niemivh, is your whole point that "Austian" is a utopian ideas, like Objectivist or pure communist, which, although all compelling theories with a lot of solid ideas behind them, were never truly allowed to exist in this world? If that's your point, that Austian is just a theory at this point, then trolling f*cking accomplished.
The problem is that he is looking for libertarian countries, not "austrian" countries. Libertarianism is a moral and political theory. Austrain economics is not a set of policies, but a social science.
Im trying to make him understand this but he keeps using his "angry mummies kid" rethoric and saying that I want to have economics separated from everything and stupid stuff like that.
Once again I disagree that anyone who has an idea to what one thing is favorable to another could not, has not or is not put forth in the form of a policy. Point being: the Austrian school has beliefs regarding what works and what doesn't work in an economic system; therefore those ideals could be molded into legal language and put forth into a legal framework or just social practice. My question is: where has this happened - AND, led to prosperity?
But to prevent this digression, to where we now are arguing over the meaning of the word "policy" I believe perhaps I should asked for "Free Market polices" in lieu of "Austrian Polices"; BUT there is a reason I did not do that. Because that term "Free Market" is an undefinable 'smoke man' (brother of the straw man) to which everyone has a different opinion of what that means with no level of detail beyond the most rudimentary basics. This is why I asked for things that are "Austrian School" related. If I asked for Neo-Liberal school would that have avoided your ire?
I'd also like to know where you are getting these very limited definitions. Is Libertarianism NOT a social science in your book? Yet Austrian Economics is not in the realm of political theory? How do you separate those when the Austrian School is largely a critique of government involvement?