This is why Singapore was a bad suggestion: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6AF0U820101116 '(Reuters) - Singapore's High Court sentenced 76-year-old British writer Alan Shadrake to six weeks in jail on Tuesday after finding him guilty of contempt of court for criticising the city-state's judiciary. High Court Judge Quentin Loh, who had ruled that Shadrake's book on the country's use of the death penalty had scandalised the court, also fined the author S$20,000 (9,572 pounds). Shadrake will be jailed for an additional two weeks if he cannot pay the fine. He also has to pay costs of S$55,000. Shadrake's lawyers had asked the court for a lenient sentence of censure, while prosecutors had demanded a 12-week jail term. In a written judgement two weeks ago, Loh said Shadrake had used a "selective background of truths and half-truths, and sometimes outright falsehoods" in his book, which he said accused Singapore judges of being influenced by executive and diplomatic pressures. New York-based Human Rights Watch and other groups had urged Singapore to exonerate Shadrake. Singapore, a small island-state of 5 million people, imposes the death penalty for crimes such as murder and a mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking. It boasts of one of the lowest crime rates in the world.' I guess Reuters doesn't count jailing 76 year olds for having an opinion as a crime?
To clarify, I suggested Singapore based on it's economically libertarian merit. I thought I specified that. Sorry if I didn't...
i notice russia being red in the graphic above when the topic of freedoms comes up. interestingly enough, it's one of the most free places to live - if you have enough money.
Yeah, I understood - but the thing is that life isn't lived purely in economics. For example you could move to Amsterdam and have lots of social liberty - fuck whores, open a brothel, smoke weed, break the law on hard drugs and maybe get a â¬50 fine once every decade, and say what you like (unless it's criticizing islam or immigration). However you would be paying through the nose in taxes. As someone who wouldn't settle down there the rest of my life, and doesn't leech off the welfare state, I would see no benefit to those taxes - since the Netherlands has a weak military and poor law enforcement, even the basic functions of the state are not providing fair value for your tax. Holland would fall in a week or two if ever invaded, just like WWI and II. Criminals get off with pitiful sentences there. Or you could go to Monaco or Dubai and pay no tax, but if you criticize the royal family and argue that democracy should be introduced, you might end up in jail. And they have no army to speak of, the courts are corrupt etc. Personally I am not willing to be bribed into accepting slavery. I would rather pay a non-oppressive level of tax in an otherwise fairly free society, than to pay 0%, free ride on the government services that do exist, and have to watch my mouth, turn a blind eye to corruption, "work the system" by bribes etc. Anyone can live beyond the law, and if they have some persuasion, cunning, and cash, have a pretty nice free life. But that's just as oppressive as the actions of the governments who make it necessary in the first place. That's what the mohdsallehs of this world don't understand, just as the technocrats like yourself (no offense, but that's how you come across) don't understand the importance of liberty for its own sake, not just for its contribution to higher living standards. Put simply, it's better to live free on 25k a year than to be paid 500k a year to accept living in a slave society, or to get 5 million a year by oppressing others.
Really? You mean the same Russia that jails people or intimidates them with judicial harrassment for trying to democratically introduce political reforms or criticising the state? The same one where magazines get closed down it the authorities don't like what they say? Where the government tells people how to run their businesses? Where dissidents are often assassinated, or lawyers die in jail after having medical treatment witheld because they represented the "wrong" client? There is more to freedom than a low flat tax rate.