Support Complete Libertarianism in Ireland?

Fukuyama

Would you support a new constitution and laws that ensure you can do whatever the fcuk you want so long as it doesn't interfere with others?

Take drugs. Use prostitutes. Gay marraige. Sleep in a hammock on top of a mountain etc... etc...

I'm not saying I support the guy 100% on his policies - but he has the right idea when it comes to libertarianism in my opinion....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6a9549ZeqQ

Do you think we should adopt libertarianism here in Ireland??

Captain_Generic

Dean0088 wrote: »

Would you support a new constitution and laws that ensure you can do whatever the fcuk you want so long as it doesn't interfere with others?

Use prostitutes.

You'd be interfering with her vagina

Iwasfrozen

Dean0088 wrote: »

Would you support a new constitution and laws that ensure you can do whatever the fcuk you want so long as it doesn't interfere with others?

Take drugs. Use prostitutes. Gay marraige. Sleep in a hammock on top of a mountain etc... etc...

I'm not saying I support the guy 100% on his policies - but he has the right idea when it comes to libertarianism in my opinion....

Do you think we should adopt libertarianism here in Ireland??

No because some things such as taking drugs or abortion are up for debate on whether or not they harm anyone else. Besides the liberalist economic policies are my idea of hell, there's more to life then making money.

orourkeda

Alex Jones is that you?

Fukuyama

Captain_Generic wrote: »

You'd be interfering with her vagina

And she'd be letting you. Prostitution =/= rape...

Fukuyama

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No because some things such as taking drugs or abortion are up for debate on whether or not they harm anyone else. Besides the liberalist economic policies are my idea of hell, there's more to life then making money.

I can see your point with abortion. Although I'm pro-choice.

But how can taking drugs interfere with anyone else more so than it already does?

El Weirdo

Dean0088 wrote: »

Sleep in a hammock on top of a mountain...

This is illegal?

Saila

Dean0088 wrote: »

And she'd be letting you. Prostitution =/= rape...

it is if you dont pay

Fukuyama

El Weirdo wrote: »

This is illegal?

I'd imagine some prick garda would come along and ask that you piss off...

Fukuyama

Saila wrote: »

it is if you dont pay

...In itself that'd be debatable.

Nevertheless, you'd pay. Hence why its called prostitution and not rape.

RockinRolla

Dean0088 wrote: »

Would you support a new constitution and laws that ensure you can do whatever the fcuk you want so long as it doesn't interfere with others?

Take drugs. Use prostitutes. Gay marraige. Sleep in a hammock on top of a mountain etc... etc...

I'm not saying I support the guy 100% on his policies - but he has the right idea when it comes to libertarianism in my opinion....

Do you think we should adopt libertarianism here in Ireland??

Libertarianism is not about making new laws - the ideology supports repealing them. Libertarians don't support making new laws, for example, to make sure gay marriage can occur, instead, it's about removing government from marriage altogether. The same with drugs - no new laws saying we can use them, just get rid of the laws saying we can't. That's the difference and yes, I would support it - indeed, ancient Ireland was libertarian, everything you see today stems from the British .

Saila

moar!

Captain_Generic

Dean0088 wrote: »

And she'd be letting you. Prostitution =/= rape...

Well technically interfering with another person could be anything from them having to change direction on a path to walk around you, to shaking someones hand. Its all interference. So "as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone" is way too general

Nodin

Dean0088 wrote: »

Would you support a new constitution and laws that ensure you can do whatever the fcuk you want so long as it doesn't interfere with others?

Take drugs. Use prostitutes. Gay marraige. Sleep in a hammock on top of a mountain etc... etc...

I'm not saying I support the guy 100% on his policies - but he has the right idea when it comes to libertarianism in my opinion....

Do you think we should adopt libertarianism here in Ireland??

We should be socially liberal no matter what economic model we have.

Wolfe Tone

No I wouldnt.


The state needs to protect the vulnerable in society.

Fukuyama

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

No I wouldnt.


The state needs to protect the vulnerable in society.

And how would libertarianism prevent that?

The core message is that you could do whatever you want so long as it's victimless.

