What are you talking about?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
That still doesn't advocate your case. The most common factor here is that smaller countries offer more freedom.
you12: That still doesn't advocate your case. The most common factor here is that smaller countries offer more freedom.
What's your point? By the way, in terms of economic freedom Saudi Arabia isn't too bad.
I think that there should be a grid made of various attributes that make a nation libertarian or un-libertarian. The other set of possible values would be the various nations.
May be smaller countries are better options for freedom than monarchs or one religion states. And what the hell am I suppose to do with economic freedom if I constantly fear persecution.
you12:May be smaller countries are better options for freedom than monarchs or one religion states.
So what? The two are not mutually exclusive.
you12:And what the hell am I suppose to do with economic freedom if I constantly fear persecution.
Lobby the state to protect your specific lifestyle, of course.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Byzantine: The Muslims seem pretty happy with it. In fact, every year millions of them voluntarily emigrate to the place.
The Muslims seem pretty happy with it. In fact, every year millions of them voluntarily emigrate to the place.
Huh? I would like to see a source for those "millions". I'd very suprised if Saudi Arabia recieves a significant amount of immigration. Or are you referring to the "guest workers" that go there because the local Saudi youth can't be arsed to do lowly jobs like streetsweeping?
Byzantine: you12:Saudi Arabia is a perfect example, its a kingdom, one religion and one ethnicity/race but not free.The Muslims seem pretty happy with it. In fact, every year millions of them voluntarily emigrate to the place.
you12:Saudi Arabia is a perfect example, its a kingdom, one religion and one ethnicity/race but not free.
Many of Saudi Arabia's 6-million foreign workers labor under conditions that are sometimes compared to "modern-day slavery.''
Charles Anthony: Byzantine: you12:Saudi Arabia is a perfect example, its a kingdom, one religion and one ethnicity/race but not free.The Muslims seem pretty happy with it. In fact, every year millions of them voluntarily emigrate to the place. Indeed, they do: Many of Saudi Arabia's 6-million foreign workers labor under conditions that are sometimes compared to "modern-day slavery.''
The fact that workers would go to Saudia Arabia for work, even though its "modern day slavery", displays the fact that they prefer the potential for work in Saudia Arabia, than the conditions they face where they were originally. There is no need to bring up the argumentum ad misericordiam that "modern day slavery" is.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:The fact that workers would go to Saudia Arabia for work, even though its "modern day slavery", displays the fact that they prefer the potential for work in Saudia Arabia, than
Re-read the article and you will see that the workers are deceived about the work, they are not free to leave after they find out and they are threatened with violence. That is slavery.
Byzantine: Ever heard of the haj? You sound like somebody who's idea of diversity is the mall food court.
Ever heard of the haj? You sound like somebody who's idea of diversity is the mall food court.
I'm very impressed by your witty insults and superiour knowledge of the world. That said, I associate something ,you know, more permanent with the word "emigrate" than a pilgrimage.
And I also doubt most pilgrims give a rat's ass about the internal politics of Saudi Arabia unless they run afoul of the religious police or something.
I think it could be interesting to make some reflections not only about the "official" libertarian level established by rules and laws of one nation, but also about the "unofficial" libertarian level based on real actions of one nation' people. Here in Italy, for example, there's a suffocating system of public institutions with all their bureaucracies and rules and an high level of all kind of taxes, but a lot of people simply try to ignore them and act in their own interest.
GilesStratton: you12: Going back to the argument of Religious state, what does it even mean? I find it very plausible that a religious and homogeneous state can be free. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example, its a kingdom, one religion and one ethnicity/race but not free. And yet Switzerland is very similar to what I have advocated and it is far more free.
you12: Going back to the argument of Religious state, what does it even mean? I find it very plausible that a religious and homogeneous state can be free. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example, its a kingdom, one religion and one ethnicity/race but not free.
Going back to the argument of Religious state, what does it even mean? I find it very plausible that a religious and homogeneous state can be free. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example, its a kingdom, one religion and one ethnicity/race but not free.
And yet Switzerland is very similar to what I have advocated and it is far more free.
Huh? Switzerland has 4 official languages, no single official state religion (though most cantons have several I believe), is not a monarchy, and is really not that religious. Over half the population said "religion is not important to me," in 07-08 polls. Are you referring to the recent hostility toward third world immigration or something else? Btw, they also have very loose obscenity laws and prostitution is legal... very culturally conservative indeed.
Anyways, I'm not trying to say that in many respects extremely religious, culturally homogenous nations cannot be free nations but it most certainly does not guarantee that they will. And I will agree with others that a small size very well might be one of the best predictors.
majevska: GilesStratton: you12: Going back to the argument of Religious state, what does it even mean? I find it very plausible that a religious and homogeneous state can be free. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example, its a kingdom, one religion and one ethnicity/race but not free. And yet Switzerland is very similar to what I have advocated and it is far more free. Huh? Switzerland has 4 official languages, no single official state religion (though most cantons have several I believe), is not a monarchy, and is really not that religious. Over half the population said "religion is not important to me," in 07-08 polls. Are you referring to the recent hostility toward third world immigration or something else? Btw, they also have very loose obscenity laws and prostitution is legal... very culturally conservative indeed. Anyways, I'm not trying to say that in many respects extremely religious, culturally homogenous nations cannot be free nations but it most certainly does not guarantee that they will. And I will agree with others that a small size very well might be one of the best predictors.
Bang in the fact of the relatively loose drug laws as well :)
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
You're equivocating. The Swiss have divided themselves into cultural homogenous Cantons. Take it from somebody who has lived there, the Swiss are exceedingly conservative.
Would you rank Estonia very high? These people rank it #1. Of course, it ranked Australia #3.
