Most Liberal Country

I'd say that if you get into state politics, you'd find that New Hampshire is a really great state.

Here's a link to check-it-out if you want. Seriously, you'd appreciate the people here, and if you want to relocate, they WILL help you!! (especially me)

http://www.freestateproject.org

Hope you find your way, dude.

 

Always heard it is a great state and I am considering moving there or to Oregon. I do smoke some pot (the good quality stuff, always), do they have a problem with this at the State level?

 

Dude, the shit I've seen working with computers leads me to believe that there is nowhere you can go to get away from wiretaps, especially digitally. I don't think the laws of any country can really prevent people from spying on you. It isn't a matter of geography, but rather just not giving them a reason to look at you.

 

Try some remote, high altitude areas of Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, or if you are very brave, the ALASKAN wilderness. I know it's still the USA, but there are places here where the government can't physically be there, besides flying over, which they don't do very often, because the terrain is so rugged. You will of course be alone in the wilderness, if you want to live in a free spot. But nobody will know or care what you are doing up here. You don't have to own property if you just want to camp in your pickup . Just find a remote spot in the national forest or BLM land and the rangers don't give a s*** unless you trash the place. The rocky mountains are much more libertarian than the rest of the states, because we have to spend our energy just surviving up here.

But the Alaskan or Canadian wilderness would probably be your best bet if you wanted to stay away from laws. In the EU countries, there aren't the vast wildernesses that you would find here, unless you want to live in the middle of Russia.

 

Most European countries are actually less liberal the United States. When judging how liberal or free a country is, what your measuring is the relationship between the state and the individual citizen. Things like, private property rights (wire tapping would be a good example of violating these), control of the money supply, tax burden, regulatory burden (and other state interventions into the economy) all effect a countries level of freedom, or "liberalness". The Heritage Foundation releases annual data ranking countries by their level of freedoms. It's a great place to start. Currently Hong Kong and Singapore are ranked first. They have the least amount of government intervention into the economy, and also their citizens lives. It's not a coincidence that these countries also have enormously high GDP per capita as well. If I were going to move, it'd probably be to one of those.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking/
http://www.libertariantee.com

 

The Heritage Foundation is extremely conservative and conservatives seem to always make the mistake that freedom has everything to do with money, instead of actual freedom. So, Singapore is ranked by them high on freedom, even though the government is so repressive that spitting on the sidewalk is illegal, drug smugglers are executed, and a member of Parliament said

Also, the people of Singapore have less sexual intercourse than in any other country on Earth. There's something wrong. I don't think the people feel free.

Most of the freedoms I care about have nothing to do with money.

 

Well, I agree with you about Singapore's laws. That doesn't coincide with my definition of freedom either. I should have specified that they rank based on economic freedom. As far as the republican party, your definition is a bit conspiratorial, however I'm not one to defend any political party. Republicans and/or democrats both make policies that either benefit themselves, or which ever interest groups pays them money. They than in turn sell these policies to the public by claiming its for some public good. Republicans and democrats both do this, to say there's a difference between the two is moronic. You shouldn't cast blame on any one particular party, but on the state apparatus as a whole that allows for people like this to exist. The wealthy wouldn't be able to take control of the legislature if it wasn't there. That's why, the less government, the better. In all situations. To blame one particular party is juvenile.

But I see your reasoning for not liking Singapore's laws, and I agree. Perhaps u should look into Hong Kong? I'm not sure the sort of police state they have, however I assume it's much better than Singapore, while still maintaining the same economic freedoms as well.
http://www.libertariantee.com

 

If a Republican saw a man who was truly free, he would either run away or lock him up.

 

Stay away from Estonia, its quite liberal here yes, but the constant threath of Russia going bananas and the depressing people (everyone here is like that grumpy old neighbour , talking shit about eachother and the goverment, blaming everyone and then going back to bed, to repeat the same process the next day, cold weather does not help either)

 

I think a natural distrust of government is healthy in any country. I wish more people in my country blamed the government, instead of turning to the government for supposed solutions, to problems that the government itself created. The United States was actually founded on the principle of not trusting government and/or power, and its what made us so prosperous, however throughout the last century, we've in large part forgotten that.
When we blame each other, in the form of business owners, or 'capitalists', we do ourselves a huge disservice, and it usually leads to permission statements for governments to curtail more of our individual rights, and to become more of a burden on society. This is how countries become less free. So, any grumpy old neighbor of mine that talks shit about and doesn't trust the government, I consider to be a good one.
http://www.libertariantee.com

 

Poland is liberal? Hell no! The only liberal thing here is no mandatory military service... yet.

Czech Republic would be the way to go.

 

We've been looking at Uruguay. We have a trip planned to go see for it a spell, hangout and see if we can find level.
My only downside, is I cant import my Hondas, nor my truck, should we move there.
Personal weed use has been decriminalized, and hemp is back in the fields again.
Owning a business and property is very easy for the newcomers.
We still have miles of stuff to go and see figure out, but Uruguay, is at least worth a look.

 

deleted

 

Hmmmmmmmm , I live in Denmark . 60% individual tax rate , 25% sales tax , cost of living is exactly twice as high as the U.S. . Individuality does not exist here . I have been here since 2004 . The U.S.A. is a thousand times more free . Health care is free if you can survive the wait . There is alot of talk about the freedom of Nordic countries and that is absolutely nonsense .

 

I'd like to hear more about this. How do the taxes affect individuality?

 

The guy went through the trouble of creating an account just to make a single post telling everyone how miserable his country is. He must feel pretty strongly about it. I can certainly see how someone else dictating to me how over half my income is spent could deal a serious blow to my individualism. Couldn't you? "healthcare is free if you can survive the wait" is an excellent moto for countries with socialized, state run systems. Although "free" is wildly misleading, because a large portion of those crippling taxes he's paying is going to the fund the massive inefficiencies of that supposedly "free healthcare" he's waiting for.

 

Amazingly enough, when I lived in Canada, my taxes (all told, from every level) were about the same as I pay here.

 

There are many other variables influencing this though. For example, The United States spends almost 3 times as much of their budget on Military.

Despite this, it's generally accepted that the average Canadian pays more of his income in tax, however I'm sure it'd depend on which tax bracket you fell in, and also the state \ province that you lived in.

 

Yeah, like I said "all told". When Reagan instituted his tax cuts, taxes at every other level went up in almost every state.

When Bush instituted HIS tax cut, the same thing happened.

Tax cuts are just a way of shifting the tax burden from the top down.

 

By the way, there is very little evidence that cutting taxes leads to economic growth, even tho it is the central dogma of the Republican Party.