What do the anti-globalists want?

[Love Mountain]

in terms of economies, most of the countries in Europe are far closer to "Libertarian paradises" than your vision of communist-like Central planning.

Rofl no they're not. And my Communist vision of central planning? Show me where I said as much. Go on. Show me in any of my posts where I insisted on a Communist central planning order. Go on. I'll keep bringing this gem up.

Here's a newsflash: you don't need a central government for collective bargaining. It's called collective bargaining, it's not state-mandated labour laws.

Just wrong. Nordic governments frequently prop up trade unions and intervene in labor markets. I'm no expert in Swedish labor law, but the idea that any Nordic country or European for that matter, is an open free market where unions and employers battle each other without government interference is a pipe dream. You're lacking any knowledge on the economic framework of Europe and attempting to debate me on how the economy of Europe is structured.

You don't need to EU for free trade (it's the default position without any national or supra-national entity blocking it), and really you're make decisions for themselves", when that the basis of capitalism. And all successful countries are capitalist, who then incidentally might go on to redistribute the wealth generated by capitalism to various degrees. Countries today are some of the freest they've ever been in human history.

Funny how you "don't need the EU" for free trade yet that's exactly what you did need. Before the EU every nation had to work with every other nation to reduce tarriffs, to work out the regulations, standards, and customs. You needed a supranational EU authority to enforce such things to promote economic prosperity within the European internal market. Again, so ignorant of history and of the economic structure of Europe.

One of the most successful country in Europe, Switzerland, is as much a "Libertarian paradise" as any, is has low taxes, it isn't in the EU, is isolationist in its military, it has high gun ownership, high labour and economic freedom, it doesn't have single-payer healthcare and it has a highly-decentralised, federated political system with referendums in which the citizens decide on certain issues through direct democracy. In other words, it's basically the opposite of everything you stand for, yet it works remarkably well.

Except it isn't and you're making it out as if Switzerland is "significantly different" from their European brethren. Which again, it isn't. The UK with it's universal healthcare system is an exception to the rule. Most European healthcare models make getting insurance mandatory, and the government has regulatory influence and actively participates in setting prices and standards of healthcare. That includes Switzerland which is incredibly invasive in what can be classified as "basic insurance" and how much it can cost. Moreover, Switzerland has several industries which are heavily controlled by the State like rail and Switzerland's gun control is far more strict than America's. There is also the fact that the gunowner culture in Switzerland doesn't stem from a paranoid fear of "fighting against tyrannical governments" like the 2nd amendment nuts in America. It stems from a highly isolationist policy that emphasizes defending your country from foreign invasion. In other words, the Swiss could be accurately described as using firearms to protect the state rather than considering overthrowing it. A stark reversal of the culture in America.

The idea that Switzerland is in any way "libertarian" stems from the fact that libertarians have no country to call their own. Hence why they desperately cling to any fringe examples that would fit their definition which is tricky since much of the ideological rhetoric relies so heavily on "No True Scotsman" excuses.

[Aexodus]

Rofl no they're not. And my Communist vision of central planning? Show me where I said as much. Go on. Show me in any of my posts where I insisted on a Communist central planning order. Go on. I'll keep bringing this gem up.

Hmm let me see. I took the liberty of emboldening parts.

I prefer technocrats competing with ideas over how to best ration scarce resources. Geopolitical conflicts are independent of who's in power as national interests will always be the same no matter who is in power. Well, no that's not quite right, but there will always be national interests is my points. Solutions to distribution of scarce resources will only be solved optimally by technocrats who balance freedom vs needs. Letting the masses and the market determine who gets what and who lives how is only going to lead to misery and ruin.

Communist dictats and ideals

Not only do you have some of the highest taxes, but some of the highest living standards.

Unruly masses are too stupid to be responsible. Social engineering is necessary to promote healthy, productive lives of the citizenry. It wasn't the "unruly masses" who came up with recycling, safety, and labor rights. It was thinkers, elites, and leaders. People who imposed their views on everyone else.

