Quote Originally Posted by HiTempguy1 View Post
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Clearly you don't. Arguing that I don't see your point, then completely missing mine.

I never said we need no government. We need an absolute bare minimum. When the British had control of India, clearly that falls into a system of essentially "no government".

But that goes even further. India arguably should not have been amalgamated out of 30 countries. It is a really, really poor case study for your argument all things considered, because it is an incredibly unique situation.

In fact, why you'd base your argument on a "country" that is so young and unstable makes no sense. It's awful data in the first place.

My point still stands, as minimal government as possible. No western society currently practices that, in fact, every single example has steadily been increasing government control overall over the past 50 years.
India is the equivalent of 30 countries. Its not amalgamated of 30, because at the time countries did not exist, as I pointed out there was no Nationalism. It was different mishmash of kingdoms overseen by a Emperor. The British dismantled that through the East India Company. The problem is each kingdom, has its own culture, variance on religion(s), language(s) and sub languages.

Its not bad data at all. Quite the opposite actually.
I think if one reads its history, its Emperors, the British Empire, its transition from the British, to partition then to a democratic society. Then its transition from a closed market economy to opening up to the world, thus leading to the creation of its middle class, to even having a space program.
It is THE BEST CASE STUDY EXAMPLE by FAR.

I agree small government but with strong civic institutions, otherwise private companies will ultimately lead to its demise (ie East India Company). But you will still need them(government) adjusting policies that will in turn lead to growth or subtly manage negative growth/market contractions.