How would you change it all?

I never said they did, so I do not know how this applies to our conversation.

You said people will willingly reject the state once they can and then failed to back your claim. There are many examples in history where people whole-heartedly support the state, but very few where they reject it.

People could vote limited govt, but they chose Obama over Ron Paul. Your theory is falsified.

So what?  What does this have to do with making it illegal for the government to rule over anyone without their consent?

I don't know. I never claimed it does. I support making it illegal for the government to force itself on people.

1) Privatise education as much as possible

There's a problem now in Romania: private colleges are a joke - they are not educating anyone, they are diploma factories. You pay for 3 years and then get a diploma. That's their main purpose.

It's strange: if you want a good education in computer science, law, accounting, medicine, pharmacy, literature, etc, you go to the state colleges/universities.

Why is that?

Private medical clinics do just fine, but private schools suck.

From my very basic and quick look at the 2007 statistics the country seems to be doing better than most.  Lower debt and unemployment than Poland, France, and Germany and it looks like a steadily growing economy from 1990 to 2007 and apperantly since 2000 foreign investment has increased.

.  Perhaps for less radical idea and easier selling points to more socialistic types would be to gradually give more powers/ monatrary responsabilies to the counties over the central govt.  For example cut church funding from the central govt and move it to more county based funding.  I hope that may help you out a bit.  What are some specific problems?  What does the common person expect from govt? It would be helpful to know.

xSFx:

I live in Eastern Europe, in a little backwards country called Romania.

A question for those acquainted with the situation: If you were to suddenly become the "leader" of Romania, what specific changes would you implement in order to bring forth a more civilised country, under free-market principles?

I`d redistribute all state owned companies, all companies of robber-tycoons, and all companies of foreign neo-colonialists (those with state issued monopolistic concessions) to the induviduals currently employed by them via handing out of stock. The same would be done with state establishements which are not companies such as theatres, museums, clinics, hospitals, schools, univesities and even unemployement bureaus which would be transformed into companies and privatised in the same way, through handing out of stock to their employees. Social, health and pension would be done away with and state obligations for pension taxes levied redeemed by sale of state owned land (like forrests) and mineral resources. What would be left of it after that would be distributed among the taxpayers. Nobody would object to this because nobody is going to object to being given more property.

xSFx:

I never said they did, so I do not know how this applies to our conversation.

You said people will willingly reject the state once they can and then failed to back your claim. There are many examples in history where people whole-heartedly support the state, but very few where they reject it.

People could vote limited govt, but they chose Obama over Ron Paul. Your theory is falsified.

Where the hell did I say "people will willingly reject the state once they can"?  And where in your first post did you say anything about voting?  You said I was ruler and could do whatever I want to do.  We are talking about legislation, not voting.  If I make it illegal for the government to rule over anyone who does not consent, that means the government has to get consent of the governed, to be governed by the government.  So, the next day, a policeman would pull someone over for speeding, and guess what the speeder is going to say?  "Fuck off , I have not consented to your government."  Guess what will happen when a regulator tries to write up a businessman for violating a regulation?  The business owner will say "fuck off".  You know why?  Because if they try to take them to court, the law will say that for the law to have authority over the individual they will have had to consented to the government.  Since they have not done so, the law will hold no sway, and the judge will have to let them go.

So yes, you are denying human nature.

1.  Free market money

2.  Divest the democratic government of its fee, and grant every landowner allodial title.

Civilization will follow naturally from that.

Byzantine:

1.  Free market money

2.  Divest the democratic government of its fee, and grant every landowner allodial title.

Civilization will follow naturally from that.

Not so simple in socialist countries where much of the land was collectivized.

Stranger:

Not so simple in socialist countries where much of the land was collectivized.

I've been wondering about this.  Can you buy/sell real estate in Russia/Eastern Europe?

Byzantine:

Stranger:

Not so simple in socialist countries where much of the land was collectivized.

I've been wondering about this.  Can you buy/sell real estate in Russia/Eastern Europe?

I read about Russian aristocrats transforming the country's agriculture by buying out the collective farms from the workers and creating huge farming estates on the old model. I guess this stuff dies hard.

 

"Today, roughly 7 percent of the planet's arable land is either owned by the Russian state or by collective farms, but about a sixth of all that agricultural land — some 35 million hectares — lies fallow. By comparison, all of Britain has 6 million hectares of cultivatable land."

Spideynw:

"Fuck off , I have not consented to your government." 

 

Spideynw:

"fuck off".

 

Are we allowed to say fuck on here? LOL