Take a hint from any desolate and poor society in the world. You are far better off living in a society that provides services in exchange for liberty. There is a case to be made for authoritarian overreach, but you don't live in such a society. By far, most Europeans and even Chinese who live in a Communist hellhole are better off living in society with a government. Take note. All extremely advanced and productive centers of culture and commerce are not in a libertarian fantasyland where Government only exists to man the foxholes surrounding their shining metropolis.

'Services in exchange for liberty'.... and an assertion that higher taxes and bigger government automatically leads to better living standards. Newsflash, it doesn't.

[Love Mountain]

Hmm let me see. I took the liberty of emboldening parts.

Sure.

Communist dictats and ideals

So Europe is a centrally planned Communist country right now? Because what I've described is exactly the form of government in Europe and the European Union where technocrats make decisions and policies that impact millions and by the way, they are all largely unelected. Just like in a lot of European countries where the politicians and bureaucrats are also not elected but chossen by the party in power.

'Services in exchange for liberty'.... and an assertion that higher taxes and bigger government automatically leads to better living standards. Newsflash, it doesn't.

Newsflash. It does. Hence why you enjoy healthcare in France, UK, Germany, Switzerland. Hence why there are so many social safety nets and pensions in Europe. Et cetera, Et cetera.

[Aexodus]

Taking complete control of the market and deciding who gets what is a definitive communist ideal

[Love Mountain]

So Europe is currently Communist?

[Aexodus]

So Europe is currently Communist?

Wyrda has already answered that for me.

in terms of economies, most of the countries in Europe are far closer to "Libertarian paradises" than your vision of communist-like Central planning.

[fkizz]

So Europe is currently Communist?

Not communistic obviously, if it's lifestyle is paid and protected by US, they wouldn't allow actual Communism to spring there.

There is plenty of Corporatism though, but loyalty is to the supra-national organization instead of the traditional state.

[Magnum_Opus]

There are no Libertarian countries because, I don't know, the ideology of Libertarianism came about in the 1950s? And regardless, you won't find any country that follows any single ideology with completely purity. What you might identify as Libertarianism in the past, Liberalism, was something that heavily influenced many countries like the US and the UK, and many classical liberal a.k.a Libertarian ideas are economic orthodoxy today.

And now you continue to shift goalposts and try to make out that things like labour laws and welfare as an example of how society is run by mandate from intellectual elites. Yes there are welfare and labour laws but it's hardly like society is ruled by technocrats. And no, bigger government and more welfare spending don't automatically make things better. Countries like Canada and Australia have social spending as nearly half some of the European countries, yet they score the same or better than most on any quality of living ranking.

P.S. You don't need the EU for free-trade agreements

It's called Federal debt and it can be serviced in a number of ways.

In other words, "I don't understand that you have to pay back debt".

Or maybe we should try your idea, and spend to infinity, then "deal with it in a number of ways". Maybe you've discovered the trick to generating infinite wealth.

[Love Mountain]

Wyrda has already answered that for me.

Except he hasn't. In fact, I have a post dedicated to debunking his absurd allegation.

Not communistic obviously, if it's lifestyle is paid and protected by US, they wouldn't allow actual Communism to spring there.

There is plenty of Corporatism though, but loyalty is to the supra-national organization instead of the traditional state.

USSR was a supranational state. The relationship between the EU and the USA is largely symbiotic, not parasitic. American foreign policy is largely dictated by realism and its internal politics are dominated by a fine balance of special interests and populism. Socialism is already quickly losing its stigma in America. A swing towards a more-radical leftist wold order is not out of the question. Just as China moved from the left wing spectrum further and further right in the last few decades.

There are no Libertarian countries because, I don't know, the ideology of Libertarianism came about in the 1950s? And regardless, you won't find any country that follows any single ideology with completely purity. What you might identify as Libertarianism in the past, Liberalism, was something that heavily influenced many countries like the US and the UK, and many classical liberal a.k.a Libertarian ideas are economic orthodoxy today.

