Most Libertarian Country

[Thedesolateone]

@sirmonty

@Thedesolateone

Hmm. Well pre-War Germany had never had Bohemia and Moravia, or Austria, but it certainly did have Alsace and Lorraine. If his goal was to return Germany to pre-war Germany, then he’d have to have made war with France.

Ok I should have said his goal was to unite the German speaking lands (“Greater Germany”) which included uniting the former German Empire and that of the the Austria Hungarian.

But I accept most of your points. However, you’re wrong on some - Hitler’s invasion of Belgium, Netherlands (two more neutral countries) and France was the first real conflict between the “Allies” and Germany. I’m not saying it wouldn’t have been better for Britain and France to stay out of the war, as personally I believe they should. But, by invading 4 independent countries in Europe, and 2 more afterwards, all with declared neutrality to Germany, he was certainly “asking for it”.

Yes Britain and France and the USA turned it into a “world war”, but it was already turning into a pretty big European war.

Well remember France and Britain both rejected Hitler’s offer of peace and declared war on Germany first. He only ordered a conquest of the Low Countries after they declared war on Germany. He had really hoped they would have accepted his peace offer and ordered them to be occupied so the Allies wouldn’t occupy them first.

I’m not defending the dickhead in any way. He was a terrible man. Just pointing out that he was hardly the only instigator or aggressor in that whole mess. Afterall, Churchill was obviously chomping at the bit to go to war.

We more or less agree.

[Thedesolateone]

@GilesStratton

@laminustacitus

@GilesStratton

So what?

So that means that there can be no ban on immigration from a libertarian perspective.

But notice. I’ve not suggested that. I’ve said that no rational property owner would grant access people who decrease the value of their land, at least not the extent that the democratic state does. Kings certainly did not.

Decrease the value of their property?

Yeah, the asian immigrants who made the railroads, and then powered silicon valley led to a massive decrease in the value of the land. Immigrants can have massive benefits, as well as costs. For example, I can certainly imagine factory owners “importing” workers so to speak.

[Juan]

You see ? You’ve learnt something today. The king of the USA during the 19th century was wise enough to let chinese subhumans work for the railroads because it was in his best interests to do so.

[Byzantine]

Hey, I wasn’t even the one to bring up New Zealand in the first place, you stupid fuck.

@laminustacitus

According to the Heritage Foundation: “Total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, are high. In the most recent year, government spending equaled 41 percent of GDP” Well, so much for a small government for New Zealand’s is pretty massive esspecially considering the fact that while it has a 49.6 rating in this category, the world average is 65.0.

I can’t even figure out this statistic from the neo-kook Heritage Foundation. The US spends three times its GDP every year in transfer payments. Am I supposed to be alarmed about New Zealand?

Please stay away from the Maoris and Anglos who’ve figured out how to make the place work. They don’t need hysterical buffoons like you there screwing the place up.

[Byzantine]

@Thedesolateone

Yeah, the asian immigrants who made the railroads, and then powered silicon valley led to a massive decrease in the value of the land. Immigrants can have massive benefits, as well as costs. For example, I can certainly imagine factory owners “importing” workers so to speak.

How about the African slaves we imported? How much value they adding?

And you been to LA lately? Ever ask Asians what they think of mestizos? They’ll own you, them, me, and everybody else when it’s over, and laugh about median IQs all the way to the bank while everybody else is twittering about culture and edumacation.

[Juan]

@Byzantine

Hey, I wasn’t even the one to bring up New Zealand in the first place, you stupid fuck.

So my lord Byzantine ? Whether you brought up NZ or not is not the point. Your laughable sociological analysis is. You failed to explain why there was a change in politics in NZ and yet the population didn’t change in terms of race and culture.

Homogeneous populations can either create free or totalitarian systems. There’s not even correlation between race and politics, let alone causation.

[Juan]

Boy are you clueless. Genetically I happen to be european. To be more specific my ancestors came from northern italy which, I think, is known as the cradle of the renaissance.

Now, show that you’re able to understand basic arguments and explain how politics changed in NZ while the population didn’t. You can’t ? Well, what about you stop posting until you learn the basics of political theory ?

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

Boy are you clueless. Genetically I happen to be european. To be more specific my ancestors came from northern italy which, I think, is known as the cradle of the renaissance.

You missed the point. Why were Europeans advanced to the extent that they could colonize other areas of the world, and not the other way around.

[Juan]

@GS

You missed the point.

Rather you’re trying to change the subject ?

Why were Europeans advanced to the extent that they could colonize other areas of the world, and not the other way around.

As soon as you explain what happened in NZ I’ll answer your (irrelevant) question.

