I’m a huge fan of Switzerland, largely because its voters approved a spending cap that should be a role model for other nations.
It’s called the “debt brake” and it has helped reduce the burden of government spending in Switzerland at a time when most nations in Europe have been moving in the wrong direction.
But that’s not the only reason I like Switzerland.
I also appreciate the fact that Swiss voters seem to be much more sensible than voters in other nations.
Every so often I see polls, for instance, suggesting that French voters overwhelmingly want less government spending. But then they go out and elect statist presidents such as Sarkozy and Hollande.
In Switzerland, by contrast, voters are sensible where it counts most – in the voting booth.
Earlier this year, 76 percent of voters rejected a minimum wage hike.
Back in 2010, nearly 60 percent of voters shot down a class-warfare proposal for higher taxes on the rich.
And they’ve done it again. In a recent referendum, they defeated a government-run healthcare system by a landslide.
Here are some excerpts from an AFP report.
Swiss voters on Sunday rejected a plan for a seismic shift from the country’s all-private health insurance system to a state-run scheme. Referendum results showed that almost 62 percent of voters had shot down a reform pushed by left-leaning parties. …”The Swiss population does not want a single national scheme,” said the Swiss Insurance Association. “Our health system is among the top performers in the world. Competition between health insurers and freedom of choice for clients play a major role in this,” it added. …The rejection of the plan by nearly two-thirds of voters is a major blow for pro-reform campaigners, given that opinion polls had shown the ‘No’ vote was likely to be around 54 percent. In a 2007 referendum, 71 percent of voters rejected similar reforms. …for Switzerland’s cross-party government and its right- and centre-dominated parliament, the current system has proven its mettle and is debt-free, unlike the health services of France, Italy or Britain.
Though it seems that speaking French is somehow linked to economic illiteracy.
German-speaking regions voted against the plan, while their French-speaking counterparts were in favour.
Back in 2011, I wrote that there were five reasons why Switzerland was better than the United States.
But perhaps I wasn’t being sufficiently enthusiastic. Over at Being Classically Liberal, there’s an article entitled “9 Reasons Libertarians Should Love Switzerland.” Here’s the bottom line.
The Swiss are rich, happy, gun-owning, peace-loving people. The country has one of the freest market economies in the world and a relatively small and very decentralized government which hasn’t waged war since the early 19th century. In this libertarian’s eyes, Switzerland might just be the most awesome country in existence.
I’m agnostic on whether Switzerland is the “most awesome.” Hong Kong and Singapore, for instance, have smaller government.
That being said, Switzerland is much better on both guns and federalism.
And if you believe in grading on a curve, the burden of government spending in Switzerland is far smaller than it is in neighboring nations.
So it is a very admirable place.
Though I haven’t given up on America quite yet. And if I ever do, I’ll still choose Australia over Switzerland.
P.S. While it is encouraging that Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected a single-payer healthcare scheme, I should acknowledge that their current system is not exactly libertarian Nirvana since it mandates that households purchase a health insurance policy.
P.P.S. But I don’t want to close on a bad point, so I’ll simply call your attention to the fact that Switzerland has one of the lowest levels of welfare spending among industrialized nations.
[…] in 2014, the voters of Switzerland rejected single-payer healthcare by a landslide […]
[…] in 2014, the voters of Switzerland rejected single-payer healthcare by a landslide […]
[…] in 2014, the voters of Switzerland rejected single-payer healthcare by a landslide […]
[…] Switzerland is a very successful, very well-governed nation where voters directly decide all sorts of major policy […]
[…] has an extremely high level of not just democracy, but direct democracy. Voters directly decide all sorts of major policy […]
[…] in 2014, the voters of Switzerland rejected single-payer healthcare by a landslide […]
[…] Source: Landslide Vote against Single-Payer Healthcare Confirms that Switzerland Is an Outpost of Rationalit… […]
[…] in 2014, the voters of Switzerland rejected single-payer healthcare by a landslide […]
[…] His thought-provoking article can be read here. […]
[…] their votes in favor of a spending cap and against class-warfare taxation, minimum-wage mandates, single-payer healthcare, and the death […]
[…] in the year, the voters of Switzerland rejected single-payer healthcare by a landslide […]
Correction: There is NO higher galactic AA to reform voter-lemmimgs that have taken on to the bottle of other people’s wallets.
Switzerland does not need to spend much % of GDP on welfare (though I would not be surprised if their welfare were, in absolute terms, larger than most neighboring nations – which demonstrates the irony of the growth vs redistribution path to prosperity) because the Swiss are productive, and thus rich.
It’s called delayed gratification. Swiss voters went light on redistribution and are now reaping the benefits of exponentially compounding growth. On the other hand, most of the voter-lemmings in neighboring nations (the nations HopNChange seeks to copy), expectedly went for the redistribution dollar today – and forfeited the perpetually compounding five bucks in the future.
Ultimately, it’s evolution at work. Few, very-few are the successful branches. In a system that has been evolving for a long time (human society) most changes have been tried before and failed, hence most changes lead to an inferior state (like our current Nth renewed attempt at prosperity through coercive collectivism-just with different flags and slogans). Occasionally one change breaks new ground. This is why few, very few voter-lemming nations will escape decline.
By the way the “breakthrough” change of HopNChange is: Copy Europe. The continent of 1-2% structural growth, being drowned in a rest of the world that is growing by 4-5%. But it’s worth another try, isn’t it? If we get it wrong we will turn around (like the French and the other nations of the moribund 1-2% growth trendline Old Continent). Once in, it’s irreversible folks. That is why the French say they want less government spending but cant’s get away. There is higher galactic AA to reform voter-lemmimgs that have taken on to the bottle of other people’s wallets. Everyone goes bankrupt.
And talking about evolution and natural selection: Voter-lemmings have to be careful because if they screw things up too much with their shortcuts to prosperity, then at least some dictatorships may start overrunning their nations, in spite of a dictatorship’s inherent structural impediments to productivity. Inferior systems (eg. dictatorships) evolve too. If western voter-lemmings loose their worldwide competitive edge in their flatter effort-reward societies, then at least some dictatorships may jump ahead. Then they’ll have Genghis Khan to deal with (no I don’t mean specifically the Chinese, I’m using the old Mongol’s name as a proxy for a powerful authoritarian juggernaut).
For example, while the US keystone pipeline is stalled and the American arctic is becoming off limits to exploration , Exxon and Rosneft are drilling and finding oil in the Russian arctic. Some of this money will frow to Putin and further Russian armaments. Meanwhile
Without economic growth that matches the world average, American military supremacy will be short lived. Hard to think for most American voter-lemmings who grew up in the steeper effort-reward curves that supported the prosperity which in turn supported the military supremacy. Military supremacy derives from economic supremacy. A nation whose GDP as % of world GDP keeps shrinking (I.e. has a growth rate that is smaller than the world average) cannot possibly maintain military supremacy.