Huh? You think that Libertarianism didn't exist until 1950? You realize that ideas aren't born when the etymology of the word is right? That's like saying Physics didn't exist until Isaac Newton. In other words, you are looking for an "excuse" for why 100% of countries have no embraced libertarian principles. The answer is that libertarian principles were attempted or were in practice at one point or another. They were slowly fazed out or abandoned because they don't work, not because they didn't exist until 1950. What a pathetic argument.

And now you continue to shift goalposts and try to make out that things like labour laws and welfare as an example of how society is run by mandate from intellectual elites. Yes there are welfare and labour laws but it's hardly like society is ruled by technocrats. And no, bigger government and more welfare spending don't automatically make things better. Countries like Canada and Australia have social spending as nearly half some of the European countries, yet they score the same or better than most on any quality of living ranking.

Says the guy who claims Europe is more "libertarian" than "Socialist". Don't talk to me about shifting goalposts as you ramble on about a Libertarian Switzerland. Neither did I say that bigger government is always better. Yet another worthless strawman.

P.S. You don't need the EU for free-trade agreements

I'm sorry, when did I say you did?

In other words, "I don't understand that you have to pay back debt".

Or maybe we should try your idea, and spend to infinity, then "deal with it in a number of ways". Maybe you've discovered the trick to generating infinite wealth.

https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Pri.../dp/0324205643

I suggest you buy a copy and read it.

Increasing military spending to 2.5% of EU's GDP would require roughly 180 to 200 billion dollars. For the record, Germany alone has a federal budget of 1.5 trillion dollars, France, 1.3 trillion, UK 1 trillion. These countries can borrow at a rate of 2% in long term debt if not less. The idea that these countries are not capable of raising additional revenue of 200 billion between them is absurd.

"Number of ways" is a trick of generating infinite wealth? You're either being rude or you're simply uneducated in economics. Which is strange seeing as how you're attempting to debate me on the topic. You don't even have to borrow money, though borrowing would be the least expensive way of coming up with the cash. Levying or raising taxes marginally would easily solve any financing woes when it comes to raising the money for a brand new military.

In fact, the hardest challenge wouldn't be raising cash, paying for it, or even long-term deficits. The trick would be designing a way to raise revenue that would break even with the military expenditures. Why? Because military purchases would be largely domestic and would stimulate other sections of the economy. In addition to that, if we were to assume an independent Europe they will be free to arm whoever they please with whatever they please. European arms industry has been hobbled by NATO agreements and limitations on who they sell arms to. So the idea that the EU needs America to protect them is absurd. Not only are they perfectly capable of paying for their own defense, they should pay for their own defense to be an equal partner rather than a vassal of the American military machine.

So spare me your ramblings about "debt" and all that. I suppose you follow the loonies at Mises institute and Austrian school of economics too don't you? Debt is evil and other such nonsense. Tell you what, I don't want to hear about it. Arguing with a religious cults is not one of my hobbies on this Forum.

[fkizz]

USSR was a supranational state. The relationship between the EU and the USA is largely symbiotic, not parasitic. American foreign policy is largely dictated by realism and its internal politics are dominated by a fine balance of special interests and populism. Socialism is already quickly losing its stigma in America. A swing towards a more-radical leftist wold order is not out of the question. Just as China moved from the left wing spectrum further and further right in the last few decades.

I didn't imply it's parasitic, I just said EU does get huge benefits from USA in regards to defence spending and from the neighbour USSR during Cold War. Ask any of those who risked death to flee from a Communist country and made it to USA-influence European area.
That said, US needs Europe in the sense it needs Japan and South Korea as well, to have Allies against a potential tension with China or Russia.

Socialism losing stigma is a civilian fad, surely those on the Armed Forces still retain their patriotic image of defeating Socialism (DPRK and PRC). The Armed Forces staff are the most qualified to be realists, for they are the ones to literally put boots on ground if required.
And from what can be grasp, more far right ideas are also losing stigma on the civilians.. Simply more extreme and less center-minded ideas are being seen as ok. This applies both to the left and right.

