Creating a libertarian nation

No country is “completely” libertarian in that all social, economic, and foreign policies adhere to a libertarian philosophy, but if individual sections of certain nations are observed, a nation can be assembled in which all sectors adhere to principles of freedom.  All of the countries listed include areas of increasing state involvement as well. The Singaporean government, for example, oppresses individual freedom with gusto, but the nation as a whole is not to be observed.  An argument could be made that certain facets of a nation are inseparable from one another (with which I don’t agree), but the objective of this post is not how one country can be free in every way, but only that each aspect of a country can be based on individual freedom and minimal government interference.

Foreign Policy of Switzerland – Swiss military policy is so favored in the Libertarian Party that it’s listed on the official party website.  The successful neutrality of Switzerland through virtually all modern conflict is a go-to example of what to promote for many Libertarians.  Switzerland has managed to stay free of outside influence, even from the Nazis, without imposing its will on other nations.  The Swiss steer clear of military alliances, but a perfectly Libertarian country could still intervene in the case of a clear threat to an ally.  Particularly in the United States, citizens who admire the Swiss policy of armed neutrality generally appreciate the military strength if needed, which helps deter invaders, as well as the lack of intervention that could be formed by a single executive leader.  I’ve heard Ron Paul accused of being isolationist, because he does not support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or barely any other overseas involvement.  A consequence of this accusation is the implication that the United States, or any powerful country, can only be either isolationist or interventionist.

This is just not true.  Dr. Paul, and other like-minded individuals, advocates peaceful diplomatic relations with all nations, if possible, and defensive wars when absolutely necessary.  The Swiss constitution maintains in its very first section that the country should preserve liberty, democracy, and independence, and urges the promotion of human rights abroad.  While morality should not be decided by the state, Swiss humanitarian aid can be allowed as a strategy if it significantly increases diplomatic peace for Switzerland.

The Free Market Economy of Germany –   German commitment to preventing state involvement in the market started after World War 2.  The Nazis, like any fascists, were in complete control of the economy, and although they frequently aided corporations with money and free labor, being pro-business is not the same as being pro-market.  Germans in the post-war period wanted to avoid any possible repeat of the regime that had just been deposed, and the benefits of their free market are obvious today.  I don’t even need to post current statistics, (Google it if you want) because anyone with even a basic following of world events can vouch for me.   Germany leads Europe economically, and pulls more than its own weight in the EU, to the point where citizens of poorer (and more socialist) countries will vocally complain that they are ‘owned’ by Germans.

However, support for Germany can only go so far.  The term for their specific economy is ‘social market economy’, which is really a contradiction, and the social part is larger than I’d like.  The state has been taking a bigger and bigger role, especially since Unification.  I like the German work ethic, but the state needs to be kept out of the economy completely.  There should be thought similar to…

The Singaporean Attitude towards Welfare – First I’d like to repeat myself that I’m surgically removing a specific piece of Singapore, and not supporting all or even most of the current government.  Nationally, Singapore suppresses a ton of rights that should never be repressed, but they treat welfare how anyone should.

Strict libertarians would want absolutely no state-provide welfare, but so little is present in Singapore that I’m willing to allow it.  Throughout the country, welfare is looked down upon, and the process is intentionally slow.  The government is stingy because there is a nationwide fear that too much social aid will “undercut the work ethic while burdening taxpayers.”  This attitude is basic and essential to a society based on individual freedom and responsibility.  Even for those who claim welfare is necessary to a humane society, the outlook that welfare is a last result and only for very urgent situations can be accepted.  For our hypothetical country of libertarianism, Singapore provides an outline of one important aspect despite the numerable instances where Singapore intrudes on liberty.

The United State before Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and any Gun Control – the United States before 1934 had, as far as I can tell, no laws of gun control.  In the earlier twentieth century, no laws prohibiting the sale of drugs or alcohol existed either, save a law prohibiting the import of opium from China.  The instinctive reaction of most people whom I’ve spoken with is that drugs, guns, and in some cases alcohol should be banned because they are bad.  Using drugs is unhealthy, so why not ban it?  Guns kill people, so why not ban them too?  These questions, while they have altruistic origins, are overly simplistic.  Gun ownership can be justified by fulfilling the need of self-defense from criminals and tyranny, but no products ever need to be justified to be owned.  The consumer has the right to purchase whatever he or she desires, and commits no crime by owning items or substances that are potentially dangerous.  An unnecessary correlation of drugs, some weapons, and crime exists in the minds of mainly because they’re illegal.  Hard drugs, for example, are often sold by criminals to criminals, but this situation only arises because of the fact that the substances are illegal.  No reason exists that hard drugs need to be sold by dangerous people, and with the lifting of drug prohibition, the sale can be completely safe.

Remember that no one should be made to own anything.  Our hypothetical country would never force its citizens to own any weapons, or own or use any drugs or alcohol.  Drug users would be just as forbidden to harm innocent people as anyone, and violent crimes would still be violent crimes.  The population, though, would always have the option of owning anything they want to own.

 

For now, these are all the basic political areas I can think of, and I hope I’ve provided enough information for each individual country.  No country that I can find is perfectly Libertarian, but if parts of different countries are combined, we can see what a truly free country would look like.

Here are the websites I used as sources; in the order I used them:

http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy

http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/facts/bl_economy.htm

http://www.economist.com/node/15524092