Obviously, if it effected another it wouldn't be victimless and as such wouldn't be tolerated. To be honest, nothing sickens me more than new laws being passed that tell people what to do, how to act etc...

Take for example measures to tell people when and where they can drink. Or laws against loitering. Small little issues that have become big ones because pointless laws have intensified the problem.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Dean0088 wrote: »

And how would libertarianism prevent that?

The core message is that you could do whatever you want so long as it's victimless.

Libertarians are opposed to the government helping the vulnerable in society. I'd agree with people being able to do whatever they want if its victim-less but thats not all there is to libertarianism. If Ireland were to become libertarian there would be no dole, no public health service, and no public schooling. We'd be setting foot back into the 19th century in economic terms no matter how progressive we became socially.

Fukuyama

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Libertarians are opposed to the government helping the vulnerable in society. I'd agree with people being able to do whatever they want if its victim-less but thats not all there is to libertarianism. If Ireland were to become libertarian there would be no dole, no public health service, and no public schooling. We'd be setting foot back into the 19th century in economic terms no matter how progressive we became socially.

And I agree with that. GOVERNMENTS shouldn't help the weak in society. It's up to society to do that. I completely agree with privatised healthcare, education etc... so long as it's on a libertarian basis - NOT a capitalist one like in the US.

Saila

in theory marge communism works

Fukuyama

Saila wrote: »

in theory marge communism works

On a practical level yeah but people wouldn't accept it.

I think libertarianism has more 'acceptability' to it.

hatrickpatrick

100% yes. No victim = no crime.

RMD

Dean0088 wrote: »

Take drugs.

Depends on the drugs, hard drugs such as Heroin and Crack Cocaine are notorious for forming habits which will eventually impact on others. Whether it's the users family having to watch them become a shadow of their formerselves or the person at the end of a needle being told to hand over their phone and wallet.

Marijuana and MDMA on the other hand, definite yes. Both are less damaging than alcohol and tobacco, if properly controlled by the government it would help ensure safe and pure drugs while raising huge amounts in tax.

My name is URL

Modern libertarianism has very little to do with simple personal liberty. It's usually supported by right-wingers rather than those on the left. They don't want any state intervention unless it's to protect their own interests.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Dean0088 wrote: »

And I agree with that. GOVERNMENTS shouldn't help the weak in society. It's up to society to do that. I completely agree with privatised healthcare, education etc... so long as it's on a libertarian basis - NOT a capitalist one like in the US.

And what do you think Libertarianism is? Its capitalism brought to its most extreme form.

Fallschirmjager

yes i would ...and i would sort out our financial issues almost overnight.

and to those about protecting the vulnerable...how that working out for you now...poverty is a weapon used for votes, nothing more or less. it allows people of one belief to target another and pitches one group against another.

if we had no government involved in marriage, we would not have the issues related to it, pick a church or organisation you agree with and leave those who choose differently alone. by the way are you happy paying for all those high court 100K a day deals to sort it out? they dont care, you are paying.

healthcare, you would pay for BUT...now you are paying for it you just dont realise it, except we would have competing forces for your money. currently you are paying 4 grand per person per year for a health system that is a joke, and that excludes your private plan so you can see a feaking doctor. healthcare is about jobs and votes...you are the blood necessary to oil the machine.

and to those thinking this is a freedom to use drugs...yes it is...except when you collapse, I aint paying for you to get better, you are on your own. at least i would not, other may..its called charity

we also get away finally from ridiculous tax...tax would be between a flat rate of 6 to 10%. that pays for police, maybe roads and sundries and a limited govt. the govt is normally restricted on the number of times it can even meet to avoid them fracking it up.

we also stop calling the appropriation of your money a tax, its nothing more than theft. tax allows for the creation of an elite class that know better then you and they deploy your money to suit their preferences, so you bounce from left to right each taking more and more and also screwing it up. it also puts an end to the relationship between government and business as there is no benefit for business to get involved and nothing that allows a govt to benefit. so you would have no builders and bankers creating a bubble with government in a circle jerk you pay for.

