How would you change it all?

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 would make it illegal for the government to rule over anyone that does not consent to its rule.

Okay, and what about the people who want the "lazy way out" and just say "gov't, tax me and gimme everything!" ?

 

If I were "in power" I'd like to know some practical solutions on how to let everyone do their own thing while:

a) not forcing people to embrace my libertarian ways

b) not getting impeached or lynched by the mob

c) promoting free market alternatives to gov't services

d) preventing parasites such as churches or syndicates from having influence in state affairs

Please expound on d)...  Churches and syndicates receive taxpayer money in Romania?

xSFx:

d) preventing parasites such as churches or syndicates from having influence in state affairs

Mao and Stalin said something similar.

xSFx:

Okay, and what about the people who want the "lazy way out" and just say "gov't, tax me and gimme everything!" ?

No one would.

xSFx:

Okay, and what about the people who want the "lazy way out" and just say "gov't, tax me and gimme everything!" ?

 

If I were "in power" I'd like to know some practical solutions on how to let everyone do their own thing while:

a) not forcing people to embrace my libertarian ways

b) not getting impeached or lynched by the mob

c) promoting free market alternatives to gov't services

d) preventing parasites such as churches or syndicates from having influence in state affairs

You could support Panarchy....

nameless:

Please expound on d)...  Churches and syndicates receive taxpayer money in Romania?

I think that's true in most of Europe.

nameless:

Please expound on d)...  Churches and syndicates receive taxpayer money in Romania?

Yes. Just yesterday they voted 13.000.000 euro aid to churches. 700 churches will be built or renovated in the year 2009.

Meanwhile education got only 8000.000 and healthcare less. Research funds were halved.

This under the situation where private education and healthcare are highly regulated and Romania is a secular state! The reason? Everyone wants the support of the "majority church" - which became a majority after the communist regime outlawed all other churches except this one.

Mao and Stalin said something similar.

So did Jesus and Rothbard.

No one would.

Actually in Romania, I believe most would. Humour me and suppose they would.

xSFx:

No one would.

Actually in Romania, I believe most would. Humour me and suppose they would.

That is denying human nature.  Anyone who has any money whatsoever would immediately leave the system, leaving the system broke.

I'm not denying human nature, I'm denying your interpretation of it. The germans didn't vote Hitler into power because they were forced to.

I live among these people every day. All most of them do is complain and expect the nanny state to fix their problems. They are clueless about libertarian ideas, since they have been indoctrinated in schools with stories about our mighty leaders of the past who once ruled the country with an iron fist in their fight against the hostile neighbour nations.

The only solution they can imagine is that some magical leader will come overnight and solve all their problems. Of course, a god-fearing one.

 

You can't turn them into free-marketers overnight.

When I said "keep religion out of politics" I didn't mean "ban them", I meant separate the relationship that currently exists, where politicians would shower the dominant church with gifts whenever they have elections, or simply to solidify their position. My suggestion is simple: stop giving state money to churches. Period!

This is easy:

1. Repeal any "Legal Tender" laws.  Allow people to make up their own money.  Maybe they would conduct transactions in Euros or Francs or Gold or bear skins or something else.  This solution was one advanced by Ron Paul.  If it is a good idea for the US, the most complex economy in the world, then it is a good idea for Romania.

2. Close the central bank.  I would let people set their own interest rates.

3. Drop out of the EU or any other organization that exerts supergovernmental authority.

4. Institute a small general tariff of less than 3% to fund government operations.  Another Ron Paul suggestion.

5. Repeal any other existing tariffs and allow people to purchase what they want from who ever they want.

6. Repeal any laws stopping people from possessing, selling or consuming alcohol or any other drug.

7. Shutdown government provided and government assisted schools.

My guess is I would not be a popular governor.  But the economy would be humming in less than 2 years.

 

mighty leaders of romania? How did that turn out for them?

 

 

seriously though, convince people about the benefits of legal secession.  If this could be allowed in your country than libertarianism and anarchism would surely be more appealing to people, I mean, they've already accept secession?  I'm sure it could be pretty easy sale: Romania was carved out of other larger nations, it was ruled by dictators propped up by the soviet union and every time that it has escaped from these powers and won its self-determination it has gotten better so why not allow parts of romania the same chance?

 

DISCLAIMER: Okay, I'm not that knowledgeable on romanian history but from some stuff I've read about european history regarding austria, russia, and turkey it doesn't seem like romania ever played a big role and was carved out of land a la the netherlands.

xSFx:

The germans didn't vote Hitler into power because they were forced to.

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

xSFx:

I live among these people every day. All most of them do is complain and expect the nanny state to fix their problems.

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

xSFx:

You can't turn them into free-marketers overnight.

I did not say I could.  I just said I could make it illegal for the government to rule without consent.

If I could do three things for the biggest impact

 

1) Privatise education as much as possible

2) Repeal any gun laws/restrictions

3) Declare absolute monetary freedom

I would allow those who chose it to provide a competitive alternative to my rule, thus significantly narrowing the extent of my problems.

Following that I would have very little power left and those who worship power would grow bored with me. I could then turn to the problem of liquidating state assets such as public lands and businesses, and finish off by selling the state's sole remaining operation, security production, to the highest bidder. Then I would retire with my profits and build a gigantic gothic castle on top of a tall mountain to be a museum to freedom.

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?

How come nobody has given the Misesian answer yet?

 

I was considering submitting that as a response, but it didn't seem to mesh well with the general tenor of the thread.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard143.html

Simple, liquidate all governmental assets via auction, homesteading, and cash money refund to all 'citzens' in the country.

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.

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.

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