-
[quote user="Merlin"] It would appear that we are mixing two different issues here: voting and political systems. * As for voting system, whether FPTP or plurality, I’m afraid no one will even find a majority-system country which is even passably pro-freedom. Italy givens a good example: it might appear that competition among many small
-
I don't think that is true. It is, in fact, usually much easier to pass laws in many Parliamentry democracy. Take New Zealand for example, there is no written constitution, parliament only needs a 50 percent vote to pass a law and there is no upper house (a Unicameral system), Consider too, that NZ used too have a first past the post system (FPTP
-
This all seems quite emotive. Anyway, Novus, you are correct to say that in a free and open society a freer market would not fix some of the things you seem to see as problematic, like too many millionaires. Yes in a free society there would probably be more millionaires and CEOs may earn disproportionatly more. However, if you allow people to trade
-
Was just looking at the Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom" and then it dawned upon me. Why is it that the freest economies in the world, all the top five, seem to be dispropotionatly parliamentary democracies? The top two, Hong Kong and Singapore, are very un-democratic, but are still parliamentary. Is it just by chance
-
I would personally try, although it can be difficult, to avoid bringing up politics, ideology, or anti-state stuff. Just talk about markets and how well they work. As soon as you take an ideological stance they will become critical, think of you as a crack-pot and switch off. If you can convince some of the utility of markets, they will find a political
-
For awe-inspiring stuff, I do not think you can go past Leonard Read's "I, Pencil". http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
-
[quote user="Snowflake"] But in all seriousness, troutndeer, you need to go back and read through the arguments. We've been where you're at before and transcended through it. [/quote] Thanks for the advice. You may have, but not everyone who has read the AnCap literature, including myself, have conceded. In a way, I have much respect
-
[quote user="liberty student"] [quote user="troutndeer"]What I am saying is that I think that having a limited government, that is adequate enough to properly enforce property rights, would work much better than an anarcho-capitalist society.[/quote] 1. Why? 2. How can a government that violates property rights, properly enforce
-
[quote user="liberty student"] NZ does not have a limited state. [/quote] So what you are saying is even an unlimited state can refrain from democide? Anyway, I guess limited has a few meanings, or else my meaning is wrong. I was meaning that the state is limited or constrained, in New Zealand, in the repespect that it is not totalitarian
-
[quote user="WisR"] On that basis, Somalia is doing fine: It's situation has improved relative to itself and relative to the countries around it: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880 Or here's the full research report: http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1861 Please read and let