PK Siddharth, former IPS officer who left FTI after initially joining it for a short while (because he found he did not really want liberty in India but better ways of implementing the existing socialist model), has kindly asked me a few questions by email.
I'd like to note that as a matter of practice I do not respond individually to emails that discuss policy or economics issues. Always a public response.
The communication so far with PK is provided below, and my final response is at the end.
Once again may I request everyone (including PK) – please DO NOT write to me by email/ on Facebook messenger seeking a comment on a policy matter. Please use my blog to publicly raise the issue. Or be prepared that I could, if I so wish, make the whole matter public, as I'm doing in this case. Alternatively, I might just switch off – not because I'm impolite but because I expect my time and health to be respected. By writing publicly on policy matters I hope to educate 100s of people. Email can only educate one at a time.
Dear Sanjeev,Since I still follow your blog, which is not at all an Occasional Blog, but a almost a daily bulletin, I keep getting in my mail box your wrings on the blog, I find your writings to be bevy incisive whether one agrees with them on not. I by now know that you have better understanding of capitalism than a professor of economics or political science.But you commitment to the cause of capitalism now prompts me to ask a few very basics questions: Which are the countries that you think are the models of classical libderalism and capitalism. Sid we ever have any? And which are the countries that you consider models of socialism? And, what today India is, a capitalist country or a socialist country?
Thanks, PK.I have clarified repeatedly that there no nation that has followed all the foundational principles of liberty. However, if you go into the history of USA, you'll find that Jefferson came closest to establishing a nation founded on the principles of liberty. That was not to last, and for the past 100 years USA has had significant socialist influence. It is only saved by its Constitution from becoming a third world nation.India is clearly a socialist country today, if you take the preponderence of its policies into account. By no means is it a free nation. That has also been empirically demonstrated repeatedly by numerous studies.RegardsS
May I add, I do not take any one-on-one questions since this info – of use to others also – gets lost in emails.Please do ensure that you comment on the blog. That way more people will get educated at the same time.RegardsS
Pl do let me know the present countries that are closest to the capitalist model of your dreams. Are classical liberalism and capitalism logical corollaries?
Dear PK, in BFN I have articulated an example of the model of liberty for India. I don't dream. It is just my preferred option based on current knowledge. It is something to be discussed and debated upon by the Freedom Team. I am ONE person out of a billion and don't have any desire to impose my "dreams" on anyone.Now, as to which of the present countries comes closest to being a free society. Well, based on data, experience, and anectodal information, I'd rate Australia as close to the most free nation on earth today. Freedom is under considerable threat here, but it is still more free than USA, more free than UK, and definitely more free than ANY non-British European nation. I'd still rate Australia only 7 or a max of 8 out of a possible 10 on freedom. If you read my presentation here, you'll realise why (btw, I'm giving my third talk on this topic – to a restricted audience in Melbourne – on 15 November.)In many ways, thought, it is pointless asking this question when India is not even 2 out of a possible 10 on liberty. BFN is replete with 10s of examples to show how liberty is trampled in India every day. The simple reality, as I've already shown through a quotation from Mises yesterday (I do hope people are READING what I'm writing, for I can't possibly keep repeating everything again and again and again!) is that:"The philosophers, sociologists, and economists of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth century formulated a political program that served as a guide to social policy first in England and the United States, then on the European continent, and finally in the other parts of the inhabited world as well. Nowhere was this program ever completely carried out. Even in England, which has been called the homeland of liberalism and the model liberal country, the proponents of liberal policies never succeeded in winning all their demands. In the rest of the world only parts of the liberal program were adopted, while others, no less important, were either rejected from the very first or discarded after a short time. Only with some exaggeration can one say that the world once lived through a liberal era. Liberalism was never permitted to come to full fruition."
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:









Which country today comes closest to the capitalist model? http://t.co/7P0VRpf7
Which country today comes closest to the capitalist model? http://t.co/KpXIbwOy #india #liberty
I thought Australia has a lot of socialism filled with Keynesian ideas. I think the place that comes very close to considered "free" can be New Hampshire. It's not a country though.
Raj,
As I’ve noted repeatedly, Australia broke through the Fabian socialist mould in the late 1970s, and has (largely) since then followed mostly standard text book policies on openness, etc. I can reel 10s of statistics and policies but virtually on everything it has been a world leader. Should any nation follow its policies it will do wonders. Having said that I have clarified in the slideshow linked above that there is MUCH scope for improving Australia’s economic (and political) landscape in terms of greater freedom.
I’m not denying that New Hampshire is largely free, as well. I’d be interested in knowing whether agricultural subsidies that US gives farmers don’t apply in New Hampshire, and whether the regulatory regime for health and safety, environment or chemicals, for instance, is more efficient than in other parts of USA. I live off my (limited) knowledge of regulatory policy and haven’t come across any “New Hampshire” model. Would love to find out more. Can you please at least write 5-10 paragraphs of solid evidence to back your claims?
S
This is what I found for agricultural subsidies:http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=33000
90 percent of farmers in New Hampshire did not collect subsidy payments – according to USDA
Ten percent collected 75 percent of all subsidies.
Amounting to $48.9 million over 16 years.
Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9bQBAkhz_-A#!
New Hampshire was recently ranked as the "freest" state. The report is here: http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011/NH
I am just highlighting few points made in the research summary: New Hampshire is, by our count, the freest state in the country. Depending on weights, however, it really shares the slot with South Dakota. New Hampshire does much better on economic than personal freedom and on fiscal than regulatory policy. Under unified Democratic control in 2007–2008, the state saw a respectable increase in freedom.
State approval is required to open a private school. Homeschool laws are slightly worse than average; standardized testing and recordkeeping requirements are stricter than those in most states. Eminent-domain reforms have gone far…. The drug law-enforcement rate is low and dropping, while arrests for other victimless crimes are high and dropping.
The free state projects states that NH receives 71 cents for every $1 it sends to the federal Govt. This means that the state is less dependant on Uncle Sam. New Hampshire is one of the few that does not regulate the sale of raw milk. The state is very business friendly. Consistently ranks among the top 5 for doing business.
(I could go on and on…but the best thing about New Hampshire is its taxes.) NO income tax, no sales tax, no capital gains tax, no tax on inventory and machinery. In other words, the state takes very little from the people. They have more money; the govt is small= more freedom.
Also: http://freestateproject.org/files/101-Reasons-to-Move-to-NH.pdf(free state project)
I think this is another important one: New Hampshire voters are not as likely to be influenced by federal
government farm subsidies. NH voters receive only $1.08 per capita as compared to $891.44 per capita
in North Dakota and $228.25 in Montana.
New Hampshire offers a true citizen legislature – a government of the people based on their $100 per year pay to legislators