If a country is truly libertarian then it's not politically stable. If we truly want liberty, then someone will ultimately have to fight for it. If we don't fight, then it will be our children, or grandchildren who will suffer under the exponential expansion of the scientific dictatorship.
Byzantine: The millions of devout Muslims who go to Saudi Arabia voluntarily don't seem to have a problem with religious police. You need to mind your own effing business.
The millions of devout Muslims who go to Saudi Arabia voluntarily don't seem to have a problem with religious police. You need to mind your own effing business.
This isn't true at all man. All the Muslims that go to Saudi Arabia for the Hajj have a problem with religious police and see them as well as the Saudi Monarchy as a serious problem.. Hajj is a requirement for every muslim- so it doesn't matter who's in power- they will still go to Mecca. But that doesn't mean they're just fine with having a Monarchy backed by the US military controlling their lives- with judge's that love to use the death penalty for every minor offense. The Quran mentions clearly that there is no compulsion in religion yet the Saudi Monarchy doesn't understand that. I don't know anyone who doesn't wish for the kingdom to come to an end.
Libertarian country is an oxymoron.
Wouldn't the most libertarian 'country' [area/geographic location] be the place with the most libertarians/libertarian-minded folks? If libertarianism is to survive in an area, it seems like the people would need to be libertarian-minded, at least.
"They are one of the most 'atheist' nations in the world"
why do so many of the newer libertarians equate atheism to having a greater respect for civil liberties or the rights of another? I'm an atheist (though I'm so embarrassed by today's atheists I call myself a Catholic) and I would hesitate to live in a place full of out-and-out flamboyant atheists.
and to the person who earlier made some quip about catholic states being bad on civil liberties. first off, which catholic states are you refering to which were so bad. juxtapose those states with the gamut of modern secular states like the US, Sweden, Soviet Russia, Japan, etc. which do you think has more respect for human rights? a state that killed maybe 80,000 people in three centuries of an inquisition, or one that could kill off 8000 people in 20 minutes as it tried to conquer a neighbor and scorch its earth with a conscripted army.
"I haven't had a laugh like that in a while.
How about we just look at the numbers:
http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/06/anonymous-wanted-body-count-total-so-he.html
Yes, MUCH better than those secular states."
I was just skimming through this and found an error: 'and the deaths caused by militant Protestant fundamentalists known as Puritans using biological warfare in the form of smallpox-infected blankets against natives'
the whole smallpox/blankets thing comes down to this - http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html
also, 'the total desolation across the continent exceeded 100 million even before the American nation swept most of the rest from the continent by force.' how are we to get an accurate population estimate on the native peoples? did they have a census I didn't know about.
these pop-atheists view scholarship as a google or wikipedia search and ctrl+c / ctrl+v. just from those two things I would have a hard time taking the rest of the post seriously (and this is ignoring the rather silly belief that historians have an accurate gauge on how many people were killed in a conflict a millenia and a half ago).
the real kicker was at the end where he considered waco to be a religious-related incident. I didn't know a state needlessly massacaring a religious minority qualified as religious deaths.
anyhow.
let's assume these numbers are correct (and the instances are properly categorized as religiously inspired, as opposed to seculalry inspired, which I don't think they are). even then, what I am shown is that one and a half centuries of secular ruling has almost overtaken two millenia worth of religiously inspired disasters. if I were him, that's a point I would not be making proudly
' May be smaller countries are better options for freedom than monarchs or one religion states. And what the hell am I suppose to do with economic freedom if I constantly fear persecution.'
make a lot of money, get powerful people in your debt, and use your position with those powerful people to relieve your persecution a bit.
it worked for the jews in certain places and times.
edit: also, how much religious persecution occurs in Liechtenstein? this seems to be the front runner of a libertarian country on everything form civil liberties to economic liberties. I'm sorry that a lot of your delicate atheist sensibilites were irritated by the fact that it was a catholic monarchy...but it is what it is. and to be honest, I don't find it surprising at all.
Hi everyone, This is my first
post from Tr and greetings to all who cares for their Liberties.
sorry to say but i saw some pothetic posts by a person claimed monarchies and religious societies more tolarant twoards liberties.
i don't know where he got his stats from, but this is no differant than saying Jews under Nazi regime was freer since otherwise is the reality for the both cases.
1. neither Mao nor Soviet govd caused killings were atheism motivated, but for the sake of "real socialism" practises
2. Liechtenstein can not be an example to a monarc who are in favour of freedoms but a Prosporous and tolarant/developped society which is the hard work and reforms.
3. catholic sıcieties where liberties are grown is nor because of catholisizm but actually reliocity had to back peddled due to reforms asked by secular ideologs who are (reformists, clasical Liberals,individual anarchists, social democrats, socialists etc). and this was also gettin support from public.
4 economic liberties under the feer of purcicution means nothing as some said something simillar above, i make money to buy what i want not to wipe my ass.
you are not free as long as you can't buy what ever you wanted to buy, no matter how low is the tax rate.
5. lobbying government for your life style is an other bullshit, no way you gunna be successful by yourself, but passing economical barriers is way easier due to globalism, even under the worst strict welfare state you can transfer your money with just afew mouse clicks to somewhere with lower or no tax policy.
6. never trust religious organizations, never force religious people to change their life style but don't put too mutch trust on most of these religious institutions.
i tell you this with experience, in Turkiye, a moderate islamist party is running the government but even though their moderacy we feer losing our freedoms, so religion? no i will rather pay %35 business tax and live in Sweeden, at least they won't fuck with my life style.
i don't mean here economic freedoms are not important, offcourse they are but without social freedoms it doesn't make sence at all.