I said, or infered that countries with smaller populations 'tend', to have smaller crime rates. That is, not all countries with small populations have small crime rates, but many do have smaller crime rates, per capita. And yes, based on poverty and economics and a few other things, I would say that a country such as Dominica would have higher crime rates per capita, probably 3.0000000909 per 1000 people total population compaired with (now these are just guesses) Switzerland at 0.000000000009 per 1000 people total population.
Libertarianism=Anarchy.
- Thread starter snfu73
- Start date
I said, or infered that countries with smaller populations 'tend', to have smaller crime rates. That is, not all countries with small populations have small crime rates, but many do have smaller crime rates, per capita. And yes, based on poverty and economics and a few other things, I would say that a country such as Dominica would have higher crime rates per capita, probably 3.0000000909 per 1000 people total population compaired with (now these are just guesses) Switzerland at 0.000000000009 per 1000 people total population.
LOL. It means lots of countries still practice conscription. I wonder what they all have in common?
The cost of living in Switzerland is among the highest in Europe. I'd be interested in see where it ranks amoung the world. I guess I'll google.:sad10:
Anyway, so size isn't really a good indication of efficiency and all those neat things that most gov'ts aren't capable of. I still have yet to see where big gov't is better than small gov't. All I've seen is attacks on small gov't.
I would guess that governments aren't able to support large populations, for long. I bet it's a good one too.
I was also under the impression (as misguided as it may be) that Switzerland has a fairly large government infrastructure, that spreads the wealth around. That's why I'm sort of wondering why Canada and Swizterland are being used in compairson with one another. Anyway, I googled, they're number 7 in the world with resect to high costs of living. Canada is 47.
http://www.finfacts.com/costofliving.htm
a "small government" that taxes just as heavily as Canada.
how utterly utopian.:laughing7:
re: mandatory military service
1) if you're a libertarian ANY such intrusion on choice is anathema.
2) if you're a classical liberal you insist the supply of soldiers be aquired by setting the pay high enough to get what is needed from the free market
3) if you're making excuses for the policy you are neither 1) nor 2)
how utterly utopian.:laughing7:
re: mandatory military service
1) if you're a libertarian ANY such intrusion on choice is anathema.
2) if you're a classical liberal you insist the supply of soldiers be aquired by setting the pay high enough to get what is needed from the free market
3) if you're making excuses for the policy you are neither 1) nor 2)
Perhaps small gov't and citizen's happiness are related:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_hap_net-lifestyle-happiness-net
This was interesting, too:
http://www.happyplanetindex.org/list.htm
and this:
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_hap_net-lifestyle-happiness-net
This was interesting, too:
http://www.happyplanetindex.org/list.htm
and this:
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf
:roll: Perhaps their taxation may be as heavy as Canada's but also maybe they get more for their money. IOW, perhaps the Swiss get more for their money. Maybe their wages are simply higher than ours.
Good grief. As I pointed out earlier, they've already had two referendums about whether to keep the military or not and there's another one brewing.. Both times have been pretty close. For another thing, although service is mandatory, since 1996 it has been pretty easy to apply for and be granted civilian service. I guess maybe you missed that post, or ignored it.
wages are irrelevant to the discussion. Tax-to-GDP is not a per cap metric. Doing "more for the money" is not an indication of minarchy. In fact since the baselines are roughly the same it would make Switzerland LESS minarchistic than Canada since it would mean their government exercises MORE influence over the population.
Last edited:
Its still mandatory service to the state. Voting to keep it is, of course, an act of democracy and all the power to them but in reference to our current discussion, voting to maintain it only serves to confirm a decided lack of libertarian sentiment. I didn't think I had to mention it.
Heinlein´s view of military service is really the most indicative of libertarianism, at least the first part. You take all the people who are eligible for the draft and have a vote whether or not to go to war. Whoever votes yes, are the people that get drafted to go, the very next day, so long as a majority of the eligible voters decided that there should be a war.
There would not be very many wars...
As for mandatory public service, not necessarily miltary, what do you think of earning a right to vote? That is, if you wanted to partake in the government then you would have to be a part of it for a certain length of time. You would have to do some form of service to the country and learn something about the government in the meantime, but only if you wanted the privelege of voting.
There would not be very many wars...
As for mandatory public service, not necessarily miltary, what do you think of earning a right to vote? That is, if you wanted to partake in the government then you would have to be a part of it for a certain length of time. You would have to do some form of service to the country and learn something about the government in the meantime, but only if you wanted the privelege of voting.
It sure doesn't look like it. I think to most people it looks like the Swiss have more of an influence over their gov't than the other way around. I don't know a whole lot about economics but I have a pretty good grasp of gov't workings and political philosophy and I have experienced at least my fair share of interaction with the various levels of Canadian gov'ts. Certainly enough to suggest that the Canadian gov't could do with an overhaul and trimming.
Last edited:
Perhaps voting to maintain the military may be anti-libertarian, but it isn't necessarily anti-minarachist especially when they give the conscripted a way to get out of "mandatory service". :roll:
Doesn't seem like there would be.
I think that'd probably be of benefit to an extent although it might have the tendency to slow down gov't processes even farther than they are now. What would also be interesting is if politicians actually had to be personally affected by some of their decisions.
Uniform or no, they still have to serve under mandate. I never said that it was "anti-minarchist", whatever the hell that is. I already dealt with your erroneous claim to Switzerland being minarchist by pointing out our tax load is on par with theirs. Somehow you think there's a difference. Biggest one I can think of is that you pay in to one and not the other.