Governments should enact laws that allow the individuals to succeed without making them dependent upon the State for their success, within the bounds of responsible Capitalism

Agreed things need to be discussed. Personally I believe that the death penalty should be reserved for treason (in a military sense) and violate offenses only. In the case of violate offenses I support allowing the families of the victim carry out the sentence.

Thanks Eyecy2. Presumably it's then critical that there be free and open debate on the limits and application of these guiding principles.

For example (to stay with the Singapore theme), they have decided here that selling drugs is so antithetical to the general welfare as to merit the death penalty... Much of he rest of the world thinks that is far too harsh... Definitely needs to be able to be discussed.

Hear hear!

My brother in law works and lives in Singapore and loves it there. My visits there have always left me with a favorable opinion. The Fraser Institute recently published their annual Economic Freedom of the World project report and it shows Singapore being in second place. You can check out and download the report at http://www.freetheworld.com/ . It is very interesting how the US has fallen to 17th place from 2nd place since 2000. Before 2000 we were always in the top 3. During the last decade we have lost ground in all areas they rate. The largest decline is in the area of legal system and property rights. In this area we went from 9th place to 38th since 2000. I am not saying Singapore is perfect but if our government really was serious about getting our economy going again it could learn a lot from Singapore and stop regulating everything little thing to justify their self serving feeling of importance..

Ok what would you call a single-party state?

"Singaporean politics have been dominated by the People's Action Party (PAP) since the 1959 general election when Lee Kuan Yew became Singapore's first prime minister (Singapore was then a self-governing state within the British Empire). The PAP has been in government and won every General Election since then. Singapore left the Commonwealth in 1963 to join the Federation of Malaysia, but was expelled from the Federation in 1965 after Lee Kuan Yew disagreed with the federal government in Kuala Lumpur.[1] Foreign political analysts and several opposition parties including the Workers' Party of Singapore and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) have argued that Singapore is a de facto one-party state."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_o...

FWIW I did business around the world in the '80s and '90s including Singapore. You can fool economic realty for a time but sooner or later it catches up.

I would say free by law, not de facto. Cost is higher than most places, Malaysia is lower than Singapore. One time the legislature debated making it a law that kids must support their parents if needed in retirement. One side said yes, the other side said kids already did due to Chinese culture and no law was needed. They do not have and rejected the western welfare state. Such laws don't exist there. In Malaysia, my wife's net pay was the same as her gross pay. No difference.

Or making me laugh...

Socialism is the last thing Singapore has.

Yes but with heavy restrictions. Not much hunting, too much jungle. Security guards carry guns, sometimes full-auto M-14s which are privately owned. Too restricted on this point for me but crime is extremely low, about 1/300 of LA crime rate for felonies.

Yes, racially it is a very diverse and exotic place. Lots of illegals, too. They get rounded up and deported from time-to-time. One year awhile back they deported over 700,000 in one year.

"...and there can be no such thing as a correct decision which is right for all" Agreed! That is why the founding fathers opted for decentralized, limited government which placed the responsibility for the lives of citizens squarely on their own shoulders. Between 1792 and approx. 1900, Americas became the most productive, literate, militarily powerful society that has ever existed. Why do Marxists prize slavery over individual rights? .

Spelling correction acknowledged, thanks.
Wherever socialism has been tried, there is one direction, down, fast or slow, but always higher taxes, more controls, less individual freedom, lower standard of living, economic instability, more unemployment, less press freedom. Some things may improve like health care access for the very poor as in Cuba, it does not last. It could be that Lee KY called the system he brought in 'socialism' for political reasons - to recognize the public feeling at the time. When his party got power, only a few of the above list got worse. No doubt some people on here would have done it better (I mean that), but it has been a good performance over 50+ years, compare with other places that got out of colonialism. My admiration is not just based on the overwhelming good performance across the board, but consider as well, the areas in which Singapore is bad, are improving, slowly. (The 'west' rates higher but we are in decline). Controls on business are reducing, press freedom and freedom of speech controls are far more severe than in 'the west' but par for the course elsewhere, they are being moderated. To return to the point of this thread:
Find a tight group of ethical, efficient and brilliant people and give them complete power, things get better, right? Well, in Singapore, so far, yes maybe. It is an ultra high risk strategy, if it goes wrong, it goes very badly wrong, and fast. (John Galt turned down the offer) There is another severe objection to this arrangement, see point made by dkhalling elsewhere, central decision making and control can not work all the time (Objectivist or Austrian), and there can be no such thing as a correct decision which is right for all.

As Lucky posted below, Lee Kuan Yew titled his book "Socialism That Works". This was in response to the horrors of the Socialist experiments of the early 20th Century. The mass slaughter caused by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao forced the socialists to moderate their approach to Marxism to make it appear more warm and cuddly. Dubcek tried the same thing in the Prague Spring.. A gilded cage is still a cage.

We didn't have a rifle team, but my husband's history teacher told him he'd like to see his Browning over / under so he brought it to school one day. Walked down the hall with it over his shoulder...no one batted an eye. The teacher gave it a thorough inspection in the front of the classroom...said it was an impressive shot gun and handed it back to my husband. Those were the days.

Was I the *only* one who went to a high school with a rifle team?

It's not guns.
It's not guns in schools.
It's values or lack of.

<shameless plug>Papa Possum poems</shameless plug>

If you can't defend your own life... you're not free. (The parents should be arrested if their kids gain access to their guns and take them to school...that's not the guns doing.) "Obsession with guns"..."a little nuts"..."rest of the world thinks.." Good luck to you.

Don't think private individuals can... happy to be corrected. But I have to say I'd bet Americans (and really only a sub-set thereof) are the only people in the world who would assess level of freedom partly on gun "rights".

You guys do realise that most of the rest of the world thinks that the American obsession with gun ownership is a little nuts, right?

I grew up in LA and saw an evolving situation as a kid where children were taking guns to elementary school. And using them on other children.

Sorry... Just don't see the relevance of the question... any non-Americans out there have a view? (Americans welcome, too... we are all about freedom of expression, right? :-) )

oh. it's a sound thing then

thanks for all the great info jeremy. my son is actively preparing to move there. it's great to have this information. productive new year to you!