>>11
Corporate finance is litterred with state intervention, there are also many positions in the state for someone who requires a PHD in economics. As a result there is a high demand for mixed economy studies rather than laissez faire economics.
>>13
>>14
Red states spend about the same as blue states and also there are many other factors you have missed out. Red states are in generally less dense areas with a lower percentage of service workers.
>>15
1) Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea had representative governments. If Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea did not have representative governments their local businesses would have been taxed, extorted, over-regulated or nationalised into the ground and their workers would have had little freedom to apply their skills and knowledge where they saw fit. 3rd world countries with little or no state intervention in the economy usually have populations which are too poor to tax or are in a civil war and do not have access to a large portion of their country.
2) The stock market was intervened by the government. When Hoover was elected he began a policy of using government spending to counter natural corrections in the economy called anti-cyclic spending, after the crash he exacerbated the situation with further intervention as you mentionned.
3) Microsoft is not a true monopoly, it's operating system has to compete with linux and apple and it does not have a monopoly on CPUs, monitors, printers and other software. Though if you call a product so excellent it outperforms all it's competitors a monopoly then fine, whatever.
4) A market based tax system. Complete personal freedom. Complete political freedom.
6) The country has not implemented them, it has only implemented a few of them. Since a few libertarian principles are needed to turn a country into a 1st world western democracy, guess what they will all do!
>>16
I'm not
>>16 but you're still wrong.
1) Laissez faire capitalism wasn't exactly the libertarian model, but it did industrialise Europe and America.
2) A libertarian government would have those few regulations we have today which actually enforce the law, it would also not suppress personal or political freedoms.
3) Achieving monopoly in a free market is extremely difficult and shareholders would eventually split the company and have their half make more profit than the other through competition.
4) There is regulation to enforce the law like safe disposal of hazardous materials and then there are regulations which are arbitrary or corrupt in nature like tariffs and quotas.
5) Libertarianism prevents you from paying for someone else's mistakes, so there is more incentive for people to act responsibly under a libertarianism.
6) I disapprove of his use of the word "nigger" also. Most of Thailand's problems are a result of a lack of the employment certain libertarian principles.
>>17
Education and hospitals have been privatised across the world. The police are law enforcement and thus would be supported by a libertarian state. Firefighters could easily be funded by insurance companies who would factor in the cost to firefighters in determinning insurance costs, creating a further incentive to prevent disasters and save lives.
>>18
Dubai is a city in the United Arab Emirates, not a nation.