I was always thinking that Singapore and Hong Kong were total opposites of 'unregulated free market', Singapore is almost a dictatorship and Hong Kong was a British colony under a strong, undemocratic rule. Good geography and lack of 'legacy' issues due to these territories being freshly developed from scratch made them successful, bringing free market with no government pressure to Honduras will bring nothing but more violence and poverty.
Market freedom is not necessarily connected with political freedom. One could for instance have an oppressive leader who instituted free market economic policies, such as Pinochet. A free market doesn't necessarily imply democracy (freedom to choose one's political leader), it only implies freedom of exchange (freedom to buy and sell as one wishes, with only minor taxation being applied).
I think what he's trying to say is that minor taxation implies minor-intervention on the part of the government.
So the more taxation you have, the more funding is given to the government. The implication being that more funding means that they can institute more, or more overreaching policies that distort free-market operation.
Comments
I was always thinking that Singapore and Hong Kong were total opposites of 'unregulated free market', Singapore is almost a dictatorship and Hong Kong was a British colony under a strong, undemocratic rule. Good geography and lack of 'legacy' issues due to these territories being freshly developed from scratch made them successful, bringing free market with no government pressure to Honduras will bring nothing but more violence and poverty.
Market freedom is not necessarily connected with political freedom. One could for instance have an oppressive leader who instituted free market economic policies, such as Pinochet. A free market doesn't necessarily imply democracy (freedom to choose one's political leader), it only implies freedom of exchange (freedom to buy and sell as one wishes, with only minor taxation being applied).
What do you mean? As long as the tax is low enough to not be a de facto ban, I think it's still a free market.
I think what he's trying to say is that minor taxation implies minor-intervention on the part of the government.
So the more taxation you have, the more funding is given to the government. The implication being that more funding means that they can institute more, or more overreaching policies that distort free-market operation.