1. This was an obvious bad idea to anyone who has been in Chile (such as myself) given its location. Namely they wanted to build a "farm" and sustainable development midway between Santiago and Valparaiso, along a main highway, in an area that is borderline desert, yet which has a fair amount of development already, housing neighborhoods, businesses, olive pressing plants and the like... meaning effectively the chilean version of suburbs (convenient to the big city yes) and not a rural farm appropriate area.
Alas, one thing americans do too often[1], especially when buying real estate outside the country, is they want to fly in, buy the property over a long weekend and fly out. I think it's too easy to project american standards for property transactions onto other countries. Any time you're spending thousands of dollars, do your due diligence, and if that means buying a retirement property in another country, spend at least a summer there to make sure you like the country! Chile is really wonderful in many ways, but like everywhere else it has its things that are annoying.
2. It never got off the ground. There are thousands of terrible real estate deals that never got off the ground in the USA, especially after 2008. But no sensationalist articles about them. Why? Because the purpose of this article is purely political... it's to give the people commenting in this thread an opportunity to spew their hate.
3. There is, actually, a libertarian "paradise" in chile. Not only is much of the country pretty close to that definition on a lot of scores, but there's a successful sustainable housing / real estate development there which predates this effort by several years. (I'm not going to mention it by name because they deserve their privacy.)
But of course, you'll never hear about that operation on the pages of Vice or Salon, or any other leftist rag. Unless, of course, they become well known enough and need to be "taken down a few notches", like Ayn Rand seems to every few months, despite being dead for nearly 40 years. (such power to reach out from the grave! If only people felt the need to make up stuff to write 2,000 word articles to bash me with 40 years after I'm in the ground!)
[1] as reported in a variety of expat forums and magazines, and based on the way some of these "gringo focused" operations market themselves. For example, the same property in many central and south american countries is listed online at one price much higher (but with a full service real estate agent attached) online, than it is listed in the local listing services. OR pay dollars and pay twice to three times as much when you buy with pesos.
Dude, the whole world is converting. What direction is China, India, Brazil, Israel, Africa, Southeast Asia, and much of South America, notably including Chile going? Libertarian.
Chile is an excellent example. To prevent it from being taken over by communists, the CIA forced a coup, resulting in a military dictatorship, which was quite terrible. But not knowing economics, Pinoche brought in Americans, namely Milton Friedman a nobel prize winning Libertarian. His advice turned the country around economically producing one of the most prosperous, fast growing, and stable democracies in the region. The chilean government runs a budget surplus, while spending essentially all of their time and taxes on programs for the poor.
Look no further than the USA. Founded by immigrants from Europe, far behind Europe when organized the country developed into super power status in a rapid fashion because the constitution was strong, the federal government was weak and property rights (and human rights generally) were respected.
If you look at history, you find that Libertarianism is so successful, that the only enemy that can vanquish it is itself--- when a country becomes propserous enough -- as europe did, and the USA has-- eventually the politicians are able to collectivize the country in order to loot it, because people are too comfortable to realize what's at stake.
So, yes, the USA is not a libertarian country-- anymore-- and its economic decline and turn to socialism are a tragedy--- but they were, ironically, a tragedy enabled by the paramount success of libertarianism here for most of the countries history.
> Look no further than the USA. Founded by immigrants from Europe, far behind Europe when organized the country developed into super power status in a rapid fashion because the constitution was strong, the federal government was weak and property rights (and human rights generally) were respected.
There are times in US history where you can argue that property rights and human rights in general were respected (but not any time before the end of the Indian Wars), and times when you can argue that the federal government was weak (but not any time after the Civil War) -- but they don't overlap.
Your ideological fantasy interpretation of history is amusing, but not very much related to anything like facts.
I have never asserted that property rights were always respected for everybody for the whole history of this country. To claim that I did is merely to erect a straw man. The propose of which was obviously to try and give yourself cover to throw mud at me personally. That you have chosen this as your avenue of response, I take as a concession of my points in completion and admission of intellectual bankruptcy.
> super power status in a rapid fashion because the constitution was strong
So was the terrorism. Nice constitutions are easy to write, but slaughtering the local population and driving them into deserts and marshes takes more bravery and teamwork.
> you find that Libertarianism is so successful
Well so far it was pretty much equivalent to terrorism (not unlike other Fantasy Systems, like Communism for example).
So where are these successful Libertarian countries. As I mentioned in another comment. For the amount of press and number of adherents this movement is getting, you'd think there would be scores of easy and obvious success examples in today's world to point to.
1. This was an obvious bad idea to anyone who has been in Chile (such as myself) given its location. Namely they wanted to build a "farm" and sustainable development midway between Santiago and Valparaiso, along a main highway, in an area that is borderline desert, yet which has a fair amount of development already, housing neighborhoods, businesses, olive pressing plants and the like... meaning effectively the chilean version of suburbs (convenient to the big city yes) and not a rural farm appropriate area.
Alas, one thing americans do too often[1], especially when buying real estate outside the country, is they want to fly in, buy the property over a long weekend and fly out. I think it's too easy to project american standards for property transactions onto other countries. Any time you're spending thousands of dollars, do your due diligence, and if that means buying a retirement property in another country, spend at least a summer there to make sure you like the country! Chile is really wonderful in many ways, but like everywhere else it has its things that are annoying.
2. It never got off the ground. There are thousands of terrible real estate deals that never got off the ground in the USA, especially after 2008. But no sensationalist articles about them. Why? Because the purpose of this article is purely political... it's to give the people commenting in this thread an opportunity to spew their hate.
3. There is, actually, a libertarian "paradise" in chile. Not only is much of the country pretty close to that definition on a lot of scores, but there's a successful sustainable housing / real estate development there which predates this effort by several years. (I'm not going to mention it by name because they deserve their privacy.)
But of course, you'll never hear about that operation on the pages of Vice or Salon, or any other leftist rag. Unless, of course, they become well known enough and need to be "taken down a few notches", like Ayn Rand seems to every few months, despite being dead for nearly 40 years. (such power to reach out from the grave! If only people felt the need to make up stuff to write 2,000 word articles to bash me with 40 years after I'm in the ground!)
[1] as reported in a variety of expat forums and magazines, and based on the way some of these "gringo focused" operations market themselves. For example, the same property in many central and south american countries is listed online at one price much higher (but with a full service real estate agent attached) online, than it is listed in the local listing services. OR pay dollars and pay twice to three times as much when you buy with pesos.