! another piece of opinion!) and I am giving my opinion (oooh, you better watch out, they seem to be coming all over the place).

Yeah...cause that was by no means condescending. :rolleyes:

You have stated your opinion that FPTP is a poor system, due to it's tendency to enforce two party systems.

You fail, however to illustrate an example of a poor implementation of a two party system, nor to you exert any effort to illustrate why FPTP is fundamentally worse than proportional representation if both are implemented well.

I simply ask for a little fact to back up your opinion.

Yes, but then there are systems that work well because they have been implemented well, while you do admit that FPTP is poor.

There are well implemented systems of FPTP, as well as proportional representation.

Also, I never stated that I feel FPTP is a poor system.

Oh, let's go with Sweden's, since this thread is apparently about being overly protective of one's own country's system due to nationalism :D :p

I already stated that I don't consider the U.S. system to be the current "ideal" in the world. I simply ask for a reasoning as to why you feel the Swedish system is closer to the ideal than the U.S. system.

I don't have an ideal government in the world right now. They all lack something, it seems. What would be fun to see, though, is a proportional parliamentarian system with a strong constitution, a strong constitutional court to protect it flanked by a "fleet" of independent Ombudsmen to which citizens can complain directly, the head of state abolished in favour of a system where the powers that usually fall upon him/her are distributed between the PM, speaker of parliament and a commander in chief, with a non-jury judicial system and the usual "separation of church and state" type accoutrements.

A nice hodge-podge of desirable bits and pieces, no? :)

I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country that had a non-jury judicial system. I also would be hesitant to seperate the role of commander in chief, as I feel it might lead to unstable control of the military.

Also, see France's Fourth Republic, for an example of the chaos that can result from a weak executive branch.

Nah. At the moment, right-wing libertarians aren't scary because they don't have any power. But while I disagree with their economic policies, their social policies are preferable to the Republicans.

See, this is what I do not understand. You obviously believe that people should have extensive civil and political freedoms because the government shouldn't tell one how one lives. Yet, you favor an government interventionist economic policy. So people don't deserve to make choices with their money?

Or they could forego short-term profits and drop their price to drive out competition.


Sorry for neglecting your posts. It was entirely unintentional.

Let's assume that a monopoly does just as you suggest, and drops its prices really low to drive out competition. This means, that they would be at or near peak efficiency. All this means is that they can produce more goods/services for less money. This is not harmful. If a monopoly then attempts to charge a substantially higher price (than market value) for their goods, they still must deal with competition and they run into problems. If monopoly X sells its good for $10 each (while the market value is only $2) one is tempted to assume that it can get away with it. However, another small business in the same sector can sell the good for less (lets say $8) which is not at all unrealistic (considering they are far less efficient than market value and need to make a larger profit to continue production). $8 is enough to barely stay in business for this small, inefficient company. However, it steals a lot of the customers away from the big monopoly. Therefore, the monopoly is forced to either a). buy the small company out--thus expanding the costs for capital goods and making it harder to achieve a profit, or b). lower its own prices. So, it lowers its prices to $7. The, small company, having a larger customer base and more money to spend on capital goods to make it more efficient lowers its price to $6 and so on and so forth. Eventually, the good settles at market value, and the monopoly dissolves because it is overextended and out-competed.

If the monopoly opted to buy out the competitor, nothing is stopping another such business from sprouting up. Even if the monopoly were successful in getting rid of competition, it would be at a fair market price, and therefore beneficial for the consumer. Another aspect is that a small competing company (lets say who controls less than 1% of the given market, while the rest of it is controlled by a monopoly), can make a BETTER product or at least a more innovative product, and steal competition. Either way, a monopoly is doomed by its own nature.

Hope this establishes my postition a bit more thoroughly.

Sorry for neglecting your posts. It was entirely unintentional.

No problem, I don't mind so much because I don't want to hijack your thread.

Let's assume that a monopoly does just as you suggest, and drops its prices really low to drive out competition. This means, that they would be at or near peak efficiency. All this means is that they can produce more goods/services for less money. This is not harmful.

Well sure, for that time then the monopoly isn't harmful to consumers. Of course, that leaves the monopoly's exploitation of workers. (Which I'm pretty sure is the only example of worker exploitation in mainstream economics).

If a monopoly then attempts to charge a substantially higher price (than market value) for their goods, they still must deal with competition and they run into problems. If monopoly X sells its good for $10 each (while the market value is only $2) one is tempted to assume that it can get away with it...


All of that is true. I think I stated, though I may not have made it clear, that I can see how it could be possible that a monopoly will disolve under pressure from free-market forces. However, this result doesn't have to occur.

The only advantage a small business would have is potential economies of scale. Small businesses do not have more money for capital goods, they just have the opportunity to use them more efficiently. In fact, small businesses may not receive the funding they need to take advantage of economy of scale because banks may not be willing to lend to a startup in a market that is dominated by a powerful monopoly.

Also, the monopoly really wouldn't be under constant threat of competition. If the monopoly has driven out its original competitors and then drives out new competitors after it has established its hold on the market, then people will learn that it is fruitless to attempt to challenge the monopoly. The rational actor will eventually stop banging his head up against a brick wall. ( :headbang: ?)

However, all of this is speculation. What will the business do? What will banks do? Can the business survive the initial price war? It is possible that the small business will win, but it isn't necessary is the only point I am trying to make.

Besides, you haven't addressed another important issue that I raised. Monopolies rob people of economic liberty just as surely as you are robbed of your personal liberty if I were to lock you up in a room. If we want to maximize economic liberty why should we tolerate a monopoly for any period of time because the market, one day, might be able to correct the situation?

See, this is what I do not understand. You obviously believe that people should have extensive civil and political freedoms because the government shouldn't tell one how one lives. Yet, you favor an government interventionist economic policy. So people don't deserve to make choices with their money?

This wasn't addressed to me, but I would like to respond.

