Edit: In my morning stupor, I didn't notice the highlighted link words were three separate words. I can go into Australia, a bit later. But I stand by my general statement, that I doubt the results will be much different. [quote=@catchamber] Yes, the USA has economies of scale and the drive of being hyperpower to sustain its high GDP/capita (PPP). However, I believe [url=https://panampost.com/editor/2017/04/14/does-canada-have-more-economic-freedom-than-the-united-states/?cn-reloaded=1]these[/url] [url=https://www.heritage.org/index/country/australia]particular[/url] [url=https://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates]articles[/url] can better say how Australia and Canada can be less stifled than the USA. Also, let's compare the 2017 deficits/capita of all 3 countries in US$: Australia: $886 Canada: $871 US: $2,050 Not saying restricting free speech and defense rights is good, though. Those restrictions may ultimately harm the economy if maintained. [/quote] Okay, the first one talks about Canada and basically it touches on two points of contention. 1. Obamacare sucks. It has 100's of pages compared to Canada Health Act (Agreed.) This doesn't make someone 'more free'. Because their system is still more restrictive. They're not even -open- on weekends. Their forced to wait for long periods of care, so much so they've been sued and have now tried changing their systems closer to ours. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/06/11/canadians-are-one-in-a-million-while-waiting-for-medical-treatment/#42e6d18b3e7d http://thenelsondaily.com/news/canada%E2%80%99s-health-care-system-more-restrictive-46967 And even if I agree with the statement...Obamacare, isn't all we have. 2. The second is about the lower corporate tax rate. Stating it's 28% percent. It makes a pretty weak case for Canada in general and questions if he'll ruin what his father built. (ha ha.) This was -before- Trump's job act. "Since January 1, 2018, the nominal corporate tax rate in the United States of America is a flat 21 percent due to the passage of the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" on December 20, 2017. State and local taxes and rules vary by jurisdiction, though many are based on federal concepts and definitions." So, again even if I agreed...that no longer applies. How does the deficit thing relate to freedom exactly? (Could you source where you found those numbers too?) "If maintained" seems to be a pretty superfluous qualifier, honestly. Like it's ever going to change? It's actively getting worse in countries like Canada and the U.K. [quote=@catchamber] It can be in the right conditions, but those should be avoided by understanding: others' views, and that tolerating the [i]possibility[/i] of conflict isn't a good excuse to tolerate conflict happening. It depends on the system and situation. The aim should be to ensure all have the opportunity to succeed at optimizing their trades without reducing productivity across the board. [/quote] I'd love an further explanation on that, specifically saying that it can actually be the free-market that makes a bushiness fail 'under the right conditions/it depends on the situation' when I think that couldn't be any further from the truth. Under the free-market, the stupidest ideas of the individual can actually be produce results and have people invest their money. Just think of the most ridiculous examples...people kickstarted a guy who was making potato salad... Are you really going to blame capitalism for an individual/groups failure when stuff like that can prove lucrative? Understanding others views as in your typical consumer? We already do that, their focus groups and I certainly wouldn't make a case that those have lead to great things, if anything the stifle the niche product. I think most business failures aren't because not enough people said "Yes" but because no one was around to say, "No, don't do that." Conflict and compromise is absolutely required in life and it's not at all always a negative result. I'm also not quite sure what the last sentence leads to, or means in the broad context of what we we're discussing...can you provide an example of what you may be discussing, or what you're looking for? [quote=@catchamber] This hybridizing is a consequence of globalization, which has proved dangerous in the past if: economies and states are too interdependent, or the applied policies are theoretically practical but not suited to the situation. By granting citizens the authority to choose transactions as they see fit, be they provided by market or state, the whole gets to pick from the best of every world. [/quote] I'm not quite sure what this statement is leading to or implying. The first part is stating globalization in America is causing our problems, which seems to have an Isolationist bent. But the second seems to be implying, people getting to choose products from all over the world would proof to be beneficial...which doesn't seem supportive of the former statement. While I can agree in one case that people should be able to choose where they go for care. Getting experimental drugs not in your country, that aren't by all definitions legal there. It's -your- life. But I feel the idea the government "grants" that, is a backwards thought that can get you into a mess. The government shouldn't be the one granting you rights. The Constitution wasn't the government granting us the ability to speak our minds, with the knowledge they can strip it away if they so decide. It was a 'god given' right, that they understood the government shouldn't meddle with. That applies to many things, and frankly is the strongest argument against most socially conservative types that want to use government law to restrict freedoms. Give the government the ability to choose what drugs you can or cannot have, it doesn't matter you correct you are, you just rolled the dice and your fate is no longer in the individuals hand. If weed could magically cure cancer, (it can't), but if it did. Too bad, Bob Thorpinstein says you can't have it. But my libertarian digression aside, I don't really understand the idea globalization being too blame for shitty things like Obamacare. I can think of many more examples of why that failed that don't involve anything outside of the United States...