A swing to a more radical left world order is never out of question, that's why right wing movements get the amount of (underground) support and empathy they get, even when they turn controversial. The necessary friction is created

[Love Mountain]

I didn't imply it's parasitic, I just said EU does get huge benefits from USA in regards to defence spending and from the neighbour USSR during Cold War. Ask any of those who risked death to flee from a Communist country and made it to USA-influence European area.
That said, US needs Europe in the sense it needs Japan and South Korea as well, to have Allies against a potential tension with China or Russia.

Socialism losing stigma is a civilian fad, surely those on the Armed Forces still retain their patriotic image of defeating Socialism (DPRK and PRC). The Armed Forces staff are the most qualified to be realists, for they are the ones to literally put boots on ground if required.
And from what can be grasp, more far right ideas are also losing stigma on the civilians.. Simply more extreme and less center-minded ideas are being seen as ok. This applies both to the left and right.

A swing to a more radical left world order is never out of question, that's why right wing movements get the amount of (underground) support and empathy they get, even when they turn controversial. The necessary friction is created

I agree with your assessment. Europe has benefitted hugely from its close alliance with America, especially when it comes to their defense needs. However, I am insisting that they do not need American protection, especially not today. European arms industry is just as mature as America's if not superior in some sectors. Maybe not shipbuilding, but power projection is not really the main role of NATO. In fact, I would argue that EU's close relationship with America is often a liability in today's climate just as it is an asset. Do you really think Europe cares about Asia? Or Africa? Or the Middle East? No. Their primary geopolitical enemy is Russia which is purely because of America. EU's foreign policy today is not antagonistic towards Russia, in fact its the exact opposite. Europe benefits handsomely from Russian raw materials, from exporting advanced equipment and products to Russia, from having an aggressive actor that's essentially a giant buffer zone between them and the rest of the world. They are potentially allies of great convenience and in spite of great historical animosity. The only one standing in front of such a relationship is America. The economic benefits to be reaped from Russia and other under developed regions is great. America and Europe are competitors economically as both are highly developed regions that want to export high-tech goods to under developed countries in exchange for raw resources. Moreover, while America is offensive in their foreign policy posturing, Europe wants to be defensive and isolationist to sell to everyone.

TLR; Europe would economically benefit by becoming an independent actor rather than follow America at the hip.


As far as Socialism in the United States is concerned. It's not simply a matter of being a fad among civilians. The Democratic party is largely adopting elements of Socialist platforms we see in Europe. The echoes of powerful unions, universal healthcare, minimum wage, comprehensive social safety, and free college have been topics that resurged every few years. This latest cycle has seen every single issue come up again in newspapers, town halls, and political platforms. The word "Communism" and "Socialism" have lost much of their stigma and is no longer a slur it once was. As far as the military being incredibly right-wing as we can see by their numbers of Trump supporters... well the military has no say in the way the Government is run. Not in practice of course, but their influence is a lot smaller than the influence of a successful healthcare system in Canada.

[Cope]

I agree with your assessment. Europe has benefitted hugely from its close alliance with America, especially when it comes to their defense needs. However, I am insisting that they do not need American protection, especially not today.

Europe is not a contiguous entity: its military forces are not integrated with one another. In the hypothetical scenario that the military capabilities of the United Kingdom, Germany and France were properly integrated (an undesirable outcome) and funded, then American military support would be less necessary, but still useful.

European arms industry is just as mature as America's if not superior in some sectors. Maybe not shipbuilding, but power projection is not really the main role of NATO. In fact, I would argue that EU's close relationship with America is often a liability in today's climate just as it is an asset.

From a military perspective, there isn't a coherent single foreign policy within the Europe. The major military states (UK, France, Germany) often act independently.

Do you really think Europe cares about Asia? Or Africa? Or the Middle East? No.

