Or Eritrea, with 47.8%, or Zimbabwe, with 97.8%, or Libya, with 43%, or Angola, with 41.6%.
But hey, you feel free to misrepresent my argument, that it is as bad as "some" (quite different from "all") African nations.
There's more than 50 countries in Africa, most of the poor and under-developed ones have a very low government expenditure index. I said "most" and I stand by that qualifier, if you check the list you'll see that most African countries spend less than 40% on offering civilization to their citizens.
Also funny that you seem to think that we have somehow bought better healthcare with our spending, or that our education system isn't a laughing stock, or bought a better university system than we had twenty years ago, rather than a worldwide war machine that kills millions of people for no real reason, other than to feed the military-industrial complex.
No, if you read my post you will see that I listed the advantages that those European countries have over the US - those which spend even more on public expenditures than the US.
Citizens of those countries generally get more bang for the buck, obviously.
Also funny that you think that the level of civilization in the US in 1910 was less than than that of those nations you mention. As if less government spending is the same as civil war. Who is being disingenuous here?
I replied to the point made about today's Africa. If you want to argue about how the US was 100 years ago then we can certainly do that but it obviously cannot be compared to today's situation directly.
I might add that corporations HATE libertarianism.
Corporations don't "hate" anything - they are legal entities representing a group of people.
If they didn't, libertarians would be a much larger part of the existing parties, or their own party would be a major one.
By that argument nazis would also be a much larger part of existing parties as historically owners and executives of corporations certainly liked nazi ideologies, as it was hugely profitable to them.
So that argument of yours fails too. I think you are failing to consider the fact that there can be many other reasons as well why a given ideology is not main-stream, beyond them not being corporate-friendly.
Indeed, many libertarians, including myself, call for the eradication of the corporate form, as it is an artifice created by government intervention in the markets (ie it forbids those wronged by a corporation from suing shareholders of said corporation, even if they knew what the company they owned was doing--legalized, even MANDATED sociopathy).
If we go back to the 1910 example, Rockefeller's company (Standard Oil) cornered many strategic US markets with little to no government help and centrally planned vast portions of the US economy for decades, right from his mansion. There was no free market where Standard Oil was present: either you "partnered" with them, giving them much of your profits, or you were driven out of the market by being price-dumped and by rail companies (also controlled by Rockefeller) refusing to transport your products.
Rockefeller was a non-elected plutocrat. Is that the kind of free-market future you envision for the US? If yes then I disagree. If not then please explain how monopolies will be avoided.
But hey, if your ideology is so weak that you have to hide behind lies, then so be it. Just know that you and your party of choice are in fact slaves to your corporate masters.
I just pointed out a false statement and mentioned a few facts - that is not an ideology, unless you consider "truth" an ideology.