also we finally get to call social engineering what it is...charity. dont like that name? tough. well that what it is except currently i dont have any say in where the govt decide to spend my money and they call it cool names to hide it so the recipient feels better. with charity i choose.

the fear of liberty is that you do have to get off your ass for yourself and stop waiting for a hand out. what you swap for now is security but you give up all of your liberty to a govt interested in itself. thats the fear government wants you to feel that only they can help you...but look at the results of 60 years of their efforts? more division, more laws on laws that dont work, more poverty and more intrusion from the moral minority. the sole goal of government is more government, thats why you wind up with 1 in 40 people you see walking in the street today working in a healthcare system that doesnt work...dont believe me...4 million divided by 100,000, what do you get? thats why the govt do deals with unions with the suppliers because they dont care...you pay. its why they can put a tax on pensions without caring...you pay. you will always pay, until you take the one thing they need...and that the power over you.

so as you can see...yes i support it. and also to those who think about the poor and care more than i do because you shout and scream that you care...no you dont (and quite frankly you have done a piss poor job so far as we can see) but your elitism leads you to believe you have the answers...you dont, but your bullhorn of abuse is nothing more than a cloak to steal someone elses money to suit your personal agenda and boost your ego.

rubensni

Libertarianism, to me, equates with the complete collapse of society. Imagine this, for example, happening here: No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

Computer Sci

RockinRolla wrote: »

indeed, ancient Ireland was libertarian,

No it most certainly was not, it was quiet hierarchical and due deference was paid to higher ranking clan chieftains and nobles. Druids in particular were highly esteemed and respected members of Ancient Ireland - particularly regarding social, moral and diplomatic issues.

Could you (I'm thinking that maybe you are American) stick to your Montana Militia, Ayn Rand and Chicago School of Economics ideologies, agenda and outlook, and stop trying to rewrite, or retell the history of other countries to suit your own agenda.

Capt'n Midnight

Somalia is a Libertarian's wet dream.

TPD

rubensni wrote: »

Libertarianism, to me, equates with the complete collapse of society. Imagine this, for example, happening here: No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

That's like that time I wouldn't pay for a plane ticket and wasn't allowed on the plane. Outraged, so I was!

MagicMarker

Saila wrote: »

it is if you dont pay

Sleeping with a prostitute is rape if you don't pay?

What. the. fúck?

Zebra3

Captain_Generic wrote: »

You'd be interfering with her vagina

Maybe he doesn't have one.

Computer Sci

Why do these self-styled and self-proclaimed Libertarians,

(1) Drive to work on government funded roads?
(2) Use the internet, which relies on government funded antenna, signalling systems and electricity lines?
(3) Drink water from taps, when the water reaching their taps was the result of government funded pipelines?
(4) I’m assuming they don’t have solar panels attached to their roofs –why do they power their homes, or flick the switch when it’s government sponsored power stations and infrastructure that got it there in the first place?
(5) Get university educations in government sponsored universities. Ironically, that’s where many of the loudest anarchist and libertarian barks come from – behind university walls and in academia, the same institutions which are supported by the state much of the time.

I could go on with examples – and there are many more of them. So I am seriously wondering, if they are so independent and anti-government why don’t they just put up or shut up – pack up their bags and go and live in the wilderness in Siberia or the Sahara Desert to carve out a new life for themselves – free of government intervention. They could provide themselves there with their own (1) Energy, (2) Drinking Water, (3) Healthcare system, (4) Infrastructure, (5) Internet, (6) Emergency services etc.

Or are they all talk. Do they realise perhaps that deep down that they are nothing more than verbal warriors who can afford to talk nonsense – given that they are safely situated within the confines of civilisation – and that if they were to actually go and live in the wilderness, that they would not last more than a day?

pragmatic1

Nope. It would turn into hell after a week.

rubensni

TPD wrote: »

That's like that time I wouldn't pay for a plane ticket and wasn't allowed on the plane. Outraged, so I was!

Silly analogy as flying is discretionary, but putting out fires is everyone's business.

Simple question: Would you agree with the 'no pay = no spray' system being adopted by your local fire brigade, yes or no?

