If you ever decided to leave the USA, where would you go?


Recommended Posts

I got some interesting responses. Here are some places under consideration:

IRELAND

It's maybe the only country in Europe where people still seem to want to have kids. Economic freedom is high. Nation has progressed over the past 20 years. They speak English.

ESTONIA

It's also one of the freest countries on Earth today. Income tax is only 10%. Birth rate is low. Weather is cold. Biggest drawback is that I would have to learn a language that is completely useless anywhere else.

SWITZERLAND

It's one of the most expensive places in the world. Citizenship is tough. Country has an excellent attitude toward freedom, however. This has not change much over the years. I would likely to have learn both German and Swiss German.

BAHAMAS

Country has low taxes. They speak English. It's not too far away either. You have good weather, except for hurricanes.

COSTA RICA

It seems to be quite popular with gringos, maybe too popular. Taxes are so low though. Learning Spanish is just fine, as it is certainly useful elsewhere. It's also not that far away.

PANAMA

It's also popular with gringos. I'm not sure why. Economic freedom seems okay though.

CHILE

Economic freedom is also excellent. It's another Spanish country, which is fine.

BRAZIL

I still see Brazil is a sleeping super power ready to wake up. Out of the cities, the country is pretty sparsely populated. It's diverse and dynamic. I would have to learn Portuguese.

ARGENTINA

Doug Casey likes it a lot for some reason. I think this is because it's cheap. It's another Spanish-speaking nation.

URUGUAY

This is another country that Doug Casey likes.

BOTSWANA

Is it the best country in Africa? Doug Casey also likes it a lot and writes that they overcome many of the problems that plague many other resource-rich nations. I've read that Bridge is very popular there, and I have to respect any nation where a lot of people play Bridge. It is also about the size of Texas and yet has only about 2,000,000 people.

NEW ZEALAND

It's the rare democracy that has actually cut government. It is truly a miracle. It's small enough perhaps to stay principled. It's remote enough to isolate itself. It's also a more child-friendly nations left in the modern world. The only drawback is that it is little or no manufacturing simply because it's too small. Apparently it is also still a gun-friendly country as well, unlike their nearby neighbor Australia.

Edited by Chris Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 351
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For economic freedom based on

- personal choice

- voluntary exchange coordinated by markets

- freedom to enter and compete in markets

- protection of persons and their property

from aggression by others.

The US is tied for 8th place.

I may have overlooked it - but did you give a link for this ranking? I'd be interested to see what countries rank above the US.

Bill P

Fraser Institute (Canada)

The 8th place I see was 2008, looks like the US moved up to 6th in the 2009 report

http://www.freetheworld.com/2008/EconomicFreedomoftheWorld2008.pdf

http://www.freetheworld.com/2009/reports/world/EFW2009_BOOK.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got some interesting responses. Here are some places under consideration:

IRELAND

It's maybe the only country in Europe where people still seem to want to have kids. Economic freedom is high. Nation has progressed over the past 20 years. They speak English.

ESTONIA

It's also one of the freest countries on Earth today. Income tax is only 10%. Birth rate is low. Weather is cold. Biggest drawback is that I would have to learn a language that is completely useless anywhere else.

SWITZERLAND

It's one of the most expensive places in the world. Citizenship is tough. Country has an excellent attitude toward freedom, however. This has not change much over the years. I would likely to have learn both German and Swiss German.

BAHAMAS

Country has low taxes. They speak English. It's not too far away either. You have good weather, except for hurricanes.

COSTA RICA

It seems to be quite popular with gringos, maybe too popular. Taxes are so low though. Learning Spanish is just fine, as it is certainly useful elsewhere. It's also not that far away.

PANAMA

It's also popular with gringos. I'm not sure why. Economic freedom seems okay though.

CHILE

Economic freedom is also excellent. It's another Spanish country, which is fine.

BRAZIL

I still see Brazil is a sleeping super power ready to wake up. Out of the cities, the country is pretty sparsely populated. It's diverse and dynamic. I would have to learn Portuguese.

ARGENTINA

Doug Casey likes it a lot for some reason. I think this is because it's cheap. It's another Spanish-speaking nation.

URUGUAY

This is another country that Doug Casey likes.

BOTSWANA

Is it the best country in Africa? Doug Casey also likes it a lot and writes that they overcome many of the problems that plague many other resource-rich nations. I've read that Bridge is very popular there, and I have to respect any nation where a lot of people play Bridge. It is also about the size of Texas and yet has only about 2,000,000 people.