I agree with your underlying argument, that economic liberty is just as valid as civil liberty, and both should be protected. But, whether you are an objectivist or a classic liberal you know that the individual free-will and rights basis for these ideologies carries a big problem. That problem is that through the operation of rights and free-will, individuals will enter into conflicts. It's usually easy to settle these conflicts in the civil arena, my freedom to move my fist extends only so far, etc.

However, economic liberties face a unique problem, namely that resources are limited. My free speech doesn't prevent you from speaking freely, but your ownership of a particular resources does prevent my ownership of that same resource. The issue here isn't that I have a right to own everything, but that you have restricted my right to be able to own anything.

Now, this in no way justifies strict government control of the economy as there is no sense in replacing a tyrant with a dictator. But it can justify some particular and highly restricted regulation and government machination in the economy.

Well sure, for that time then the monopoly isn't harmful to consumers. Of course, that leaves the monopoly's exploitation of workers. (Which I'm pretty sure is the only example of worker exploitation in mainstream economics).


You have a point with worker exploitation. Let me say, however, that it depends on where and under what condition the monopoly exists. If the monopoly is in a market sector that generally hires low-skilled and/or low educated workers (as they usually are), risk is indeed high. The options for these workers are to either move to a different workplace (highly feasible given that they have little or no experience in a particular field--so they're flexible), or protest and risk being fired. If it is a monopoly in a higher-level field, then the monopoly faces the danger of quickly replacing their skilled labor if they decide to leave. There now exists virtual monopolies that do not threaten jobs/wages. In very small towns or communities, there are monopolies just because it would be economically unfeasible to have more than one business in a given area (such as a dentist). However, this doesn't lead to the oppression of the workers, or unfair prices for goods or wages. I realize this is just a small-scale example, but the principle still applies.

However, I think the gist of our disagreement is whether monopolies will always eventually dissolve naturally. I maintain they do (with exception to natural and/or government monopolies), you point out that there may be certain circumstances that prevent this from happening.

All of that is true. I think I stated, though I may not have made it clear, that I can see how it could be possible that a monopoly will disolve under pressure from free-market forces. However, this result doesn't have to occur.

Could you give me a hypothetical example where the free market wouldn't necessarily cause the downfall of a monopoly? Maybe I can clarify then.

The only advantage a small business would have is potential economies of scale. Small businesses do not have more money for capital goods, they just have the opportunity to use them more efficiently. In fact, small businesses may not receive the funding they need to take advantage of economy of scale because banks may not be willing to lend to a startup in a market that is dominated by a powerful monopoly.


Actually I disagree. It is the big companies that can utilize economies of scale. What the term means, just for clarification, is that as production increases so does efficiency and the price per good decreases. A small business, as you say, doesn't have this kind of money and therefore cannot use economies of scale. The leverage that small companies have is to keep the big ones in check from overpricing goods and/or underpricing labor. So, its actually just the opposite.

Also, the monopoly really wouldn't be under constant threat of competition. If the monopoly has driven out its original competitors and then drives out new competitors after it has established its hold on the market, then people will learn that it is fruitless to attempt to challenge the monopoly. The rational actor will eventually stop banging his head up against a brick wall. ( ?)

I disagree with this as well. One can make a tidy profit by going up against a monopoly (I mentioned the fellow who kept selling his oil refineries to Rockerfeller for a profit). Capitalism exists because of the assumption that investment and venture capitalism will take place. It would not exist today without that vital fact.

And for clarification, I am not really a true objectivist but rather a classic liberal.

10. no tariffs, minimum wage laws
12. no monopoly laws (monopolies die off as a natural course of the market)


I got to these two and decided I would join in open rebelion or at least in instegating massivve labour movment dissention.

I agree with you on most points; I have different views from yours on abortion and gun control

agree with you on most points; I have different views from yours on abortion and gun control

You contention with abortion is probably pretty obvious, but do you object to the fact that guns are registered, or the fact that there is no other gun control?

No, I disagree strongly with your Objectivist "Paradise". While not automatically a part of the armed resistance, I would be in the centrist opposition to the Pinochet government.

6. land tax will be implemented (can generate about 20% of current U.S. budget)
18. Abortion: illegal in all cases (except to save the mother’s life)—the rights of the unborn must be preserved and defended


These two I disagree with, as a land tax will make it very difficult on both rentors and new home buyers. You are adding quite a bit to the mortgage payment every month. It also dangerously harms resource industries, you would practically kill all timber industries in the US, that or cause hyper-deforestation.

And abortion because the unborn don't have rights.

It sounds like a vision of hell.

No, I disagree strongly with your Objectivist "Paradise". While not automatically a part of the armed resistance, I would be in the centrist opposition to the Pinochet government.

I am not a true objectivist. I am a classic liberal. But go ahead and stereotype me. Pinochet? Wtf? I really don't understand that reference. This government is completely democratic.

These two I disagree with, as a land tax will make it very difficult on both rentors and new home buyers. You are adding quite a bit to the mortgage payment every month. It also dangerously harms resource industries, you would practically kill all timber industries in the US, that or cause hyper-deforestation.


It wouldn't necessarily be a monthly tax. Income and sales taxes have a more widespread, market disrupting effect than a land tax.


And abortion because the unborn don't have rights.

Well I obviously cannot convince you otherwise, so I won't try (frankly I'm sick of trying). I just cannot in good conscience justify legalizing such a horrific act.

Could you give me a hypothetical example where the free market wouldn't necessarily cause the downfall of a monopoly? Maybe I can clarify then.

Sure, see the paragraph I marked with a *.

Actually I disagree. It is the big companies that can utilize economies of scale. What the term means, just for clarification, is that as production increases so does efficiency and the price per good decreases. A small business, as you say, doesn't have this kind of money and therefore cannot use economies of scale.