PeakOutput

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

If Ireland were to become libertarian there would be no dole, no public health service, and no public schooling. .

That is not true at all but you keep believing whatever you want

'Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action.[1] Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs and organizations—all advocate either the minimization or the elimination of the state, and the goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom.'

Nothing there about not helping the vulnerable. You can have a socially libertarian society (personal freedoms, minimum intrusion from the goverment in day to day lives of people who dont want it) while still have policies and systems in place to help people reach a specific standard of living.

I think I should be able to do whatever the **** I want as long as it dosn't hurt anyone else. That is libertarian. I also believe that center right economic policies are the correct ones. This means as free a market as possible (not the same as no regulation). Lack of regulation can harm people therefore it is not a libertarian ideal. There should be the bare minimum of regulation so that everyone is treated fairly and rewarded on merit and nobody can be taken advantage of, thats it. Taxes that should be taken should be the minimum possible amount to run the goverment with enough money to help the worst of in society by providing the minimum needed to live, providing them with healthcare to live long lives and providing them with education to better themselves and therefore not rely on the state anymore.

I don't believe the goverment should stop me doing drugs, having sex with who i want, gambling my money in any way i want prevent me from travelling were I want or forcing me to do anything basically.

saying that libertarians believe in absolutely no goverment or controls of any kind is the same as saying that anyone on the left wants us all to work for the same wage live in the same types of house drive the same types of cars and eat the same food. simply not true

Big Nasty

I find this attitude very laissez-faire! :pac:

Hookah

Dean0088 wrote: »

Take drugs. Use prostitutes. Gay marraige. Sleep in a hammock on top of a mountain etc... etc...

Sleep in a hammock on top of a mountain?

What sort of sick society are you advocating?

Balmed Out

RockinRolla wrote: »

ancient Ireland was libertarian, everything you see today stems from the British .

Remember Brehon Law from school ?

Prior to English rule, Ireland had its own indigenous system of law dating from Celtic times, which survived until the 17th century when it was finally supplanted by the English common law. This native system of law, known as the Brehon law, developed from customs which had been passed on orally from one generation to the next. In the 7th century AD the laws were written down for the first time. Brehon law was administered by Brehons (or brithem). They were the successors to Celtic druids and while similar to judges; their role was closer to that of an arbitrator. Their task was to preserve and interpret the law rather than to expand it.


etc etc from
http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/3CBAE4FE856E917B80256DF800494ED9?opendocument

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brehon_law

whiteonion

I myself would love to see AK47-wielding chieldren high on crack, down with the nanny state!

dizzywizlw

Stateless society is a dream born of naive intellectualism, a product of a system of thought that scoffs at the self-serving nature of mankind and ignores the pre-eminence of biological imperatives.


Of course I just call them Pinkos but whatevs.

PeakOutput

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Stateless society is a dream born of naive intellectualism, a product of a system of thought that scoffs at the self-serving nature of mankind and ignores the pre-eminence of biological imperatives.

good thing thats not what anyone is looking for so

RMD

MagicMarker wrote: »

Sleeping with a prostitute is rape if you don't pay?

What. the. fúck?

I prefer to call it shoplifting. Doesn't sound as sleazy.

HavingCrack

Left Libertarianism-Yes
Right Libertarianism-Definately No

RockinRolla

Computer Sci wrote: »

No it most certainly was not, it was quiet hierarchical and due deference was paid to higher ranking clan chieftains and nobles. Druids in particular were highly esteemed and respected members of Ancient Ireland - particularly regarding social, moral and diplomatic issues.

Could you (I'm thinking that maybe you are American) stick to your Montana Militia, Ayn Rand and Chicago School of Economics ideologies, agenda and outlook, and stop trying to rewrite, or retell the history of other countries to suit your own agenda.

Oh for goodness sake, would you please do a bit of research before derailing a topic that is universally debated to death and accepted.