You have to be careful here. Ireland and Botswana have, in recent years, been moving away from the pro-market policies that helped to grow their economies... This seems the typical fatten-the-goose-before-cooking-it pattern in history: a period of liberalization leads to a growing economy and then taxes and regulations are put back into place. (I'm not saying this is planned ahead of it -- just that there's a pattern there.)

As for Latin American countries, I'd be careful with them too as statism appears to be on the rise again there after some flirtation with liberalism.

Of course, history is never over and it's likely that these trends can be reversed.

NEW ZEALAND

It's the rare democracy that has actually cut government. It is truly a miracle. It's small enough perhaps to stay principled. It's remote enough to isolate itself. It's also a more child-friendly nations left in the modern world. The only drawback is that it is little or no manufacturing simply because it's too small. Apparently it is also still a gun-friendly country as well, unlike their nearby neighbor Australia.

NZ also has a decent-sized libertarian movement.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned any of the Scandinavian countries. (Or I missed that.rolleyes.gif )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I choose France. I'm happy with culture, wine, cheese, and prosciutto. If you're going to live in a country that's a mixed-economy, might as well do it with style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Zealand is my first choice. They speak English, the land is magnificent, I hear they are out ranking the U.S. now in terms of economic freedom. It is also important to consider where the U.S. will be in the next 10-30 years and compare that to where you think New Zealand will be. Most likely, the U.S. will have socialized medicine, so in that respect it's a wash with New Zealand. The taxes are somewhat high in NZ, but I doubt it's really much less in the U.S. Especially, if you live in California or New York. NZ is unlikely to be the target of any major terrorist attacks. I'm not sure what NZ is doing with their fiat money, but hopefully they are not printing away full speed like we are here. There is an Objectivist group out there though that kinda makes me wonder if the island is big enough for all us cats and dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting info here.

http://www.heritage....ex/Ranking.aspx

But I just noticed that the US doesn't even rank as a "Free" country but rather "Mostly Free". That seems a bit harsh.

Bob

There never was a totally free country or political entity. Consider Athens. How did they deal with Socrates in Athens? And Athens is used as a role model by far too many people, as a nifty liberal democracy. it was not nifty, it was not liberal and it was only a democracy for 1/6 of its population.

Two things were built into the U.S. Constitution from the git-go: taxes and eminent domain. In addition, slavery was permitted to exist in the several States. I would say that is a fairly inauspicious beginning.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote:

Two things were built into the U.S. Constitution from the git-go: taxes and eminent domain. In addition, slavery was permitted to exist in the several States. I would say that is a fairly inauspicious beginning.

End quote

What has changed in one year? The Tea Parties. We now have millions and millions of allies, so it is a question as to which revolution we will reenact, the Amerian Revolution or the French Revolution? Personally I would like to see a few of the bastard’s heads roll.

Perhaps a re-write of the Constitution through amendments could severly restrict taxation and eminent domain, if not do away with them altogether. The lessening of taxes over time could be achieved but the Government would first need to get out of a thousand entrenched areas first. And there may be instances where eminent domain would be required to prevent a disaster.

The judge, in the Newsmax article below, “believes American is in danger of becoming "a fascist country," which he defines as "private ownership, but government control . . . and . . . The problem with the constitution is that those who take an oath to uphold it don't take their oath seriously.”

Can you believe this guy’s sister is in the Obama administration?

I think the judicial route is slow but sure. In the mean time the November elections are closing in on us. It’s time to stick around, Patriots!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Newsmax

Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare

Friday, March 26, 2010 06:32 PM

By: David A. Patten

President Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on government, and the states suing the federal government over healthcare reform "have a pretty strong case" and are likely to prevail, according to author and judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella, Napolitano says the president's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.

"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments," Napolitano says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.

Special: Do You Back Obama's Healthcare Plan? Vote Here Now!

"That's called commandeering the legislature," he says. "That's the Congress taking away the discretion of the legislature with respect to regulation, and spending taxpayer dollars. That's prohibited in a couple of Supreme Court cases. So on that argument, the attorneys general have a pretty strong case and I think they will prevail.”

Napolitano, author of his just-released “Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History” and a Fox News senior judicial analyst, is the youngest Superior Court judge ever to attain lifetime tenure in the state of New Jersey. He served on the bench from 1987 to 1995.

