I really like this guy. He is the president of the Competitve Enterprise Institute (cei.org). I think they hit the nail on the head in this article http://cei.org/node/20685.
Anyways, with him being president of the Czech Republic, I would think that would be one of the best places on earth to live. So why isn't it? Anyone know?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw:with him being president of the Czech Republic, I would think that would be one of the best places on earth to live. So why isn't it?
Because Presidents don't have the power to make it so. In fact, just being President cancels out any such power one might have had. It's why Ron Paul was doomed to failure the minute he put his name on the ballot. The worst thing that could have happened was him winning,
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
histhasthai:Because Presidents don't have the power to make it so.
Presidents can have a lot of power. I know the president of the United States has the power to make treaties and send troops abroad.
histhasthai:It's why Ron Paul was doomed to failure the minute he put his name on the ballot. The worst thing that could have happened was him winning,
Um, ok. Of course, I have no idea why bringing all the troops home and getting us out of treaties and opening up trade would be the "worst thing".
Spideynw:Presidents can have a lot of power.
Yes, but the discussion was about a certain kind of power. Presidents don't have it. Not in Czechoslovakia, not in the US.
Spideynw:Um, ok. Of course, I have no idea why bringing all the troops home and getting us out of treaties and opening up trade would be the "worst thing".
You assume he would do that, just because he said he would. I'm sure he's quite honest, but if so, he has little clue what kind of power the President does and doesn't actually have. Here's a hint, the real powers of the Presidency, and lack thereof, are not written down anywhere. They are determined politically, not constitutionally. Even with a majority of the votes, he would be politically impotent.
Paul would have been able to do some of that, but not all of it, not to the extent that he promised. Whatever good it would have done would have been offset by the damage of putting his reputation and the imprimateur of a freedom movement behind the Presidency, and behind all the harm he would have had to do just by virtue of the duties of office.
As I've already mentioned before, at risk of being lynched, is that if hard-core libertarians/Austrians/etc have a fault is being overenthusiasts and quite lacking in patience. I'll explain why.
President Klaus is probably the best European politician that "made it big". He inherited a post-Cold War soviet satellite and made it prosper. Compare the Czech Republic with Roumania, for example. He led his country through one of the very few amicable secessions in recent history: when Czechslovakia ceased to exist he shook the hand of his Slovakian colleague and wished both the new countries well. Compare with what happened in the Balkans during the '90s or the not-so-veiled threats that emerge each time a new "indipendentist" movement appears in Europe. His citizens may not be as "wealthy" as their Western neighbours but they have enjoyed an incredible lifestyle quality growth. The Czech industry is quickly retaking its place of excellence in the world after the long Marxist nightmare: highly skilled and competitevely priced manpower, low taxes, a reasonable government to work with are all ingredients to this success.
Of course he had to "make concessions", for example joining the EU or sending troops to join the US occupation forces around the world, but like I said while this may be intollerable to the eyes of libertarian purists it can be easily forgiven given the the rest of his curriculum.
The best place on world to live? Perhaps, but it's a bit too cold for my arthritis...
Kakugo:when Czechslovakia ceased to exist he shook the hand of his Slovakian colleague and wished both the new countries well.
I'm pretty sure that would have been Vaclev Havel, not Klaus. But your point is taken. Presidents can obviously influence the well-being of a country in both negative and positive ways. My point is that the tendency is always for states to expand their powers, become more interventionist, and, ultimately, become more authoritarian and oppressive. This happens in an ebb and flow, but the overall tendency is one direction. No head of state has the power to reverse that direction in the long term. They can slow it down, they can even briefly turn things in a positive direction, at least within a subset of the scope of the state's influence. But in the end, the big picture is bound by the political incentives and networks of power that transcend the power and the tenure of any one politician. A politician that had the power to overcome that would also have the power to sieze dictatorial control, and such power corrupts - either he himself would fall to the lure of what that power could do, or the office in which those powers were vested would become an irresisitable target for those who would use it for their own agendas.
Nearly all real and lasting positive change comes from changes that occur outside the established political processes - revolutions, collapse of a totalitarian state, breakups of countries, etc. Czechoslovakia was no exception to this, though their breakup was peaceful and orderly, it came out of the larger scale collapse of the Soviet Union. That it was handled so well and that the Czech Republic went in such a positive direction is a huge credit to Havel - he's one of the best of the people that were involved in that whole massive fiasco in Eastern Europe. But he's only one man, and he's out of power now. My understanding of Klaus is that he's overall a pretty positive influence, but not the man Havel was. And now that Czech independence is secured, those power networks are gradually re-establishing themselves and asserting their claims on the prosperity and freedom of the Czech people.
I'm sure it's one of the very best places in Europe to live right now, but the political tide is and will continue moving in one direction, more slowly perhaps in a place like the Czech Republic than in it's neighbors, but moving nonetheless. So long as there are states, true freedom and prosperity can only make limited progresss.
You're right I got the wrong Vaclav... my apologies to both!
Kakugo: You're right I got the wrong Vaclav... my apologies to both!
That's OK, the arthritis is usually not the first thing to go... I jest, because I'm probably not far behind.
I take it that you remember all this as opposed to just reading about it later? It seems amazing to me now, it's a part of history that will be talked about and analyzed for centuries - not to mention the ongoing ramifications - but I got to watch it in real-time, from the perspective of it being impossible to imagine actually happening. It took a while to play out, but it feels now like it all happend so fast, and so out of the blue. I remember wondering when Walesa was going to get crushed, then suddenly I was staying up all night to watch them hammering the wall. I bought one of those souvenir chunks of it that were everywhere afterward.
One thing I love about this forum... how many online venues could you see "You're right, I got the wrong Vaclev", and not have it just seem crazy or silly to everyone?
histhasthai: You assume he would do that, just because he said he would. I'm sure he's quite honest, but if so, he has little clue what kind of power the President does and doesn't actually have. Here's a hint, the real powers of the Presidency, and lack thereof, are not written down anywhere. They are determined politically, not constitutionally. Even with a majority of the votes, he would be politically impotent.
This is really a pointless discussion. He probably would do it, given his voting record. And if he did get elected as president with those promises, then Congress would probably side with him. But that is obviously not the current state of affairs.
Spideynw:Anyways, with him being president of the Czech Republic, I would think that would be one of the best places on earth to live. So why isn't it? Anyone know?
They have got out of communism in not that many years ago. Anyway, I've been there recently and I thought it was a pretty great place to live. Clearly, it's booming. Haven't done any research on it, but one guy there told me their currency has been appreaciating relatively to the Euro...
I found it funny how the taxis are unregulated. Plenty of taxi companies with their posts advertising their services all around. And they have plenty of public transportation as well. Everything was very cheap, at least to me -- the guys I have been with, go out and lunch in restaurants every working day, but this is a multi-national company and I'm sure they pay better than the local businesses, so I'm not sure how representative these guys are. ;) Either way, they have a lot of recreational services, street stands, lot of selections in restaurants, and people in general didn't seem like they were doing bad.
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty