In before "Objectivism is most compatible", Objectivism is rather new thing, and as far as I know there's no society for which it would be "mainstream" philosophy. I'm looking for something that at least once in it's history was mainstream way of thought/set of believes for at least one society.
Like, not to the point where it's Minarcho-Socialism, but I just want a minimum wage, minor environmental rules, and the government to step in ONLY IF the market makes a failure, and after a little time, the failure cannot be fixed by the market.
Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, I'm kinda new to minarchy.
The top 15 countries (over 1 million population) in terms of GDP per capita
1- Switzerland 2- Norway 3- Ireland 4- Qatar 5- United States 6- Denmark 7- Singapore 8- Sweden 9- Austrellia 10- Netherlands 11- Austria 12- Hong Kong 13- Finland 14- Canada 15- Germany
The only 2 that are libertarian economically would probably be Singapore and Hong Kong. And both those are city-states. The rest all have government interference in the economy, and not exactly a small amount. Libertarians, what do you think?
Edit: this was the list I used https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/
Admittedly I think thereβd be a mix of good and bad. Good because free markets but bad because Iβm not a fan of economic shock therapy and there might be un-intended consequences of this.
At least in my experience, whenever a party with the laissez-faire policy comes to power by election or by revolution, without fail, my national income immediately plummets alongside all my factories shutting down. Even very profitable ones rapidly lose workers before eventually closing. Does anyone else have this experience? On a mechanical level why does this happen? How do AI countries with liberal governments keep their industry? Am I building industry wrong if even profitable ones seemingly canβt survive without being subsidized?
Libertarians say that government regulations only hurt economic growth and workers. What do people on this subreddit think ? Should government regulate markets or let it be?
With the failure of the Obama administration to recover from the recession, I believed that the American voters would grow and learn from the trial and error of socialism and government regulation on businesses and fossil fuels. I believe that the Trump administration did great things for the economy and taxation overall. With Joe Biden winning the election, I fear that we will face more economic turmoil than the Obama administration. My concern is that we fall to far economically and get a bought out by another country before we can revolutionize and adopt Laissez-Faire. I believe the government should be more heavily regulated than checks and balances. Including more of a direct democracy into our republic will lead to a more successful nation.
Hi everyone,
I'm a guy interested in political philosophy and started to be more interested in economy,
I heard Milton Friedman saying that for the Food Standard Agency should be abolished, and let the market decide which product is good and which is bad.
So If the judicial system was pro-consumer let's say, any small harm caused by any product, would make any company involved in a lot of judicial bureaucracy, and pay compensations (or closed idk) if the company was found guilty. isn't in this case justice would distort the market, should the judicial system 'look aside' in certain cases in order to let the market develop ? because if the judicial system is pro-consumer, business people won't like doing business with the masses and would prefer a B2B kind of business ?!
thank you.
So, I recently got into Victoria 2, and I love the economy of the game! (for those who do not know, Victoria 2 has many different economic policies, which determine how much the player affects factories, as opposed to POPs controlling the creation and destruction of factories).
I have played Stellaris for a while, and the game, while great, has always had a problem with the AI being unable to keep up with a player rapidly snowballing out of control (without mods like Starnet AI), in addition, micro-managing <20 worlds in endgame is tedious and not very fun.
So, my proposal for a future update would be to have the ability to micro-manage planets be directly tied to empire sprawl.
while under admin cap, full control would be given to the player, as your empire is within the means of your government to direct.
when the cap is exceeded, the player would be unable to control the building of buildings on planets, but still would be able to destroy buildings on planets.
when empire sprawl is double admin cap, Sector AI (which would have to be heavily reworked for this idea) would be in complete control of the creation and destruction of buildings, with the player only being able to set 'goals' for the budget (such as telling the AI to attempt to achieve <+10 Minerals, Alloys ect.)
The military would always be in control of the player.
This idea would make tall vs wide a much more interesting choice
Naturally, Space Commies tm Shared Burdens would completely remove this mechanic, to fully simulate Soviet Russian inefficiency.
What do you guys think?
I want to play a game with no intervention in the economy while not being a large country, the previous time I tried it it failed miserably. Is there a mod that can make Laissez-Faire economies viable?
Would industries such as education or health care work better under government regulation or a more socialist approach?