Napolitano tells Newsmax that the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the healthcare industry makes the new federal regulations that much more problematic.

"The Supreme Court has ruled that in areas of human behavior that are not delegated to the Congress in the Constitution, and that have been traditionally regulated by the states, the Congress can't simply move in there," Napolitano says. "And the states for 230 years have had near exclusive regulation over the delivery of healthcare. The states license hospitals. The states license medications. The states license healthcare providers whether they're doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. The feds have had nothing to do with it.

"The Congress can't simply wake up one day and decide that it wants to regulate this. I predict that the Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of what the president just signed into law…"

The judge also says he would rate President Obama as one of the worst presidents in terms of obedience to constitutional limitations.

"I believe we have a one party system in this country, called the big-government party," Napolitano says. "There is a Republican branch that likes war and deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branch that likes welfare and taxes and assaulting commercial liberties.

"President Obama obviously is squarely within the Democratic branch. The president who had the least fidelity to the Constitution was Abraham Lincoln, who waged war on half the country, even though there's obviously no authority for that, a war that killed nearly 700,000 people. President Obama is close to that end of lacking fidelity to the Constitution. He wants to outdo his hero FDR."

For those who oppose healthcare, the Fox legal expert says, the bad news is that many of the legal challenges to healthcare reform will have to wait until 2014, when the changes become fully operational.

Until then, there would be no legal case that individuals had been actually harmed by the law. Moreover, Napolitano says it takes an average of four years for a case to work its way through the various federal courts the final hearing that's expected to come before the Supreme Court.

"You're talking about 2018, which is eight years from now, before it is likely the Supreme Court will hear this," he says.

Other issues that Napolitano addressed during the wide-ranging interview:

He believes American is in danger of becoming "a fascist country," which he defines as "private ownership, but government control." He adds, "The government doesn't have the money to own anything. But it has the force and the threat of violence to control just about anything it wants. That will rapidly expand under President Obama, unless and until the midterm elections give us a midterm correction – which everyone seems to think, and I'm in that group, is about to come our way.

Napolitano believes the federal government lacks the legal authority to order citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. The Congress [is] ordering human beings to purchase something that they might not want, might not need, might not be able to afford, and might not want -- that's never happened in our history before," Napolitano says. "My gut tells me that too is unconstitutional, because the Congress doesn't have that kind of power under the Constitution."

The sweetheart deals in the healthcare reform bill used that persuaded Democrats to vote for it – the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, Gatorade Exception and others – create "a very unique and tricky constitutional problem" for Democrats, because they treat citizens differently based on which state they live in, running afoul of the Constitution's equal protection clause according to Napolitano. "So these bennies or bribes, whatever you want, or horse trading as it used to be called, clearly violate equal protection by forcing people in the other states to pay the bills of the states that don't have to pay what the rest of us do," Napolitano says.

Exempting union members from the so-called "Cadillac tax" on expensive health insurance policies, while imposing that tax on other citizens, is outright discrimination according to Napolitano. "The government cannot draw a bright line, with fidelity to the Constitution and the law, on the one side of which everybody pays, and the other side of which some people pay. It can't say, 'Here's a tax, but we're only going to apply it to nonunion people. Here's a tax, and we're only going to apply it to graduates of Ivy League institutions.' The Constitution does not permit that type of discrimination."

Politicians from both parties routinely disregard the Constitutional limits imposed on them by the nation's founding document, Napolitano says. "The problem with the Constitution is not any structural problem," says Napolitano. "The problem with the constitution is that those who take an oath to uphold it don't take their oath seriously. For example, just a month ago in interviewing Congressman Jim Clyburn, who's the No. 3 ranking Democrat in the House, I said to him, Congressman Clyburn, can you tell me where in the Constitution the Congress is authorized to regulate healthcare? He said, 'Judge, most of what we do down here,' referring to Washington, 'is not authorized by the Constitution. Can you tell me where in the Constitution we're prohibited from regulating healthcare.' Napolitano says that reflects a misunderstanding of what the Constitution actually is.

"He's turning the Constitution on its head, because Congress is not a general legislature," he says. "It was not created in order to right every wrong. It exists only to legislate in the 17 specific, discrete, unique areas where the Constitution has given it power. All other areas of human area are reserved for the states."