Economies of scale are characterized, as you say, by increasing efficiency. Where 1 unit of input results in increasing units of output. It's an inherent advantage, one that all companies experience. Small businesses may not be able to take advantage of their inherent economy of scale because they may not receive the loans to purchase capital, but they still have it.

The leverage that small companies have is to keep the big ones in check from overpricing goods and/or underpricing labor. So, its actually just the opposite.

I'm not so sure about that, I wouldn't call that leverage (as in an advantage) but the result. That is to say, small companies keep monopolies from overpricing goods as a result from the competition they pose.

I disagree with this as well. One can make a tidy profit by going up against a monopoly (I mentioned the fellow who kept selling his oil refineries to Rockerfeller for a profit)...

I imagine you could where you have a permissive monopoly. But what if Rockefeller didn't buy up these refineries? What if he just lowered his prices?

(*) If every endeavor was met with resistance, if every entrepreneur was ruined by an attempt to challenge the monopoly, then the risk of attempting to compete against the monopoly would be increasingly higher. Those most qualified to run the business may give up and just go to work for the monopoly. Eventually only snake-oil peddlers would attempt to enter the market, and they would only be doing so to take advantage of overly daring investors.

At any given time, there is a business that can produce a good at a rate much lower than that of the market. The supply curve demonstrates that. But the advantages, the efficiency, and the productivity that allows that to happen are tangible in the real world. Excellent employees, managers, supply chains, distribution, company structure, location, etc. These are the things that give the start up a chance. The problem is that the monopoly can use these advantages, adopt them as its own. What’s worse is that a monopoly has the resources to study these advantages, learn them inside and out, and exploit them. The entrepreneur has to identify these advantages without such benefit.

However, I think the gist of our disagreement is whether monopolies will always eventually dissolve naturally. I maintain they do (with exception to natural and/or government monopolies), you point out that there may be certain circumstances that prevent this from happening.


Yes that is the essence of our dispute. Unfortunately, it may come down to empirical observation so that we may not be able to resovle the issue by discussion of theory.

It wouldn't necessarily be a monthly tax. Income and sales taxes have a more widespread, market disrupting effect than a land tax.

A land tax is extremely disruptive in certain markets, it could effectively wipe them out. Industrial and commercial markets not dependent on those markets that are damaged would certainly receive a boost.

I prefer a sales tax as it is a somewhat accurate measure of how much someone actually uses society. A land tax is not bad, I just would prefer a sales tax.

Well I obviously cannot convince you otherwise, so I won't try (frankly I'm sick of trying). I just cannot in good conscience justify legalizing such a horrific act.

And I cannot, in good conscience, justify subverting the rights of a person in favor of a potential person.

It sounds like a vision of hell.
Heh. :D

No. In particular, I have to disagree strongly with 3, 10, 12, and 18. Other than that, it's a fairly tolerable place, really. If it weren't for 18 and if I were born into a rich family, I would actually like it.

I prefer a sales tax as it is a somewhat accurate measure of how much someone actually uses society. A land tax is not bad, I just would prefer a sales tax.


The only reason why I like a land tax better a) there are already property taxes that include both land and any building on the land---I would just eliminate the building part, and b). there is a finite amount of land, and therefore it won't disrupt the market as much. Personally, I have an objection to the government taxing something that someone produced as a free individual. Land is not of one's creation. I would maintain that it effects the market less because it doesn't cause a discrepency between the market and "adjusted" value of a good. But like you said it's a matter of opinion. Deep down I'm a classic liberal just like you.


And I cannot, in good conscience, justify subverting the rights of a person in favor of a potential person.

Forgive me for not responding, but frankly I'm tired of debating the issue. I respect your opinion and I'm just going to agree to disagree. :)

No. In particular, I have to disagree strongly with 3, 10, 12, and 18. Other than that, it's a fairly tolerable place, really. If it weren't for 18 and if I were born into a rich family, I would actually like it.

Wow, I'm actually suprised with your reaction. I thought you would utterly despise it. Remind me never to assume anything (for it just makes an ass out of you and me). :)

You're an anarchist right? What kind of anarchy do you ascribe to? I may sympathize with your position more than you think.

The only reason why I like a land tax better a) there are already property taxes that include both land and any building on the land---I would just eliminate the building part, and b). there is a finite amount of land, and therefore it won't disrupt the market as much. Personally, I have an objection to the government taxing something that someone produced as a free individual. Land is not of one's creation. I would maintain that it effects the market less because it doesn't cause a discrepency between the market and "adjusted" value of a good. But like you said it's a matter of opinion. Deep down I'm a classic liberal just like you.

I do like the idea of taxing land as it is largely maintained by society, ie defense, zoning, police, and you make a good point about land not being a product of the individual. Land ownership has actually been a difficult to reconcile with my moral standpoint.

Forgive me for not responding, but frankly I'm tired of debating the issue. I respect your opinion and I'm just going to agree to disagree. :)

I toyed with saying that as well, but in the end tried to relate my viewpoint to yours, so that we might find some common ground.

I do like the idea of taxing land as it is largely maintained by society, ie defense, zoning, police, and you make a good point about land not being a product of the individual. Land ownership has actually been a difficult to reconcile with my moral standpoint.


When you say land ownership is a difficult issue to recouncile with your moral standpoint, do you mean that private land ownership is a questionable issue for you? Because if that were true, it would pretty much conflict with the basic right of land ownership that is the foundation for libertarian/classic liberal philosophy. If I'm misunderstanding, please forgive me.

I toyed with saying that as well, but in the end tried to relate my viewpoint to yours, so that we might find some common ground.

Yeah, we disagree on the issue yet both use libertarian philosophy to justify it. To make a short summary of my view, I find that the unborn is alive, despite being dependant on the mother, and since no one can speak on his/her behalf, his/her rights are even more imperative to protect. The mother has rights that protect her, but the unborn does not. Whatever led to the pregnancy was NOT the fault of the unborn, and therefore the unborn should not pay the penalty.