[laminustacitus]

@Byzantine

I can’t even figure out this statistic from the neo-kook Heritage Foundation

The statistic is calculated as so:

@*2009 Index of Economic Freedom*

Freedom #4: Government Size

This component considers the level of government expenditures as a percentage of GDP. Government expenditures—including consumption and transfers—account for the entire score. Some level of government expenditures represents true public goods, implying an ideal level greater than zero. However, identifying that ideal level seems too arbitrary, static, and difficult to apply universally. For these reasons, the methodology treats zero government spending as the benchmark. Moreover, governments that have no public goods will be penalized by lower scores in the other factors (such as property rights and financial freedom). The scale for scoring government size is non-linear, which means that government spending that is close to zero is lightly penalized, while levels of government exceeding 30 percent of GDP receive much worse scores in a quadratic fashion (e.g., doubling spending yields four times less freedom), so that only really large governments receive very low scores.The expenditure equation used is:

GEi = 100 – α × (Expendituresi)^2

where GEi represents the government expenditure score in country i; Expendituresi represents the total amount of government spending at all levels as a portion of GDP (between 0 and 100); and α is a coefficient to control for variation among scores (set at 0.03). The minimum component score is zero. In most cases, general government expenditure data include all levels of government such as federal, state, and local. In cases where general government spending data are not available, data on central government expenditure are used instead.

Sources. Unless otherwise noted, the authors used the following sources for information on government intervention in the economy, in order of priority: Official government publications of each country; Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report and Country Profile, 2004–2007; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development data; Eurostat; African Development Bank and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, African Economic Outlook 2008; African Development Bank, Selected Statistics on African Countries 2008; International Monetary Fund, Staff Country Report, “Selected Issues and Statistical Appendix,” 2004–2008 ; and Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators 2007–2008.

Surely there must be an actual reason you reject this other than referring to the foundatio behind it as “neo-kook”?

@Byzantine

The US spends three times its GDP every year in transfer payments.

Do you have any statistics to back this up? According to the Heritage Foundation: “Total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, are high. Government spending has been rising and in the most recent year equaled 36.7 percent of GDP. Stimulus measures passed in the second half of 2008 promised to push government spending significantly higher.” Also note that the United States recieved a 59.6 rating in the “Government Size” category.

@Byzantine

The US spends three times its GDP every year in transfer payments. Am I supposed to be alarmed about New Zealand?

Yes, you are supposed to be alarmed when a government consumes almost half of its nation’s output. The comparison to the United States’ own government size is irrelevant for no one would refer to the United States as a model for a libertarian state.

@Byzantine

They don’t need hysterical buffoons like you there screwing the place up.

Silly ad hominem to make for it seems to be you who is hysterically calling for social homogenity.

[hayekianxyz]

I never mentioned NZ, so why ask me?

[Juan]

@GS

I never mentioned NZ, so why ask me?

Because I was talking about NZ and YOU replied to my post challenging my position. So, please explain how your racist ‘theories’ apply to NZ or else admit you don’t have a leg to stand on.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Enough, both of you. Calm down or be calmed down.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

@GS

I never mentioned NZ, so why ask me?

Because I was talking about NZ and YOU replied to my post challenging my position. So, please explain how your racist ‘theories’ apply to NZ or else admit you don’t have a leg to stand on.

I wasn’t concerned about NZ, I don’t really think Byzantine had a point in concerns to NZ, but I agree with is argument in general. So I don’t get why you’re attempting to bring me into this.

[Juan]

@Knight

Enough, both of you. Calm down or be calmed down.

I’m perfectly calm. I hope it’s obvious that Giles replied to a post of mine 3 minutes ago and now he’s pretending I dragged his poor soul into the conversation, because he can’t address a basic flaw in his ‘theories’.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

@Knight

Enough, both of you. Calm down or be calmed down.

I’m perfectly calm. I hope it’s obvious that Giles replied to a post of mine 3 minutes ago and now he’s pretending I dragged his poor soul into the conversation, because he can’t address a basic flaw in his ‘theories’.

What theories, I don’t know or care about NZ. I wasn’t addressing that, I was concerned with your claim that race has no effect on politics. Which, to an extent is true. But it is also true that Europeans advanced far quicker than any other race.

[hayekianxyz]

I don’t see the issue with Byzantine’s argument. Which, as I understand it, is simply that the state in an attempt to enlarge itself by means of creating conflict and “resolving” them through means of its territorial monopoly on “justice”. Given that immigration causes conflict Byzantine’s conclusions follow logically.

No racism as far as I can tell.

[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.

[hayekianxyz]

@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.

[laminustacitus]

@GilesStratton

Given that immigration causes conflict Byzantine’s conclusions follow logically.

They follow logically from the principle that a state/ property owner can own what they have not homesteaded, which is not true.