“For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has writ*ten: “There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforce*ment of justice…. There was no trace of State-administered justice.”9

How then was justice secured? The basic political unit of ancient Ireland was the tuath. All “freemen” who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath’s members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their “kings.” An important point is that, in contrast to primitive tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. Often, two or more tuatha decided to merge into a single, more efficient unit. As Professor Peden states, “the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension.”10 In short, they did not have the modern State with its claim to sovereignty over a given (usually expanding) territorial area, divorced from the landed prop*erty rights of its subjects; on the contrary, tuatha were voluntary associa*tions which only comprised the landed properties of its voluntary mem*bers. Historically, about 80 to 100 tuatha coexisted at any time throughout Ireland.

But what of the elected “king”? Did he constitute a form of State ruler? Chiefly, the king functioned as a religious high priest, presiding over the worship rites of the tuath, which functioned as a voluntary religious, as well as a social and political, organization. As in pagan, pre-Christian, priesthoods, the kingly function was hereditary, this prac*tice carrying over to Christian times. The king was elected by the tuath from within a royal kin-group (the derbfine), which carried the hereditary priestly function. Politically, however, the king had strictly limited functions: he was the military leader of the tuath, and he presided over the tuath assemblies. But he could only conduct war or peace negotiations as agent of the assemblies; and he was in no sense sovereign and had no rights of administering justice over tuath members. He could not legislate, and when he himself was party to a lawsuit, he had to submit his case to an independent judicial arbiter.

Again, how, then, was law developed and justice maintained? In the first place, the law itself was based on a body of ancient and immemorial custom, passed down as oral and then written tradition through a class of professional jurists called the brehons. The brehons were in no sense public, or governmental, officials; they were simply selected by parties to disputes on the basis of their reputations for wisdom, knowledge of the customary law, and the integrity of their decisions. As Professor Peden states:

… the professional jurists were consulted by parties to disputes for advice as to what the law was in particular cases, and these same men often acted as arbitrators between suitors. They remained at all times private persons, not public officials; their functioning depended upon their knowledge of the law and the integrity of their judicial reputations.11

Furthermore, the brehons had no connection whatsoever with the individ*ual tuatha or with their kings. They were completely private, national in scope, and were used by disputants throughout Ireland. Moreover, and this is a vital point, in contrast to the system of private Roman lawyers, the brehon was all there was; there were no other judges, no “public” judges of any kind, in ancient Ireland.

It was the brehons who were schooled in the law, and who added glosses and applications to the law to fit changing conditions. Furthermore, there was no monopoly, in any sense, of the brehon jurists; instead, several competing schools of jurisprudence existed and competed for the custom of the Irish people.

How were the decisions of the brehons enforced? Through an elabo*rate, voluntarily developed system of “insurance,” or sureties. Men were linked together by a variety of surety relationships by which they guaran*teed one another for the righting of wrongs, and for the enforcement of justice and the decisions of the brehons. In short, the brehons them*selves were not involved in the enforcement of decisions, which rested again with private individuals linked through sureties. There were vari*ous types of surety. For example, the surety would guarantee with his own property the payment of a debt, and then join the plaintiff in enforcing a debt judgment if the debtor refused to pay. In that case, the debtor would have to pay double damages: one to the original cred*itor, and another as compensation to his surety. And this system applied to all offences, aggressions and assaults as well as commercial contracts; in short, it applied to all cases of what we would call “civil” and “crimi*nal” law. All criminals were considered to be “debtors” who owed restitution and compensation to their victims, who thus became their “creditors.” The victim would gather his sureties around him and pro*ceed to apprehend the criminal or to proclaim his suit publicly and demand that the defendant submit to adjudication of their dispute with the brehons. The criminal might then send his own sureties to negotiate a settlement or agree to submit the dispute to the brehons. If he did not do so, he was considered an “outlaw” by the entire community; he could no longer enforce any claim of his own in the courts, and he was treated to the opprobrium of the entire community.

http://lilarajiva.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/murray-rothbard-a-libertarian-society/





And if you're thinking I'm American, you're even more ignorant than I first thought. I'm Irish and just like ancient Ireland, I'm completely anti-state/free market and quite educated on the issue to be clear. But the one jibe that I couldn't resist quoting was your reference to Ayn Rand - no one well versed on the subject would list this in advance of Rothbard, Friedman, Von Mises and Hayek. They are different, I assure you.


Good day.