EDIT: oh, and the rights of the unborn are being infringed upon by the mother in the case of an abortion. This is a violation of the fundamental principle of law in a libertarian society: "one's rights are protected as long as one doesn't infringe upon the rights of another"

When you say land ownership is a difficult issue to recouncile with your moral standpoint, do you mean that private land ownership is a questionable issue for you? Because if that were true, it would pretty much conflict with the basic right of land ownership that is the foundation for libertarian/classic liberal philosophy. If I'm misunderstanding, please forgive me.

I started a thread about this.

You are not misunderstanding me, but you are misunderstanding a bit of classic liberal viewpoints. Many classic liberals, like Rousseau believe that no single individual could claim land. That private property was causing the downfall of humanity.

I don't agree with that, but I have some qualms with property ownership.

Yeah, we disagree on the issue yet both use libertarian philosophy to justify it. To make a short summary of my view, I find that the unborn is alive, despite being dependant on the mother, and since no one can speak on his/her behalf, his/her rights are even more imperative to protect. The mother has rights that protect her, but the unborn does not. Whatever led to the pregnancy was NOT the fault of the unborn, and therefore the unborn should not pay the penalty.

Yes, you see the unborn as a person with legal rights, I don't. We both are trying to protect the rights of the people involved.

You are not misunderstanding me, but you are misunderstanding a bit of classic liberal viewpoints. Many classic liberals, like Rousseau believe that no single individual could claim land. That private property was causing the downfall of humanity.


Oh, I do understand that a faction of classic liberalism does have an objection to private property. I happen to disagree too. I posted in your topic.

I have minor problems with:
12. no monopoly laws- I disagree that monopolies die off. In fact, they become harder and harder to break with time. Just look at ATnT- it had to be forced to break apart.

14. non-interventionist- I say speak softly, but carry a big stick.

19. Capital Punishment: banned- in EXTREME cases I think it is warranted

26. electricity will be derived by at least 90% nuclear power- I think improved solar power, along with hydro-electric power should constitute as much of the country's power needs as possible- the larger the country, however, the more nuclear power would be needed. In a US size country your figure is about right, but, say, the UK, is should be almost 50-50

and SERIUOS problems with(in other words, armed revolt against):

16. free trade and free immigration- free trade is fine- but immigration laws need to become severely more strict. In todays day and age of terrorism, anything less isn't careless, it is reckless.

18. Abortion: illegal in all cases- I am strictly pro-choice

I have minor problems with:
12. no monopoly laws- I disagree that monopolies die off. In fact, they become harder and harder to break with time. Just look at ATnT- it had to be forced to break apart.

14. non-interventionist- I say speak softly, but carry a big stick.

19. Capital Punishment: banned- in EXTREME cases I think it is warranted

26. electricity will be derived by at least 90% nuclear power- I think improved solar power, along with hydro-electric power should constitute as much of the country's power needs as possible- the larger the country, however, the more nuclear power would be needed. In a US size country your figure is about right, but, say, the UK, is should be almost 50-50

and SERIUOS problems with(in other words, armed revolt against):

16. free trade and free immigration- free trade is fine- but immigration laws need to become severely more strict. In todays day and age of terrorism, anything less isn't careless, it is reckless.

18. Abortion: illegal in all cases- I am strictly pro-choice

12. Please provide some economic reasoning for your assertions. I detailed my explanation of why monopolies die off naturally in earlier posts. If you disagee, by all means prove me wrong. Just because AT@T was broken up by the government doesn't prove that a). it wouldn't have naturally collapsed and b). that it was harming society. It just means that it was a monopoly and that the government broke it up. That's all.

14. I say: "I don't have to be the police force of the world"

19. I believe the government has no right to take a life of one of its citizens

26. The remaining 10% would be derived from alternate sources (wind, solar, water power). It cannot be much more than this because these "substitutes" are not as effective because they rely on natural environmental conditions to work. For example, if I didn't live near a river, it was a cloudy day, and there wasn't any wind I would be screwed. It should be a backup at best. A 50/50 distribution just is simply not feasible.

16. Free borders doesn't mean anyone can enter. It just means that there are little requirements and any law-abiding citizen will be accepted. Those with criminal records or communicable diseases will not be allowed to enter. (Note that criminal records take into account possible terrorist activities). I refuse to go further and discriminate against a certain group of people because they "might" be terrorists. Free borders is economically beneficial, providing a diverse, innovative society.

17. The rights of the unborn must be defended. That's my position. I have ellaborated on this issue in previous posts.

12. Please provide some economic reasoning for your assertions. I detailed my explanation of why monopolies die off naturally in earlier posts. If you disagee, by all means prove me wrong. Just because AT@T was broken up by the government doesn't prove that a). it wouldn't have naturally collapsed and b). that it was harming society. It just means that it was a monopoly and that the government broke it up. That's all.

14. I say: "I don't have to be the police force of the world"

19. I believe the government has no right to take a life of one of its citizens

26. The remaining 10% would be derived from alternate sources (wind, solar, water power). It cannot be much more than this because these "substitutes" are not as effective because they rely on natural environmental conditions to work. For example, if I didn't live near a river, it was a cloudy day, and there wasn't any wind I would be screwed. It should be a backup at best. A 50/50 distribution just is simply not feasible.

16. Free borders doesn't mean anyone can enter. It just means that there are little requirements and any law-abiding citizen will be accepted. Those with criminal records or communicable diseases will not be allowed to enter. (Note that criminal records take into account possible terrorist activities). I refuse to go further and discriminate against a certain group of people because they "might" be terrorists. Free borders is economically beneficial, providing a diverse, innovative society.

17. The rights of the unborn must be defended. That's my position. I have ellaborated on this issue in previous posts.

Ok
12. just read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

especially the part about economic analysis. At the end, it goes into both our opinions, and then link to "anti-trust" to get more.

