“Because once a country embraces Statism, it usually begins an irreversible process of turning into a “shithole country”, as Trump himself eloquently put it. “
Ignoring tiny islands (some of them with dubious levels of independence from the US), the 10 nations with the largest %s of GDP as government revenue include Finland, France, Belgium and Austria, although, also, yes, Libya and Lesotho. In general, the top of the list for government revenue as % of GDP seems to be a mixture of small islands, petro states, and European welfare state democracies, not places that are particularly impoverished or authoritarian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP#List_of_countries_(2024)
Meanwhile the countries with the low levels of government revenue as a % of GDP that aren’t currently having some kind of civil war are places like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Iran and (weirdly) Venezuela.
This isn’t a perfect proxy for “statism” obviously, but I think it shows that things are more complicated than simplistic libertarian analysis would suggest. Big states (in purely monetary) seem to often be a consequence of success. Maybe they also hold back further success of course, but countries don’t seem to actively degenerate once they arrive (i.e. growth might slow, but they are not in permanent recession.)
You make good points. Obviously, every country is either definitionally or practically a nation-state. But IMHO the only conditions under which individual freedoms and economic freedoms for individuals survive in a country, are when Statism is not embraced but is instead held at arm’s length and treated with caution and hesitation.
My argument for voting against Trump and Trumpists in the 2026 midterms, for a republican-leaning American citizen is this:
The current situation is directly a result of both Republican and Democrat politicians explicitly trying to increase and abuse state power for their definition of “the greater good”, which the other side disagrees with.
Up to an arbitrary point, this can be considered the ordinary functioning of democratic nation-states. Beyond the arbitrary point, the presence or absence of democracy is irrelevant, and the very nature of the social contract changes.
The fact that the arbitrary point is unknown or unpredictable is precisely the reason that Statism should not embraced but instead be held at arm’s length and treated with caution and hesitation!
Every dollar the government takes out of you pocket or restricts you from earning, every sector or part of the economy or society the government feels the need to “direct” or “reshape” for the greater good, the less freedom there is for the individual, and private citizens as a whole.
If the Republican voters abdicate too much sovereignty to support Trumpist pet projects, even if the Dems ultimately defeat Trumpists, or even if Vance turns out to be a much better president, the social contract may or may not revert back to what it used to be. Which could really suck.
“Because once a country embraces Statism, it usually begins an irreversible process of turning into a “shithole country”, as Trump himself eloquently put it. “
Ignoring tiny islands (some of them with dubious levels of independence from the US), the 10 nations with the largest %s of GDP as government revenue include Finland, France, Belgium and Austria, although, also, yes, Libya and Lesotho. In general, the top of the list for government revenue as % of GDP seems to be a mixture of small islands, petro states, and European welfare state democracies, not places that are particularly impoverished or authoritarian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP#List_of_countries_(2024)
Meanwhile the countries with the low levels of government revenue as a % of GDP that aren’t currently having some kind of civil war are places like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Iran and (weirdly) Venezuela.
This isn’t a perfect proxy for “statism” obviously, but I think it shows that things are more complicated than simplistic libertarian analysis would suggest. Big states (in purely monetary) seem to often be a consequence of success. Maybe they also hold back further success of course, but countries don’t seem to actively degenerate once they arrive (i.e. growth might slow, but they are not in permanent recession.)
You make good points. Obviously, every country is either definitionally or practically a nation-state. But IMHO the only conditions under which individual freedoms and economic freedoms for individuals survive in a country, are when Statism is not embraced but is instead held at arm’s length and treated with caution and hesitation.
My argument for voting against Trump and Trumpists in the 2026 midterms, for a republican-leaning American citizen is this:
The current situation is directly a result of both Republican and Democrat politicians explicitly trying to increase and abuse state power for their definition of “the greater good”, which the other side disagrees with.
Up to an arbitrary point, this can be considered the ordinary functioning of democratic nation-states. Beyond the arbitrary point, the presence or absence of democracy is irrelevant, and the very nature of the social contract changes.
The fact that the arbitrary point is unknown or unpredictable is precisely the reason that Statism should not embraced but instead be held at arm’s length and treated with caution and hesitation!
Every dollar the government takes out of you pocket or restricts you from earning, every sector or part of the economy or society the government feels the need to “direct” or “reshape” for the greater good, the less freedom there is for the individual, and private citizens as a whole.
If the Republican voters abdicate too much sovereignty to support Trumpist pet projects, even if the Dems ultimately defeat Trumpists, or even if Vance turns out to be a much better president, the social contract may or may not revert back to what it used to be. Which could really suck.