Napolitano says that members of Congress infringe on Constitutional rights because they fail to recognize its basis. "They reject Jefferson's argument, in the Declaration of Independence, that our rights come from our Creator, therefore they're natural rights, therefore they can't be legislated away," Napolitano says. "They think they can legislate on any activity, regulate any behavior, tax any person or thing, as long as the politics will let them survive. They're wrong, and with this healthcare legislation, they may be proven wrong, in a very direct and in-your-face way."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Zealand is my first choice. They speak English, the land is magnificent, I hear they are out ranking the U.S. now in terms of economic freedom. It is also important to consider where the U.S. will be in the next 10-30 years and compare that to where you think New Zealand will be. Most likely, the U.S. will have socialized medicine, so in that respect it's a wash with New Zealand. The taxes are somewhat high in NZ, but I doubt it's really much less in the U.S. Especially, if you live in California or New York. NZ is unlikely to be the target of any major terrorist attacks. I'm not sure what NZ is doing with their fiat money, but hopefully they are not printing away full speed like we are here. There is an Objectivist group out there though that kinda makes me wonder if the island is big enough for all us cats and dogs.

It's definitely high on my list. Jim Peron also told me that New Zealand is also still a pro-gun country.

New Zealand also has healthy birth and fertility rates at least compared to many other Western countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough choice...

Comes down to New Zealand, Spain or Netherlands.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough choice...

Comes down to New Zealand, Spain or Netherlands.

~ Shane

What do you like about Spain and the Netherlands?

I keep thinking about the Franco period in Spain and wondering what that might imply for its future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If America continued its insane rush toward collectivism, and I felt I had to leave this country I have always loved, I'd want to live where technological creativity, medical innovation, scientific (including nuclear) achievement, together with an accelerating movement away from socialism and toward capitalism, would hold out the possibility that the values most precious to me would not vanish from he earth.

I would move to Israel.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If America continued its insane rush toward collectivism, and I felt I had to leave this country I have always loved, I'd want to live where technological creativity, medical innovation, scientific (including nuclear) achievement, together with an accelerating movement away from socialism and toward capitalism, would hold out the possibility that the values most precious to me would not vanish from he earth.

I would move to Israel.

Barbara

I'm reminded of what Rand said in "Don't Let It Go, II" in the AYn Rand Letter:

Can this country achieve a peaceful rebirth in the foreseeable future?

By all precedents, it is not likely. But America is an unprecedented phenomenon. In the past, American perseverance became, on occasion, too long-bearing a patience. But when Americans turned,
they turned.
What may happen to the Welfare State is what happened to the Prohibition Amendment.

Is there enough of the American sense of life left in people—under the constant pressure of the cultural-political efforts to obliterate it? It is impossible to tell. But those of us who hold it, must fight for it. We have no alternative: we cannot surrender this country to a zero—to men whose battle cry is mindlessness.

We cannot fight against collectivism, unless we fight against its moral base: altruism. We cannot fight against altruism, unless we fight against its epistemological base: irrationalism. We cannot fight
against
anything, unless we fight for something—and what we must fight for is the supremacy of reason, and a view of man as a rational being.

These are philosophical issues. The philosophy we need is a conceptual equivalent of America's sense of life. To propagate it, would require the hardest intellectual battle. But isn't that a magnificent goal to fight for?

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill P wrote:

These are philosophical issues. The philosophy we need is a conceptual equivalent of America's sense of life. To propagate it, would require the hardest intellectual battle. But isn't that a magnificent goal to fight for?

end quote

Great sentiments Bill and I second them.

Another area of Philosophy is Politics. I would leave “51 votes needed to pass” in place until as much as can be repealed of Socialism is completed. Then as a final step, a Randian Tea Party/Republican majority will plug the loop holes in Congressional procedures and in the Constitution.

Barbara’s mention of the farthest and last outpost of America as a destination is intriguing. I know Israel is composed of the secular and the religious, but culturally I wonder if Barbara would feel as stifled as when Ayn Rand lived with her family in Chicago?

Plus, Israel is so vulnerable. Today, a former minister of defense is saying Israel will attack Iran before November. Will that attack bring in other Arab nations into a larger war?