26. In a smaller country, 50/50 is reasonable. When the sun is blocked out, nuclear power can make up the difference. (use battery storage) But hydro-electric power, generated along rivers, and through the use of dams doesn't change. Unless you have a 30 year drought.

16. I am all for racial profiling. Sorry.

14, 19, 17. we must agree to disagree I guess

classic liberals, like Rousseau
The guy with The Social Contract? Who holds that by living in a society you give up your free will and personality, and grant "the Souvereign" the priviledge to use you as his pawn and dispose of you when you are not useful? About as liberal as Stalin IMO.

Capitalist Vikings, while I completely disagree with almost all of the things you propose, and would rather be flogged to death in public than live in a nation like that, I do agree with most of your motives.
However, I am not a capitalist, and reality have consistantly proved the capitalist model you propose simply doesn't work. The idea sounds nice, but the reality of it is a nightmare.

..Another "looks good on paper" state.

I have minor problems with:
12. no monopoly laws- I disagree that monopolies die off. In fact, they become harder and harder to break with time. Just look at ATnT- it had to be forced to break apart.
Who says that the new firms created by the state are effective? Monopoly laws are an initiation of force, so you at least must know that they do some good before using them (which you can't know). Producers are people too.

And to maintain a monopoly the monopolist must (unless the government does it for him) be more effective than all potential competitors (or close enough that they are not willing to try).

And it is not like "industry" is well defined. You can choose what you call an industry, and by that choice you can make every firm a monopoly, or show that there are no monopolies in a free market (however large a firm is, there always is competition in some form).

Also, if the demand curve is steeper than proportional to the price a monopolist maximises his profits by keeping the same price and production amounts as a competitive industry would do in agregate. In that case a monopoly makes no difference for the consumers. There is no way to know if the demand curve has this shape in any given case, so even when you have a monopoly you don't have a waterproof case were interventionism increases effectivity. But on the other hand monopoly laws always weaken property rights, which decreases the incentives to improve and innovate for any large firm. This decreases effecivity.

14. non-interventionist- I say speak softly, but carry a big stick.
Isn't this non interventionism?

26. electricity will be derived by at least 90% nuclear power- I think improved solar power, along with hydro-electric power should constitute as much of the country's power needs as possible- the larger the country, however, the more nuclear power would be needed. In a US size country your figure is about right, but, say, the UK, is should be almost 50-50

Should this really be determined by the government? To me what production forms are best is the archetype of empirical issues that can only be determined by the market.

16. free trade and free immigration- free trade is fine- but immigration laws need to become severely more strict. In todays day and age of terrorism, anything less isn't careless, it is reckless.
To choose where you live is an important part of freedom. Is it only people of your nationality that have human rights? In reality it doesn't seem like all the restrictions states make up is very good at stopping terrorists.

18. Abortion: illegal in all cases- I am strictly pro-choice
Agreed. Disability does not give you the right to force somebody to help them.

You're an anarchist right? What kind of anarchy do you ascribe to? I may sympathize with your position more than you think.If I may answer for Letila, he is an anarcho-socialist, not an anarcho-capitalist like you seem to be. (And I won't get into the argument of whether or not "anarcho-capitalist" is oxymoronic or not.)

Anarcho-socialist?

How is that possible? Im going to start a thread.

Anarcho-socialist?

How is that possible? Im going to start a thread.
Sure, it's been a little while. They're always fun. :D

If I may answer for Letila, he is an anarcho-socialist, not an anarcho-capitalist like you seem to be. (And I won't get into the argument of whether or not "anarcho-capitalist" is oxymoronic or not.)

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I do acknowledge that anarcho-capitalism is a viable idea. I personally, don't think it would ever work, but it's a good idea. I'm currently reading a book by David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman) and he's an anarcho-capitalist. All it means is no government and a society run by the rules of the market.

Also, if the demand curve is steeper than proportional to the price a monopolist maximises his profits by keeping the same price and production amounts as a competitive industry would do in agregate. In that case a monopoly makes no difference for the consumers. There is no way to know if the demand curve has this shape in any given case, so even when you have a monopoly you don't have a waterproof case were interventionism increases effectivity. But on the other hand monopoly laws always weaken property rights, which decreases the incentives to improve and innovate for any large firm. This decreases effecivity.

Exactly. I wholeheartedly agree. I made a similar argument earlier in this thread. Glad to see someone else agrees with my unpopular view on monopolies.

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I do acknowledge that anarcho-capitalism is a viable idea. I personally, don't think it would ever work, but it's a good idea. I'm currently reading a book by David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman) and he's an anarcho-capitalist. All it means is no government and a society run by the rules of the market. Oh, I'm aware that anarcho-capitalism exists. If you'd like, we could start a debate on its merits. But if not, I'll just state that I'm not a big fan of it.

Oh, I'm aware that anarcho-capitalism exists. If you'd like, we could start a debate on its merits.

Oh, I don't particularly like it either. It simply isn't feasible, however, it is pretty damn interesting! I'm reading "The Machinery of Freedom" by Friedman, and it is very interesting. However, I would never support such a system, no more than I would support communism or a dictatorship. I'm really not as extreme as I sound. I fit nicely into the classic liberal category (if you wish to categorize me).

But if not, I'll just state that I'm not a big fan of it.

Duly noted. :)

Oh, I don't particularly like it either. It simply isn't feasible, however, it is pretty damn interesting! I'm reading "The Machinery of Freedom" by Friedman, and it is very interesting. However, I would never support such a system, no more than I would support communism or a dictatorship. I'm really not as extreme as I sound. I fit nicely into the classic libertarian category (if you wish to categorize me).
Personally speaking, I'd actually prefer anarcho-capitalism to libertarianism. (And not just because I'm an anarchist, myself.)

The guy with The Social Contract? Who holds that by living in a society you give up your free will and personality, and grant "the Souvereign" the priviledge to use you as his pawn and dispose of you when you are not useful? About as liberal as Stalin IMO.

