Quibbling over semantics, for example, is whether the constitutional founders were 'liberal' as 'liberal' is defined in modern day America. The spin on such discussion can, well, make your head spin.
Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian
It is NOT unreasonable to at least loosely define the terms 'democracy', 'socialist' etc., however, in a discussion of whether such governments promote first world or third world economies.
But whatever the definitions, I think Walter Williams PhD economist pretty well boils it down to the following:
. . .We do not fully know what makes some societies more affluent than others; however, we can make some guesses based on correlations. Rank countries according to their economic systems. Conceptually, we could arrange them from those more capitalistic (having a large market sector and private property rights) to the more socialistic (with extensive state intervention, planning and weak private property rights). Then consult Amnesty International's ranking of countries according to human rights abuses going from those with the greatest human rights protections to those with the least. Then get World Bank income statistics and rank countries from highest to lowest per capita income.
Having compiled those three lists, one would observe a very strong, though imperfect correlation: Those countries with greater economic liberty and private property rights tend also to have stronger protections of human rights. And as an important side benefit of that greater economic liberty and human rights protections, their people are wealthier. We need to persuade our fellow man around the globe that liberty is a necessary ingredient for prosperity. . . .
Self-Inflicted Poverty by Walter E. Williams on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
So which countries have stronger property rights coupled with human rights protections? It isn't socialism.