Hopefully not; but first, and also hopefully, Israel will manage to destroy Iran’s nuclear and non-nuclear military might. Imagine a war that stretches on and on. President Bush after 911 is looking mighty good right now.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill P wrote:

These are philosophical issues. The philosophy we need is a conceptual equivalent of America's sense of life. To propagate it, would require the hardest intellectual battle. But isn't that a magnificent goal to fight for?

end quote

Great sentiments Bill and I second them.

Another area of Philosophy is Politics. I would leave "51 votes needed to pass" in place until as much as can be repealed of Socialism is completed. Then as a final step, a Randian Tea Party/Republican majority will plug the loop holes in Congressional procedures and in the Constitution.

Barbara's mention of the farthest and last outpost of America as a destination is intriguing. I know Israel is composed of the secular and the religious, but culturally I wonder if Barbara would feel as stifled as when Ayn Rand lived with her family in Chicago?

Plus, Israel is so vulnerable. Today, a former minister of defense is saying Israel will attack Iran before November. Will that attack bring in other Arab nations into a larger war?

Hopefully not; but first, and also hopefully, Israel will manage to destroy Iran's nuclear and non-nuclear military might. Imagine a war that stretches on and on. President Bush after 911 is looking mighty good right now.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Please note that those sentiments were written by Ayn Rand, as my post indicated (and, in case anyone missed it, my post wraps back to the one starting off this thread).

Regards,

BIll P

Edited by Bill P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would leave “51 votes needed to pass” in place until as much as can be repealed of Socialism is completed. Then as a final step, a Randian Tea Party/Republican majority will plug the loop holes in Congressional procedures and in the Constitution.

Isn't Peter's childish confidence that the Tea Partiers and the GOP favor a free society amazing to behold?

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Canada? We have really good universal health care here! smile.gif

You didn't really think you could slip this by us, did you? You are talking about a state monopoly, socialism, doctor enslavement and the human capacity to adapt to something pretty bad if you are pretty sick.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If America continued its insane rush toward collectivism, and I felt I had to leave this country I have always loved, I'd want to live where technological creativity, medical innovation, scientific (including nuclear) achievement, together with an accelerating movement away from socialism and toward capitalism, would hold out the possibility that the values most precious to me would not vanish from he earth.

I would move to Israel.

Barbara

Well! How selfish can you get!!!

--Brant

digging a bunker, laying in food, putting Ayn Rand's books into caves

seriously, we are living in the midst of the acceleration of history--just don't stand under the falling piano

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Canada? We have really good universal health care here! smile.gif

You didn't really think you could slip this by us, did you? You are talking about a state monopoly, socialism, doctor enslavement and the human capacity to adapt to something pretty bad if you are pretty sick.

--Brant

I was beginning to think no one would notice my outrageous claim. Seriously though, there's one thing nobody is talking about in this whole healthcare fiasco - people have to start taking responsibility for their own health. Most of the stress on our healthcare systems is originating from unhealthy lifestyles and food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Canada? We have really good universal health care here! smile.gif

You didn't really think you could slip this by us, did you? You are talking about a state monopoly, socialism, doctor enslavement and the human capacity to adapt to something pretty bad if you are pretty sick.

--Brant

I was beginning to think no one would notice my outrageous claim. Seriously though, there's one thing nobody is talking about in this whole healthcare fiasco - people have to start taking responsibility for their own health. Most of the stress on our healthcare systems is originating from unhealthy lifestyles and food.

You are talking about the difference between reactive medicine and that. Reactive medicine is pretty good in the US for now, but we're throwing it into the crapper.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Canada? We have really good universal health care here! smile.gif

You didn't really think you could slip this by us, did you? You are talking about a state monopoly, socialism, doctor enslavement and the human capacity to adapt to something pretty bad if you are pretty sick.

--Brant

For the record, we are gradually getting a 2-tiered system in Canada whereby if you have the money you can pay for better service than is offered by the government run system. Also, I don't know many doctors I would refer to as 'slaves', that kind of rhetoric doesn't help your cause much, IMO.

Edited by general semanticist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Canada? We have really good universal health care here! smile.gif

You didn't really think you could slip this by us, did you? You are talking about a state monopoly, socialism, doctor enslavement and the human capacity to adapt to something pretty bad if you are pretty sick.

--Brant

For the record, we are gradually getting a 2-tiered system in Canada whereby if you have the money you can pay for better service than is offered by the government run system. Also, I don't know many doctors I would refer to as 'slaves', that kind of rhetoric doesn't help your cause much, IMO.

Not your cause, I see.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now