No that is not correct, he reasoned that as society approaches the state of nature, men become more and more dependent on others, sohe believed that, by giving up their natural rights to society and ending competition, that they would truly be able to be their own individual.

I don't agree with him, but he did not espouse authoritarian measures.

[QUOTE=Fass]No, fetus.



The living go before the potentially living. The woman's right to her body should be sacrosanct - they are not living incubators, and should not be reduced to such.


-snip-/QUOTE]

Just a thought---if the pro-choice argument is that a "fetus" is not a living human being, then that mean the every pregnant woman is acting as an incubator for a non-human non-living thing growing in her womb, and she has the right to remove the non-human non-living thing at she wishes.

And of course, that would also mean that every living human being was once a non-human non-living thing growing in a living human incubator until the violent expulsion took place...

:eek:

Anyway, except for the lack of death penalty (I believe that convicted murderers have given up their right to be alive, because they stole that from someone else, and it cannot be returned/recompensed), and the universal gun registration (how about just universal licensing of gun owners, without registering each and every weapon they own?), sounds like a cool country.:)

Personally speaking, I'd actually prefer anarcho-capitalism to libertarianism. (And not just because I'm an anarchist, myself.)
You are an anarchist, yet you think drugs should be illegal? Am I reading right?

You are an anarchist, yet you think drugs should be illegal? Am I reading right?
Anarcho-capitalists think drugs should be legal.

Anarcho-capitalists think drugs should be legal.

So do Anarcho-Communists.

Would you like to live in my country?

.

No but thanks for asking.

I don't trust business enough to give them that kind of power again.
When they have had it in the past they didn't do so well.
The Major corporations and monopolies right down to just large businesses of the industrial age did not just fail because they were huge or did not have the economic support. They failed because people lost faith in them from the employee to the people who bought their products. In your world there is nothing from keeping the mistakes of the past from happening again.
While there are aspects of your country I think are great.
This major focus will end in revolt.


Regards,

JMayo

JMayo

No but thanks for asking.

I don't trust business enough to give them that kind of power again.
When they have had it in the past they didn't do so well.
The Major corporations and monopolies right down to just large businesses of the industrial age did not just fail because they were huge or did not have the economic support. They failed because people lost faith in them from the employee to the people who bought their products. In your world there is nothing from keeping the mistakes of the past from happening again.
While there are aspects of your country I think are great.
This major focus will end in revolt.

Good post.

The last line is particularly right. I don't think that any government can feasibly go to either extreme of the political scale. What libertarians don't realise, especially the objectivists/Randroids among them, is that they are just as extreme as communists. And the centre-left looks like "radical socialism" to them. :rolleyes:

The last line is particularly right. I don't think that any government can feasibly go to either extreme of the political scale. What libertarians don't realise, especially the objectivists/Randroids among them, is that they are just as extreme as communists. And the centre-left looks like "radical socialism" to them.

The only reason why this plan is not feasible is because the world is trained to think that government must solve their problems, and therefore should be large and intrusive. Libertarianism or classic liberalism is not extreme, and in fact many facets of it have existed in the U.S. early in its founding. It is claimed to be extreme now only because the world is full of big governments. Interestingly, there seem to be plenty of small-government (or no government) advocates in this forum, so perhaps the future of small government isn't completely overshadowed by statism.

It's better than most RL nations but still a long shot from the ideal nation I would prescribe.

It's better than most RL nations but still a long shot from the ideal nation I would prescribe.

What would you change, just out of curiosity?

Libertarianism or classic liberalism is not extreme, and in fact many facets of it have existed in the U.S. early in its founding.
By today's standards, it is extreme. In its founding days, the US practiced an extreme form of capitalism. Property rights actually extended to the right to own a person.

By today's standards, it is extreme. In its founding days, the US practiced an extreme form of capitalism. Property rights actually extended to the right to own a person.

I agree. My country utilizes the early success of the U.S. with the individual liberty that would prevent slavery from even being an issue. All of these ideas are not new. The main issue is that most of the world thinks we need a huge government, when in reality such an idea is absurd.

Edit: I would argue that today's standards are extreme, and the idea of a small, limited government is prudent.

By today's standards, it is extreme. In its founding days, the US practiced an extreme form of capitalism. Property rights actually extended to the right to own a person.
Which is taking property rights a mite too far. Ironically, Communists and Socialists would prefer to 'end' slavery by making it more widespread. You condemn working for the benefit of others when you're black, living in the 1850s, and working in a cotton field, but it's perfectly legitimate no matter what color you are if you happen to have a big office and a nice car.

Legalize Capital Punishment and I am fully supportive.

Legalize Capital Punishment and I am fully supportive.

I'm against capital punishment not because I think criminals shouldn't be punished, but because I don't think the government has the right to take the lives of its citizens. If that's your only complaint though, not bad! :)

I'm against capital punishment not because I think criminals shouldn't be punished, but because I don't think the government has the right to take the lives of its citizens. If that's your only complaint though, not bad! :)

It's pretty ideal in my opinion, nice, libertarian, capitalist. I like it.

I'm against capital punishment not because I think criminals shouldn't be punished, but because I don't think the government has the right to take the lives of its citizens. If that's your only complaint though, not bad! :)
Except that it's costlier to the taxpayer to keep them alive. Off with his head!

Except that it's costlier to the taxpayer to keep them alive. Off with his head!

Not if they're put to work in my privatized prisons. In fact, they can be a nice little boost to the economy. ;)

Government Structure:
1. modeled after the U.S. government, except less bureaucracy
All reformers like to boast about their aims to remove bureaucracy.

3. all transfer programs are abolished (social security, welfare, healthcare, etc.)
Horrible idea, will hugely exacerbate income inequality.