The United Kingdom and France, in particular, patently have military interests in Africa and the Middle East. Over the past twenty years, European military forces have been engaged in innumerable conflicts in both regions, ranging from Mali, the Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and the Central African Republic to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these conflicts remain ongoing.

Their primary geopolitical enemy is Russia which is purely because of America.

No it isn't. See below.

EU's foreign policy today is not antagonistic towards Russia, in fact its the exact opposite. Europe benefits handsomely from Russian raw materials, from exporting advanced equipment and products to Russia, from having an aggressive actor that's essentially a giant buffer zone between them and the rest of the world. They are potentially allies of great convenience and in spite of great historical animosity. The only one standing in front of such a relationship is America. The economic benefits to be reaped from Russia and other under developed regions is great. America and Europe are competitors economically as both are highly developed regions that want to export high-tech goods to under developed countries in exchange for raw resources. Moreover, while America is offensive in their foreign policy posturing, Europe wants to be defensive and isolationist to sell to everyone.

Liberal European states oppose Russia for a variety of reasons: they disapprove of the Kremlin's involvement in the Ukraine, Syria and Georgia; they dislike Russia's continued support for Assad; they view Putin as an autocrat who is dismantling Russian democracy; they accuse Moscow of interfering in European elections and spreading "propaganda" on social media. This week alone, Westminster has alleged that the Russians have been using military grade nerve agents in the United Kingdom in an attempt to assassinate a former intelligence operative.

Senior defence officials in the United Kingdom, France and Germany constantly cite Russia as an existential threat to Europe. The EU imposed sanctions on Russia following the Crimean incident, and the UK is probably going to impose more as a result of the aforementioned assassination attempt (which is at least the second that they've alleged). European politicians aren't doing these things because of the United States: they're doing them because they genuinely view Russia as an international threat. If anything, in the hypothetical situation that the US withdrew its military support, its more likely that anti-Russian hysteria in Europe would increase.

[Love Mountain]

Europe is not a contiguous entity: its military forces are not integrated with one another. In the hypothetical scenario that the military capabilities of the United Kingdom, Germany and France were properly integrated (an undesirable outcome) and funded, then American military support would be less necessary, but still useful.

There is a great deal of part-sharing, technology exchange, and room for integration. Nobody claimed that European militaries operate as one unit, but the idea that American military support is necessary is absurd. As I've explained numerous times.

From a military perspective, there isn't a coherent single foreign policy within the Europe. The major military states (UK, France, Germany) often act independently.

There is a de-facto coherent foreign policy in Europe. They follow American lead. Does it mean they agree on every single issue and operate as a single block with a designated "European" ambassador? No, but Europeans follow America's lead and never go in direct opposition with America.

The United Kingdom and France, in particular, patently have military interests in Africa and the Middle East. Over the past twenty years, European military forces have been engaged in innumerable conflicts in both regions, ranging from Mali, the Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and the Central African Republic to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these conflicts remain ongoing.

The only country with significant ties in Africa is France. America has next to no influence in Africa nor has there ever been a major strategic pivot towards the continent hence why France is allowed to operate as they like. UK has no had a significant influence in the Middle East since the 80s. Conflicts in Middle East today are driven by geopolitical rivalries between Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. America pits these rival factions against each other and maintains supremacy of her "allies" as well as arms trade, where rich oil states buy our toys for war. The same goes for Russia. Europe's role in the region is best exemplified by the Iran-Iraq war where they had little to no input and were relegated to being mere arms dealers.

Liberal European states oppose Russia for a variety of reasons: they disapprove of the Kremlin's involvement in the Ukraine, Syria and Georgia; they dislike Russia's continued support for Assad; they view Putin as an autocrat who is dismantling Russian democracy; they accuse Moscow of interfering in European elections and spreading "propaganda" on social media. This week alone, Westminster has alleged that the Russians have been using military grade nerve agents in the United Kingdom in an attempt to assassinate a former intelligence operative.

Foolish liberal IR assumptions. There is nothing to suggest that they disprove of Kremlin's involvement in Ukraine, Syria, or Georgia. Who were the actual vocal parties in these conflicts? United States. The only European countries who genuinely feel threatened by Russia are the Baltics, Nordics, and Moldova. The rest of the Balkans are indifferent to Russia and prefer bilateral relations to hostility. In fact, that mirrors the European experience with Russia. Who pushed for sanctions? It certainly wasn't France who was profiting from arms sales with Russia. In addition to that, the constant accusations of Russian involvement in European elections is more of a slur against right-wing parties and statement of facts. Which is perfectly understandable when liberals are interested in political power that Russia is actively impeding to sow chaos and disunity on the European continent. However, there is little indication that any of this bravado actually matters. As any observer will tell you, pre-Ukraine Crisis Europe was perfectly happy to do business with Russia in spite of its 2008 invasion of Georgia. There are significant interests to be satisfied from doing business with Russia, while provocative and aggressive posturing increases the risk of Russian military action.

Senior defence officials in the United Kingdom, France and Germany constantly cite Russia as an existential threat to Europe. The EU imposed sanctions on Russia following the Crimean incident, and the UK is probably going to impose more as a result of the aforementioned assassination attempt (which is at least the second that they've alleged). European politicians aren't doing these things because of the United States: they're doing them because they genuinely view Russia as an international threat. If anything, in the hypothetical situation that the US withdrew its military support, its more likely that anti-Russian hysteria in Europe would increase.

Considering how tightly integrated America is in NATO and NATO's influence on the numerous armed forces in Europe that's not surprising. Europe should become independent of U.S's foreign policy which will see them re-orient their policy towards Russia. NATO should be abolished and replaced by an EU military arm that integrated all of EU's armed forces. It will easily be the second most powerful armed force on the globe which won't have anything to fear from Russia, a military that has a number of constraints on its capabilities.

[Magnum_Opus]

Let's see, you write multiple paragraphs, implying I'm stupid and need to read a book in economics, imply I am an ideologue of a certain school of economics, when what the facts come down to, and you admit that nations need to fund their expenditure. One doesn't even need to be acquainted in economics to realise this, it comes down to common sense. Countries in the EU have extremely high public spending as a percentage of GDP; in the cases such as the Scandinavian countries in which you are so enthusiastic about lauding for their quality of life, their public spending as a percentage of GDP is nearly 50%, and with the exception of Finland, they have low military expenditure. Due to the Laffer curve, raising extra revenue to spend on military will be quite difficult when their tax rate is already so high, and even if it wasn't, any increase in military spending necessitates either and increase in taxes, or a decrease in public spending elsewhere, either of which would decrease the quality of living of the inhabitants. If America didn't prop up Europe, they would have to be less indulgent with their social spending.


And Classical Liberal, i.e. Libertarian ideas haven't had any significant influence on modern day countries? Yes, I suppose people John Locke or Adam Smith haven't had any influence on modern day countries. You're either incredibly ignorant or incredibly disingenuous.

[Aexodus]

So Europe is currently Communist?

No, but the EU has evolved beyond a simple trade agreement into a system where unelected officials make decisions that affect half the continent, remarkably similar to USSR authoritarian government.

Letting the masses and the market determine who gets what and who lives how is only going to lead to misery and ruin.

Your own words. As well as your assessment that bigger government (with socialistic policies) is required for a better standard of life. It isnt.

[Love Mountain]

No, but the EU has evolved beyond a simple trade agreement into a system where unelected officials make decisions that affect half the continent, remarkably similar to USSR authoritarian government.

"Evolved"? You realize your own national government is full of technocrats who make decisions on your behalf without consulting you? That is the entire premise of representative democracy and parliamentary systems. I.e., citizens are too stupid to have significant input on decisions, hence they only get to choose what they like and what they don't like. The actual process of governing is almost completely detached from the public.

Your own words. As well as your assessment that bigger government (with socialistic policies) is required for a better standard of life. It isnt.

No, I am correct in my assessment. Unregulated markets and direct democracies don't work as a means of government. They are systems that lead to self-destruction which is observable through history.

[Aexodus]

No, I am correct in my assessment. Unregulated markets and direct democracies don't work as a means of government. They are systems that lead to self-destruction which is observable through history.

I politely disagree, planned economies are some of the worst in the world to live in, Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela. Id much rather live in free market America, or a UK that answers only to its voters, not Brussels.

[Love Mountain]

Let's see, you write multiple paragraphs, implying I'm stupid and need to read a book in economics, imply I am an ideologue of a certain school of economics, when what the facts come down to,

Clearly I was correct in my assessment as we can judge by the next gem.

and you admit that nations need to fund their expenditure.

You realize borrowing money is a way of "funding their expenditure"?

One doesn't even need to be acquainted in economics to realise this, it comes down to common sense. Countries in the EU have extremely high public spending as a percentage of GDP; in the cases such as the Scandinavian countries in which you are so enthusiastic about lauding for their quality of life, their public spending as a percentage of GDP is nearly 50%, and with the exception of Finland, they have low military expenditure. Due to the Laffer curve, raising extra revenue to spend on military will be quite difficult when their tax rate is already so high, and even if it wasn't, any increase in military spending necessitates either and increase in taxes, or a decrease in public spending elsewhere, either of which would decrease the quality of living of the inhabitants. If America didn't prop up Europe, they would have to be less indulgent with their social spending.

The Laffer curve is a theoretical mechanism that gives no straight number. You have no idea what side of the Laffer curve any of European nations are. This again demonstrates that you are not educated in the field. There is also nothing wrong with high public spending. Nordic countries also have a high standard of living. In fact, most European nations do. Compared to some 200+ sovereign countries, Europeans are consistently in the top 30.

And again, America does not need to prop up Europe. We do it because we benefit immensely from having a de-facto giant military base in Eurasia as well as keeping our competitor in check.

And Classical Liberal, i.e. Libertarian ideas haven't had any significant influence on modern day countries? Yes, I suppose people John Locke or Adam Smith haven't had any influence on modern day countries. You're either incredibly ignorant or incredibly disingenuous.

They weren't Libertarian and Libertarians are not Classical Liberals. Two different things, stop conflating the two.

I politely disagree, planned economies are some of the worst in the world to live in, Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela. Id much rather live in free market America, or a UK that answers only to its voters, not Brussels.

None of those are unregulated free markets. My statement stands. You prefer to live in economies that have a significant amount of regulation, planning, and control from the central authority. Stop deluding yourself.

[Magnum_Opus]

Oh my, so first you berate me for pointing out that Libertarianism was invented in the 1950s by pointing out that it had ideological predecessors, and then when I point out how much of an influence the ideological predecessors of Libertarianism had, you try to discount it by saying "that wasn't true Libertarianism".

And then you go in circles by again failing to understand that debt needs to be paid back.

You're a funny little man, you are.

[Aexodus]

They weren't Libertarian and Libertarians are not Classical Liberals. Two different things, stop conflating the two.

John Locke, known as the 'the father of liberalism' wasn't a classical liberal if not a modern day libertarian? And Adam Smith, the father of the modern free market? If they weren't libertarian, and they weren't classical liberals, what were they then. They certainly don't fit the modern American definition of 'Liberal'

None of those are unregulated free markets. My statement stands. You prefer to live in economies that have a significant amount of regulation, planning, and control from the central authority. Stop deluding yourself.

America is a free market, the U.K. is a mixed economy, but mostly still unregulated. Even the Royal Mail had to be privatised, we're learning economic planning doesn't work the hard way, the NHS is next.

In Soviet Russia, Venezuela etc and other socialist countries, people have very little personal freedoms, as everything belongs to the state. Cuba is the only mildly successful full socialist model I know of, and even then you literally can't rent out a spare room without government approval.

Letting the free market decide doesn't lead to ruin. It is the difference between North American prosperity, and the post-Guavra etc mess South America is in. It is the basis of the Western world's prosperity.