In conclusion, I will summarize these insights into several theses:

  • We do not know mankind’s destiny. However, we should not leave our future evolutionary developments to chance, as we have done so far, but discover it ourselves. Finding this path is the goal.

  • Education and training are the most important foundations for prosperity.

  • In Europe, human rights established a new system of values based on self-responsibility and freedom. These values are the beginning of widespread prosperity for all.

  • In prosperity, meaningful modernization and growth are necessary to maintain competitiveness and the standard of living. Only those who welcome innovation and create a culture open to change will remain at the top.

  • Those people who reject change and search for ways to create advantages outside the realms of competition want to regulate the market to their own advantage. However, each such market intervention leads to higher prices. The number of market interventions reflects the price level and thus the standard of living within an economy.

  • Protecting a social group from change and competition by implementing market interventions is always done at the expense of the general public and ultimately at the expense of everyone’s prosperity—even that of the group which is ostensibly being protected. This group should only consider itself to be temporarily protected. The ever-growing backlog of groups requiring renewal will have to catch up at a later date and at a higher price.

  • Government intervention requires government authority to enforce it. Since every system that restricts people’s freedom is eventually undermined, the protection of privilege requires additional government authority. This leads to a spiraling of government intervention, which will become more oppressive and freedom will become even more restricted.

  • Market interventions as well as a high degree of regulatory density lead to a redistribution of the funds generated. They are shown in the government ratio. The higher the government ratio, the more people will depend on the state; the more favorable the culture is for additional government intervention, the lower the standard of living will fall. It is therefore urgent that an instrument that limits the government ratio is found.

  • The possibilities for change are limited by the degree of regulation within a society. Regulation slows change. Whether an economy can maintain its impetus for renewal and level of prosperity—or even increase it—is reflected in the density of regulations. The more regulations there are, the higher the price levels will rise and the more the level of prosperity will fall. Therefore, it is urgently necessary that a mechanism be found which limits regulatory density and permit requirements.

  • Too much government, a high degree of regulation density along with an oversized government apparatus to control it, too many redistributions and a high government ratio all have to be paid for. Taxes go up. The middle-class finances it while its own level of prosperity erodes. It defends itself by expressing a lack of trust in established political parties, and then begins voting for marginal parties. Alternatively, it may even heed the call of an autocrat. Democracy comes under threat.

  • Measures against this include: reducing demands made on the government, streamlining the government, and reducing the amount or redistribution as well as the government ratio; reducing taxes and duties, especially for the middle class and also for other taxpayers (no new redistributions).

  • An ever-increasing government with tax increases to finance it and the use of tax harmonization to impose the higher taxes limit prosperity and ultimately endanger democracy.

Liberal democracy has brought unprecedented prosperity to many people. It is the only successful value system so far. With this book, I have aimed to outline the direction in which it should continue to develop. Hopefully, the inertia shown by affluent societies combined with dubious attacks by autocrats will not prevent this development.

A liberal economy is a prerequisite for a nation to reach the top.

Liberalism is not a political system. It is a set of economic rules. These rules foster competition within a fixed legal structure. Competition has led to innovations, research and tremendous productivity, i.e. it has greatly promoted progress with prosperity.

However, liberalism must be complemented by freedom and legal security with an independent judiciary, as well as equal opportunity. Laws must guarantee the rule of law. “Good Governance” is the prerequisite for success. This presupposes a stable democracy that cannot be decimated by autocrats who attempt to change the rules in their favor.

Autocrats claim that illiberalism (Russia and a few Eastern European countries) or dictatorships supported by technocrats (China and other Southeast Asian countries) are more efficient and lead to prosperity more quickly than liberalism based on a democratic constitutional foundation. More than anything else, such assertions serve to justify their own systems and their own power. It is true that the initial steps toward prosperity can perhaps be more efficiently realized with autocratic leadership that is actually interested in the wellbeing of the people and not simply in their own power. However, as soon as a certain level of prosperity has been reached, people demand well-being—in other words, they demand freedom and co-determination. Only in such an atmosphere do they drive development towards the top.

Countries with a tradition of human rights have a much better environment for the development of a good economy. They will always maintain their advantage over autocracies.

The rules of the game for liberalism are neither politically right nor left. Liberalism should not be pushed into the politically right arena, as is being increasingly done in Europe. Liberalism and the welfare state are not opposites. On the contrary, liberalism used to be regarded as politically left; it still is in the USA.

Attacks on liberal democracy come not only from autocrats, but also from within. For example, tremendous overregulation weakens entrepreneurs and an equally tremendous flood of laws with heavy redistribution leads to a burden on a middle class that can no longer bear it. A strong middle class is important for a peacefully prosperous society. Ultimately, life within a welfare state continually brings ideologies or even political parties to the surface that still dream of outdated economic systems (such as Marxism) which have up till now never been proven to work anywhere.

In politics, it is usually a question of whether “more or less government intervention” is needed. The core question is whether the state should favor continual renewal within liberal regulations or whether it should provide security within comfortable but rigid structures that could even be considered autocratic. Therein lies the economic tension between right and left in the political arena.

Only if this fundamental conflict is resolved in favor of those who prefer a free market system to a state controlled one can the economy continue to prosper in everyone’s interest. Only then can liberalism continue to promote progress.