4. education will be a mix of private/public ventures and run as private entities in the market
Price of education will become prohibitive and/or education quality will fall, therefore will further exacerbate income inequality (as education is a vehicle for betterment).

Domestic Policy:
18. Abortion: illegal in all cases (except to save the mother’s life)—the rights of the unborn must be preserved and defended
Your government will first have to manufacture rights for the unborn child. This is also a flagrant violation of individual civil rights.

26. electricity will be derived by at least 90% nuclear power
I like this point, good job. Nuclear power is an excellent choice because it is clean.

28. Complete separation of Church and State
Another excellent idea.

All reformers like to boast about their aims to remove bureaucracy.

True. But if I eliminate every transfer program, and only have government spending for defense, law and order and to a lesser extent education, don't you think that would put a big cut in the government employment? I think so.

Horrible idea, will hugely exacerbate income inequality.


This argument always frustrates me, because it is so ridiculous. The "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" economic divide mentality is silly. Sure, there is a divide between rich and poor. In a free market the rich definitely get richer, and the poor get richer as well because the entire economy flourishes. The only people who have an issue with this divide between rich and poor are those who consider wealth a larger problem than poverty.

Price of education will become prohibitive and/or education quality will fall, therefore will further exacerbate income inequality (as education is a vehicle for betterment).


You're telling current public education is good, or even acceptable? Please. The education system is pitiful, especially in the U.S. This is because competition is hindered by heavy subsidies from the government. A voucher system would be a vast improvement.

Your government will first have to manufacture rights for the unborn child. This is also a flagrant violation of individual civil rights.


Incorrect. There is already legal precedence for the unborn's rights. For example, if one kills a pregnant woman there is not only a charge for the death of the woman, but a separate charge for the unborn as well. Obviously the state considers the unborn alive and its freedom must be preserved.

I like this point, good job. Nuclear power is an excellent choice because it is clean.

I completely agree. It irritates me that most "green" people (I consider myself one to a certain extent) do not realize that nuclear power is WAY better than alternate methods. With breeder reactor technology the waste can be completely eliminated. However, politics are such in the U.S. that it cannot even be brought up.

This argument always frustrates me, because it is so ridiculous. The "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" economic divide mentality is silly. Sure, there is a divide between rich and poor. In a free market the rich definitely get richer, and the poor get richer as well because the entire economy flourishes. The only people who have an issue with this divide between rich and poor are those who consider wealth a larger problem than poverty.
Not necessarily.
It has been shown plenty of times empirically and by psychological experiments that people perceive relative wealth moreso than absolute wealth.
It's true that the poor today are richer than they were 20 years ago.
But if they are 10% richer, and the rich are 100% richer, then to them that is hardly an improvement in their situation - especially when we factor in inflation (which you presumably did) and the general restructuring of society when the rich gain importance. And they do - in capitalism the more money you have, the more influential you are. That is not a moral statement, merely an observation that you surely accept when you talk about "incentives" in capitalism - money is only good if it can be used to satisfy more of your wants.

True. But if I eliminate every transfer program, and only have government spending for defense, law and order and to a lesser extent education, don't you think that would put a big cut in the government employment? I think so.
Maybe, but I mean the bureaucracy itself doesn't become less inefficient, you are just removing it from areas your nation no longer spends money on. In other areas it will continue to remain just as large. The reducing of the bureaucracy is not due to any streamlining of your system of government but rather an anciliary result of contraction of the govenment in those areas.

This argument always frustrates me, because it is so ridiculous. The "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" economic divide mentality is silly. Sure, there is a divide between rich and poor. In a free market the rich definitely get richer, and the poor get richer as well because the entire economy flourishes. The only people who have an issue with this divide between rich and poor are those who consider wealth a larger problem than poverty.
I think that's quite false. Due to income inequalities often some of the poorer people don't benefit from economic upturns. That is why transfer payments are needed.

You're telling current public education is good, or even acceptable? Please. The education system is pitiful, especially in the U.S.
It could be for a range of reasons, not least of which is that it is neglected by government spending, which your policy will only make worse.

Incorrect. There is already legal precedence for the unborn's rights. For example, if one kills a pregnant woman there is not only a charge for the death of the woman, but a separate charge for the unborn as well.

Please cite cases, I'm not overly familure with US case-law. Here are some Australian ones though:

R v Hutty - homicide may only occur to a 'person in being' which is after 'a child should have an existence separate from and independent of its mother, and that occurs when the child is fully extruded from the mother’s body and is living by virtue of the functioning of its own organs.’

R v Iby [2005] NSWCCA 178 -
'any sign of life after delivery is sufficient for the purpose of showing that an infant is a person capable of being a victim of homicide (heartbeat, breathing (assisted or not), pulse).' Therefore a unborn child can not be a victim of homicide.

And here is some statute law also, from the Queensland Criminal Law Code:

s 292 'A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, and whether it has an independent circulation or not, and whether the navel-string is severed or not.'


I submit therefore that (at least in some places) under both the common law and statute an unborn child is not a person capable of being unlawfully killed. I await your response.

I completely agree. It irritates me that most "green" people (I consider myself one to a certain extent) do not realize that nuclear power is WAY better than alternate methods. With breeder reactor technology the waste can be completely eliminated. However, politics are such in the U.S. that it cannot even be brought up.
I think you will find this problem is peculiar to the United States (and also quite common in Australia). In Europe there does not exist such ignorance and hysteria about nuclear power.

You are an anarchist, yet you think drugs should be illegal? Am I reading right?I have espoused the idea that drugs should not be legal, and that drugs users should be rehabbed, yes.
I consider myself to be an anarchist because I believe in the principle of direct democracy. So therefore I would choose to live in an area where the people have democratically decided to not have drugs be legal.
With that said, however, the illegality of drug use isn't all that important to me in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps a 3 or 4 on a scale of 1 to 10. So I would most likely compromise on that to get something more important to myself.

