I saw a project to make Belle Island, MI a city state similar to Singapore. Sadly, the city councilmen and Mayor refused to consider the sale of the citizens property. It's been perfectly OK to steal property from the citizens of Detroit for the last 50 years, but to create a capitalist money maker for them is unacceptable. It seems to me incentive is the driving force behind free economies and progressive politicians know little of incentives and a great deal of penalties and punishment.

The primary reason for wanting lassiez faire capitalism is that it is the most moral of systems. The fact that it also creates prosperity is secondary to it's moral nature: which is to promote freedom and individuality.

Lee Kwan Yu, the effective founder of Singapore, said his system was 'Socialism That Works', capitalized as that is the title of the book. If correct, is an interesting socialism. I have lived and worked in few countries, I came across a Singapore tax rate sheet some years ago and had to laugh. Yes there is tax, but with rates that low, why bother? Could it be that with low tax, there is more incentive, more income, leading to higher taxable income?
There is a lot wrong with Singapore - criticism of the people in government can lead to very steep fines, if not paid then years of jail.
Singaporians who do not like it are free to leave, for skilled and professional people, getting in is not hard. There is a big demand for unskilled labor- not paid well but for those from Indonesia, BanglaDesh etc very good pay. There is movement at both ends. Primary education is very good and very low cost for citizens, tertiary education is very good and very low cost for those on scholarships, pricey for others. There is an increasing standard of living, comparative economic stability, and even increasing personal freedoms.
With all that, I remain a fan.
A Gulch it is not, but it works.

there is widespread racism

excellent point rationalape. love the username

It's pretty much a crap shoot. I thought of Singapore and other autocratic governments that seem to prosper. But the crap shoot part is that the autocrats in charge allow policies that allow prosperity. Certainly not the case in say, Zimbabwe. An interesting case is the recent flowering of Abu Dhabi after its autocrat adopted prosperity. So, the autocratic model can lead to incredible prosperity but only if the autocrats allow it.

I think he was caned for spray painting people's cars.

Highways and mass transit--why can't these be privately owned? As far as military protection, I would suggest a voluntary militia as an alternative. Legal protection--why can't a court charge a fee to the involved parties for a case to be heard? Law enforcement--should be heavily constrained in their actions toward individuals and therefore in need of very little funding.

Attempting to dismiss any argument by saying it is " simplistic" does not address its merits or failings if any.

Why govt provided mass transit?

Hi Jeremy - Thank you for sharing your experiences in Singapore, it sounds like a great place!

Concerning the role of government my opinion is aligned with the following Ayn Rand quote regarding the role of government in a capitalist society:

"The only function of the government in such a society is the task of protecting man's rights - that is, the task of protecting him from physical force. The government acts as the agent of man's self defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. Thus, the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."

That pretty much sums it up :)

I'm on third shift. Give me a break.

It's a theory I would like to see tried. I believe the free market could handle critical infrastructure just fine. Without artificial stimulation the free market rewards success and punishes failure - critical infrastructure would be no different.

In terms of market regulation, it would self regulate based on the rational self-interest of participants. Of course this all assumes that it would be a true free market and not "capitalism with controls."

Bitcoin is probably the closest thing to a true free market that I have seen and the recent price drops were the result of the actions regulators (non-market participants).

That sounds good in theory... you don't see any role in critical infrastructure or market regulation?

I would also add those contingent upon a sound system of reasonable determination, as those are prone to abuses via misdiagnosis and “social diseases” of questionable validity.

For this site, I would think that saying that governments should protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens is stating the obvious. Perhaps you are really asking how this should be done? But I won't put words in anyone's mouth.

Thanks Will.

So I got military protection, legal protection, law enforcement... ok... that is a VERy minimal yet reasonable list.

I'd probably like to add provide critical infrastructure (highways, efficient mass transport?) and also care for those who genuinely can't care for themselves... people with severe mental health issues or physical disabilities for example.

Anyone have any other thoughts?

I might be overly simplistic, but that is because I feel that government should be simplistic. In my opinion the government exists to support the military to defend against invasion, the courts to protect the rights of individuals, and the police to remove the criminal element. That is it. Do I feel there is any government on the planet at this point that only does those things? No.

I like what they have going on there, especially their embrace of meritocracy. In fact I love that point. I was not aware that speaking out against the government was permissible now. If so, then that changes my outlook on them.

My biggest concern with Singapore is their sustainability. They are the major hub of the Asia “world” now, but they have little to no resources of their own. This would cause me great concern if I were looking to relocate there. One thing to be said for the US is we have a vast amount of resources, protected at this point, which could be pressed in to service if a world scale calamity arose. Still, I would love to visit there sometime, but I think I would quickly become claustrophobic.

Well, it's a great place to do business - pretty easy to set up, reasonably low regulation, seems to be very low corruption - and it's a hub for all of Asia.

Seems to be a pretty good place to live - very little crime, clean, very efficient transport, lots to do, stuff works, very cosmopolitain. Seems to be reasonable economic mobility (you can work hard and get ahead).

And sure, the First family seem to do pretty well out of it, too.

Certainly there are down-sides, too. I wouldn't like to start a newspaper here that is critical of the government (yet there are web-sites that do and who the heck starts newspapers these days, anyway? :-) )

So I'm gonna respectfully call you out on "control is control'... Sounds a bit simplistic... The place seems pretty effective for a large majority of the people here (maybe not unskilled guest workers...) And I'll go back to my question - there must be SOME role for government/agreed rules/social contract... what is it?