Anarchy in Indiaby Stephan Kinsella, Mises Blog
Jun. 09, 2011
Feminists Say It's 'Racist And Sexist' for Italians to Have Italian Babies
WATCH: Did Hillary Clinton Give Hand Signals to Debate Moderator Lester Holt?
Here's A List Of Lester Holt's Incredibly Biased Questions
WATCH: Did Hillary Clinton Have a 'Seizure' During Last Night's Debate?
Online Polls Show Donald Trump Won First Presidential Debate
As Roderick Long notes on his blog, the NYTimes has an interesting article up about the Indian city of Gurgaon, which has flourished under a relative lack of government, despite its lack of natural resources:
Before it had malls, a theme park and fancy housing compounds ... Gurgaon was widely regarded as an economic wasteland. In 1979, the state of Haryana created Gurgaon by dividing a longstanding political district on the outskirts of New Delhi. One half would revolve around the city of Faridabad, which had an active municipal government, direct rail access to the capital, fertile farmland and a strong industrial base. The other half, Gurgaon, had rocky soil, no local government, no railway link and almost no industrial base.As my friend Dan Coleman observed, regarding this article, “One of those few times you get a side-by-side experiment. If a rocky, useless, small town without resources can explode like this, it makes one wonder what the US could be like . . .”
Other side-by-side experiments would include the dramatic difference between North and South Korea, East and West Germany (see Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s great De-Socialization in a United Germany), and perhaps Hong Kong versus Red China. And, hopefully, someday, Texas versus the USA.