Except that it's costlier to the taxpayer to keep them alive. Off with his head!Nope. In the U.S., it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.

Nope. In the U.S., it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.
That's a new one.

That's a new one.It makes sense. Trials where the defendant could receive the death penalty cost more in and of themselves. Then there is the costly appeals process. Not to mention the cost of housing the defendant on death row.

In a free market the rich definitely get richer, and the poor get richer as well because the entire economy flourishes.


This is an assumption that is not backed up by history.
Just because it looks good on paper when you ad human greed and the desire for power it is not possible. You are assuming that all are going to be 100% fair and honest and that isn't going to happen.


JMayo

Would you like to live in my country?

This is inspired by Serapindal’s thread. I’m curious whether people (regardless of where you live) would be interested in living in such a country. Questions are encouraged (please refer to specific issues by their respective numbers, unless I haven't covered them).

Government Structure:
1. modeled after the U.S. government, except less bureaucracy

Government Function:
2. spending will be allotted only for defense, law/order, and some for education
3. all transfer programs are abolished (social security, welfare, healthcare, etc.)
-such programs will be privatized
4. education will be a mix of private/public ventures and run as private entities in the market

Taxation: Government has no right to tax products or trade
5. no income or sales taxes unless it is an extreme situation (natural disaster, war, etc.)
6. land tax will be implemented (can generate about 20% of current U.S. budget)
7. taxes will be collected by the small centralized government
8. any deficit spending must be approved by a 3/4 majority in the House

Economy: The market will be largely unmolested by the government
9. no corporate welfare or subsidies of any kind
10. no tariffs, minimum wage laws
11. free movement of trade allowed (including outsourcing for any reason)
12. no monopoly laws (monopolies die off as a natural course of the market)
13. mandatory payments as recompense for polluting

Foreign Policy:
14. non-interventionist unless a provable, imminent danger to sovereignty or the sovereignty of allies
15. relief aid will be given only through private institutions; no government taxation will go towards international relief
16. free trade and free immigration (provided the passing of a minimal background check)
17. no membership to any non-free trade coalition, or any national body that threatens individual sovereignty

Domestic Policy:
18. Abortion: illegal in all cases (except to save the mother’s life)—the rights of the unborn must be preserved and defended
19. Capital Punishment: banned—government has no right to take the life of its citizens
20. Same-Sex Marriage: legal under law
21. Euthanasia: passive allowed, active not
22. all drugs legal (harsher punishments for drug-related crimes)
23. Media: will be all privatized including radio, tv and any other media source
-public/community funding allowed granted government doesn’t directly contribute to it
24. no military draft; military completely voluntary
25. all weapons must be registered; besides that no gun control
26. electricity will be derived by at least 90% nuclear power
27. The rights of all will be enforced and protected regardless or race, religion, sex, and creed
28. Complete separation of Church and State

I have by no means covered everything, but feel free to ask questions.

I have serious drawbacks with your domestic issues. For instance you mention no abortion, but similarily mention NOTHING about assisting orphans. You abortion fucks are to caught up into that damned debate without even considering addressing real problems.

As well with capital punishment. That's just ridiculous. If it weren't for those two, I'd might say yes.

It makes sense. Trials where the defendant could receive the death penalty cost more in and of themselves. Then there is the costly appeals process. Not to mention the cost of housing the defendant on death row.
If someone, say, murders his girlfriend when he's 22 and goes to prison for it, do you honestly think it'd be more expensive to pay for the appeals for a handful of trials than feed and watch him for forty or fifty years?! Honestly now, use your head.

I've never actually seen anyone try to pretend this was the case before. You're really stretching it here.

If someone, say, murders his girlfriend when he's 22 and goes to prison for it, do you honestly think it'd be more expensive to pay for the appeals for a handful of trials than feed and watch him for forty or fifty years?! Honestly now, use your head.It costs about $60 or $70 thousand dollars a year to house a prisoner. It costs about $2.5 million to do the whole execution process.

It costs about $60 or $70 thousand dollars a year to house a prisoner. It costs about $2.5 million to do the whole execution process.
Right, and assuming those numbers are accurate, the prisoner becomes a financial liability [compared to death sentencing] after thirty-eight years. This assumes that the cost is $65,000 a year; right in the middle of your $10k deviation estimate.

So no, it's not less expensive now is it? I hate to say it, but it sure looks like you kicked yourself in the ass with this one.

Right, and assuming those numbers are accurate, the prisoner becomes a financial liability [compared to death sentencing] after thirty-eight years. This assumes that the cost is $65,000 a year; right in the middle of your $10k deviation estimate.

So no, it's not less expensive now is it? I hate to say it, but it sure looks like you kicked yourself in the ass with this one.How often is someone in prison for thirty-eight years?

Well. Here's what I DON'T like:
#3 (You HAVE to spend money on these because otherwise people who can't afford healthcare, etcetera will be in a horrible state)
#5 (You'd never have enough money for government spending! I know why you mean but do you know what I mean? Hey--just tax the upper class. Even a low tax rate would go a long way.)
#10 (Come ON. No minimum wage? That would wreak havoc!)
#11 (Outsourcing? No way. The government should make sure that unemployment in its own country is taken care of the best it can be taken care of.)
# 18 (Every woman should have this right, whether or not she chooses to have an abortion. If you force women to have the babies they carry you are forcing them to be breeders, which is sort of like forcing them back into slavery. And although the baby is "alive" inside them, it doesn't develop an awareness of life until some time AFTER it is born.)

But other than that I love it. I know you might not want to change it, but if you changed those I'd be OUT of the U.S. and into your nation. (Except I DO want to be a U.S. president someday so I'd just apply for dual citizenship.)

I like just about everything besides for the size of your government, quite frankly it is impractical to run a large country with 1/5 of the neccesary government resources. The social policies are mostly fair, I like your priorities on spending, I would just have more of it. Compared to Bush's America though, I'd move here any time.