Capt'n Midnight

MagicMarker wrote: »

Sleeping with a prostitute is rape if you don't pay?

What. the. fúck?

Oddly enough it is legal in Ireland to pay for sex.

What happens if you pay first but don't get the sex ?

Is the contract legally enforcable ? expecially if the money has been spent and there is no possibilty of recovering it.

Capt'n Midnight

Computer Sci wrote: »

So I am seriously wondering, if they are so independent and anti-government why don’t they just put up or shut up – pack up their bags and go and live in the wilderness in Siberia or the Sahara Desert to carve out a new life for themselves – free of government intervention.

Somalia is a desert country ...

Capt'n Midnight

TBH Libertarians sound like Mé Feinners

the sort that don't want to pay for health insurance because they don't need it now

most of us don't want to spend the rest of our lives making money or having to continuously make decisions that are about making/saving money.

Is it OK for the rest of us to have a simple life instead of a system where a few go ahead people can profit by playing the systems that the rest of us don't really want to learn about ?

PeakOutput

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

the sort that don't want to pay for health insurance because they don't need it now

clearly you dont understand libertarianism very well then

most of us don't want to spend the rest of our lives making money or having to continuously make decisions that are about making/saving money.

what has that got to do with anything?

Is it OK for the rest of us to have a simple life instead of a system where a few go ahead people can profit by playing the systems that the rest of us don't really want to learn about ?

The system should help you to live whatever life you like thats the point


edit; I notice that everyone is jumping on ron paul because they think he is saying he dosnt want there to be goverment or laws or a social justice system when he never said anything of the sort. he is talking about the american system which has a federal goverment that controls the federation of the individual states. most of what he says has got to do with that system and how it is fundamental to that system that the federal goverment should not have any say in anything that the states can decide for themselves (legalising drugs for example, seatbelt laws are another example)

That system is not the one we have so a lot of what he says cannot be applied to here. The only way to compare what he says to here is by considering ireland as one state in a union of many states(the eu for example). he is arguing that ireland has the right to make its own laws first, after that it is his opinion that those laws should not unnecessarily encroach on an individuals freedoms.

Capt'n Midnight

Computer Sci wrote: »

pack up their bags and go and live in the wilderness in Siberia or the Sahara Desert

Then again what would happen if the communists took over the Sahara?

For 5 years, nothing would happen. And then there would be a shortage of sand. :pac:

RockinRolla

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

TBH Libertarians sound like Mé Feinners

the sort that don't want to pay for health insurance because they don't need it now

most of us don't want to spend the rest of our lives making money or having to continuously make decisions that are about making/saving money.

Is it OK for the rest of us to have a simple life instead of a system where a few go ahead people can profit by playing the systems that the rest of us don't really want to learn about ?

It's no a system as such, more like dismantling the current system that interferes in your life at every turn. For example, government stop the poor from earning a living - yes, a person can mind a neighbours child but if he/she decides to accept money for a minding a few children (child-minding is expensive these days) then the government come down on them like a tonne of bricks because they don't have an government issued licence. Absolute rubbish.

Government has monopoly privileges over businesses and take away your hard earned money via a tax system for as they say "the public good" which basically means, subsidising wealthy industries that you may not even benefit from. A person who decides and takes responsibility for their own body i.e - to consume cannabis or other drugs has that right in the privacy of his/her own home instead of some civil service thug coming onto your property and arresting some kid and putting them in prison - it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Live and let live. Government intervention destroys economies - look at ours. Bank guarantees ect - those banks should have been allowed to fall. In a libertarian world, you wouldn't be paying any tax to prop up these zombie establishments. There wouldn't be a Euro either for our economy to live and die on - their would be countless private currencies. banks would spring up all over the place if they had gold reserves. The boom bust cycle is a direct cause of government coercion, not the free market. So don't let those socialists tell you any different. Government print money at will and inflate prices - yet they throw anyone else in jail for doing the same thing.

Governments are dangerous. A hazard to your life and your prosperity.

Technique

The countries of the world raked by economic freedom. Not an exact science, but I'd rather be living near the top of the list than the bottom:

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking