Posted: 5/28/2014 9:39:25 PM EDT
|
Are there any nations on Earth that are not either communist or at least socialist?
With such a huge fraction of our national budget and national debt going to social programs, I consider the USA to be socialist nation. Is there anywhere on Earth one could go and not live in a communist/socialist nation? The idea is to study that place to see if we can learn anything positive from them, as opposed to moving there to live. How are their economies and societies? |
|
The Heritage Foundation puts out a pretty good index of economic freedom. I don't agree with parts of their evaluation, but it's a good starting point.
1 Hong Kong 2 Singapore 3 Australia 4 Switzerland 5 New Zealand 6 Canada 7 Chile 8 Mauritius 9 Ireland 10 Denmark |
|
Quoted:
The Heritage Foundation puts out a pretty good index of economic freedom. I don't agree with parts of their evaluation, but it's a good starting point. 1 Hong Kong 2 Singapore 3 Australia 4 Switzerland 5 New Zealand 6 Canada 7 Chile 8 Mauritius 9 Ireland 10 Denmark Australia is pretty damn socialist |
|
Quoted:
Australia is pretty damn socialist Quoted:
Quoted:
The Heritage Foundation puts out a pretty good index of economic freedom. I don't agree with parts of their evaluation, but it's a good starting point. 1 Hong Kong 2 Singapore 3 Australia 4 Switzerland 5 New Zealand 6 Canada 7 Chile 8 Mauritius 9 Ireland 10 Denmark Australia is pretty damn socialist They are pretty damn socialist compared to capitalism. Compared to other countries, overall, not so much. Also keep in mind that limited government is not the only consideration when they evaluate economic freedom. The state of economic freedom in the world is pretty fucking dismal. |
|
I am not asking about economic freedom. Your list is full of socialist governments - Ireland is another one. I think most of those are. I am asking about socialism and socialist states. Are there any that are not? |
| At least some of the capital within a country should be owned and managed by the central government of the polity in question, or by its laws, then by the various subordinate polities within it, such as, say, a nationalized industry. The government should have a major say in how the economy runs and be able to intervene, and essentially if it wants to centrally manage the economy. At the very least the law should provide for this. Beyond that, it should also have it provided for by law that the central government, or the government generally, has the right and authority to intervene in society in general (after all, socialism is by no means just an economic model) and essentially be able to manage society; if we're talking about more modern forms of socialism (as opposed to romantic socialism), the goal would be a "scientific" management of society. There would have to be few practical limits on the power of the state; it should be able to intervene in most parts of the lives of its citizens, if not all; it would be totalitarian, even if it were not harsh like the ComBloc countries. And of course, a natural feature of such a state is a large Provider State and efforts to redistribute wealth and other things in the name of equality in general. Egalitarianism in theory, at least, if not in practice, would be an ideological hallmark of such a state, and naturally, at least on the face of it (and quite possibly in practice), it would be "democratic." Democracy and socialism, after all, easily go hand-in-hand. It could be nationalist, statist, internationalist, seek a communist end-state, or something else. A relativizing of private property where it is not simply nationalized may well be a feature ( as it was in National Socialist Germany) of such a government, but such does not necessarily have to be the case. |
|
Quoted:
At least some of the capital within a country should be owned and managed by the central government of the polity in question, or by its laws, then by the various subordinate polities within it, such as, say, a nationalized industry. The government should have a major say in how the economy runs and be able to intervene, and essentially if it wants to centrally manage the economy. At the very least the law should provide for this. Beyond that, it should also have it provided for by law that the central government, or the government generally, has the right and authority to intervene in society in general (after all, socialism is by no means just an economic model) and essentially be able to manage society; if we're talking about more modern forms of socialism (as opposed to romantic socialism), the goal would be a "scientific" management of society. There would have to be few practical limits on the power of the state; it should be able to intervene in most parts of the lives of its citizens, if not all; it would be totalitarian, even if it were not harsh like the ComBloc countries. And of course, a natural feature of such a state is a large Provider State and efforts to redistribute wealth and other things in the name of equality in general. Egalitarianism in theory, at least, if not in practice, would be an ideological hallmark of such a state, and naturally, at least on the face of it (and quite possibly in practice), it would be "democratic." Democracy and socialism, after all, easily go hand-in-hand. It could be nationalist, statist, internationalist, seek a communist end-state, or something else. A relativizing of private property where it is not simply nationalized may well be a feature ( as it was in National Socialist Germany) of such a government, but such does not necessarily have to be the case. Government has historically been a far worse allocator of resources than the free market. |
|
Quoted:
Government has historically been a far worse allocator of resources than the free market. Quoted:
Quoted:
At least some of the capital within a country should be owned and managed by the central government of the polity in question, or by its laws, then by the various subordinate polities within it, such as, say, a nationalized industry. The government should have a major say in how the economy runs and be able to intervene, and essentially if it wants to centrally manage the economy. At the very least the law should provide for this. Beyond that, it should also have it provided for by law that the central government, or the government generally, has the right and authority to intervene in society in general (after all, socialism is by no means just an economic model) and essentially be able to manage society; if we're talking about more modern forms of socialism (as opposed to romantic socialism), the goal would be a "scientific" management of society. There would have to be few practical limits on the power of the state; it should be able to intervene in most parts of the lives of its citizens, if not all; it would be totalitarian, even if it were not harsh like the ComBloc countries. And of course, a natural feature of such a state is a large Provider State and efforts to redistribute wealth and other things in the name of equality in general. Egalitarianism in theory, at least, if not in practice, would be an ideological hallmark of such a state, and naturally, at least on the face of it (and quite possibly in practice), it would be "democratic." Democracy and socialism, after all, easily go hand-in-hand. It could be nationalist, statist, internationalist, seek a communist end-state, or something else. A relativizing of private property where it is not simply nationalized may well be a feature ( as it was in National Socialist Germany) of such a government, but such does not necessarily have to be the case. Government has historically been a far worse allocator of resources than the free market. Of course. I'm simply answering the question posed in the post above mine. The real value of a free market is in its being essential to the existence of a liberal polity. Even if its economic results were rather less than optimal, it would be worth having for that reason alone. |
|
Let's accept some, most or all of that definition, especially the parts that capture the linkage between government actions (laws, policies) and the lives of the people (redistribution of wealth through taxation, economic intervention, etc).
Given this definition, are there ANY governments on Earth that are not socialist or communist in nature? |