[DanDaMan]

You seem to ignore reality by making an unprecedented classification into which only one marginal historical example fits

No.
You are ignoring the history of the freest nation in the world.

Only fools and ideological followers do such things.

[Vladimir]

No.
You are ignoring the history of the freest nation in the world.

Only fools and ideological followers do such things.

How am I ignoring it? I already stated that it is an example of right economics and non-authoritarian politics, which is a relatively unusual combination.
Also, the economic policy of the US was hardly different from Britain at the time of independence, but Britain was socially authoritarian, which again falsifies your chart.

[DanDaMan]

How am I ignoring it? I already stated that it is an example of right economics and non-authoritarian politics, which is a relatively unusual combination.

You ignored it when you implied it was inconsequential

Also, the economic policy of the US was hardly different from Britain at the time of independence, but Britain was socially authoritarian, which again falsifies your chart.

Britain also had a Monarch with absolute rule.
America went to war to end that tyranny.


Again... how old are you and how long must i explain the obvious?

[Vladimir]

You ignored it when you implied it was inconsequential

How did I imply this?

Britain also had a Monarch with absolute rule.
America went to war to end that tyranny.


Again... how old are you and how long must i explain the obvious?

Yes and Britain was a free market economy, probably even more free than US at the time.
When will you realise that economic and social policy are not correlated?

[Dave]

The economic policy of post-Independence America was very different, by the standards of the time. Britain's policies included a high degree of regressive taxation and enclosure to create urban poor for the emerging capitalists, and smaller businesses were subjected to oppressing licensing schemes to encourage consolidation. In the colonies Britain banned manufacturing and required most goods to be carried on British bottoms. Britain also still had certain feudal legacies like a surviving guild system.

Post-Independence America did adopt tariffs on the British model, but people were encouraged to acquire as much land as possible and the South of course was a slavery economy (largely unchanged by independence). Attempts at regressive and oppressive taxation were instituted, which resulted in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. After that the only internal federal tax was a land tax, which was abolished in 1815 after which there were no internal federal taxes. States raised revenue largely by taxing land.

One interesting difference that developed between the two pro-manufacturing countries was the system of manufacturing. In England skilled machinists manufactured all parts individually. A very early government effort in America was to develop interchangeable parts. Pioneered by Eli Whitney and perfected by the Harper's Ferry Armory, this new system of manufacturing featured machinists making interchangeable parts to tolerance which were then assembled in an assembly workshop by unskilled labor. This system came to be known as Armory Practice, or the American System of Manufacturing, and was later refined during the Second Industrial Revolution in America with capital-intensive assembly lines and statistical production control techniques (Taylorism, batch and queue). In England the old system largely persisted until the First World War, when David Lloyd George forced the adoption of modern mass production techniques in order to avoid losing the war.

Britain also had a Monarch with absolute rule.
America went to war to end that tyranny.

Now this is fucking stupid

[Potemkin]

Yes and Britain was a free market economy, probably even more free than US at the time

Indeed, and for that reason the advocacy of free markets and laissez-faire economics is associated with a rigid, snobbish class hierarchy in Britain. What would be a populist position in America is regarded as an elitist position here, for historical reasons.

[Dave]

Indeed, and for that reason the advocacy of free markets and laissez-faire economics is associated with a rigid, snobbish class hierarchy in Britain. What would be a populist position in America is regarded as an elitist position here, for historical reasons.

Britain did not have what conservatives today would recognize as a free market economy. Its economic policy was a highly regressive industrial policy and a form of proto-corporatism. I wouldn't characterize Britain as a free market economy until the 1850s (when, for instance, master and servant laws were abolished).

[DanDaMan]

Yes and Britain was a free market economy, probably even more free than US at the time.

The Deceleration of Independence proves you completely wrong.

How about you state, from now on, that America does not exist.
Then you can win your arguments.

[Dave]

The Deceleration of Independence proves you completely wrong.

How? The Declaration contains primarily ambiguous, unsubstantiated charges, most of which were refuted by Massachusetts jurist Thomas Hutchinson.

[DanDaMan]

Yes and Britain was a free market economy, probably even more free than US at the time.

The Deceleration of Independence proves you completely wrong.

How?

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

Those are infringements on individual freedom and therefore puts the King to the Left on my chart.

[Dave]

Both of the charges in question are ambiguous and unsubstantiated. The objection to taxation was also highly hypocritical in light of the demands of the Colonists to be protected from the Indians and French intrigues by the British Army.

Those were also acts of Parliament, not the King who did not have the power to impose taxes.

And today in this "free" country we keep less of our income than serfs.

Your chart fucking sucks and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it and refusing to admit how much it fucking sucks

Hutchinson's response to the Declaration: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?op ... Itemid=264

[DanDaMan]

The objection to taxation was also highly hypocritical in light of the demands of the Colonists to be protected from the Indians and French intrigues by the British Army.

Apparently they thought the price too high and declared independence.

So you are wrong.

[Dave]

Apparently they thought the price too high and declared independence.

So you are wrong.

That doesn't demonstrate that I'm wrong at all. Do you understand the principles of logical argumentation?

This entire thread consists of you self-righteously reveling in an embarrassing spree of wrongness, while posing as the intellectual superior of everyone who has quite repeatedly shot you down. It's pathetic.

[DanDaMan]

Don't blame me for your inadequacies on American history and how it relates to individual freedom.
Just go back to school.

[MB.]

Split from PC sigh

[Vladimir]

The Deceleration of Independence proves you completely wrong.

Adam Smith proves you wrong.

How about you state, from now on, that America does not exist.

The libertarian social / right economic combination is a possible one along with others, why should I state that America doesn't exist

[DanDaMan]

The Deceleration of Independence proves you completely wrong.

Adam Smith proves you wrong.

No you are wrong.
The deceleration proves me right because the D.I. was declaring they would no longer stand for Britain's tyranny.
So you lose.

How about you state, from now on, that America does not exist.

The libertarian social / right economic combination is a possible one along with others, why should I state that America doesn't exist :?:

You don't have to state it.
You ignore American history.
Proof being that I use it to prove you wrong.

If you actually used American history you would pervert it so badly no one would believe you.

[Vladimir]

No you are wrong.
The deceleration proves me right because the D.I. was declaring they would no longer stand for Britain's tyranny.
So you lose.

But both had an equally free market economy despite one being libertarian and the other authoritarian.

You ignore American history.

How so?

[DanDaMan]

But both had an equally free market economy despite one being libertarian and the other authoritarian.

No.
The DoI stated that Britain limited it's free trade.
And America decided to end that tyranny.
That moved them to the right and firmly placed Britain to the Left of them.

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.

[Vladimir]

The DoI stated that Britain limited it's free trade.
And America decided to end that tyranny.
That moved them to the right and firmly placed Britain to the Left of them.

It limited America's free trade (duh, it was a colony) but Britain's own trade was under free market policy.