In a lot of the discussions in this little corner of the internets - Aretae, Foseti, Devin, Isegoria, Borepatch, me - we seem to get occasionally stuck in our arguments over terminology. Aretae, in Democracy - A Curse? and in the comments lumps together personages like Louis XIV and Lenin. Me, I think there's a world of difference between the two. From his anarcho-libertarian pov, he isn't resolving the distance between the two.
I see a monarch, an authoritarian on one hand; and a totalitarian on the other. The two types of leader produce different types of outcomes.
So, why don't we identify nations and times where we thought things were working? We can all agree that Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Hitler's Germany were all trainwrecks, for obvious reasons. Aretae has pointed to the Swiss Confederation as a successful (and over a long period, too) nation emitting lots of magical problem-solving growth. The formalists have pointed to Hong Kong and Singapore. Other nations that have been mentioned, too - 18th C England, slightly earlier in Holland, 19th C America.
What are we forgetting? The Hanseatic League? Argentina before Peron? Chile after Pinochet?
If we can point to a place and time that had a happy thing going, we can maybe suss out what factors were contributing to the success at that time in that place. Then, we can compare them.
If we can come up with a list in the comments, maybe we could break, and do a little googling, and come back with some thoughts on each. Or better, research one that is not to our inclination - Aretae should do Singapore, and I should do low government Holland, and so on. What say you?