SF- Do they have economic policies?

ISAW

I have always expressed an opinion that costed SF policies seem not to exist. I have also heard that SF oppose private property. One poster on the net suggested that SF opposed it in their submission to constitutional reform. So I looked it up. You will find it here:
http://www.constitution.ie/
Click on the publications link and look at the Ninth Report the one on property. Using a PDF reader the SF submission begins on page 415 of 456 or in the coccument itself (should you print it or buy it in government Publications) on page A269.

At a cursury glance I did not notice the phrase "abolish private property" but it begins with the quotation:
‘We reaffirm that all right to private property must be
subordinated to the public right and welfare.’

On the column opposite it has:
"Private property has been and remains an instrument of oppression of people the world over."

It seems SF dont oppose people owining their own homes (thank god for that I hear you say) but legal entities doing so i.e. what they might call "corporations" . They seem to live in a hollywood film land of "The Corporation". At the same time they had no problem joining Dublin Corporation
or in having the City (a legal entity ) own property. It basically is just a form of nationalisation. And we can see what a nationalised biscuit plant in Tallagh would be can't we? Out of business. All the workers would be equal! Equally unemployed and equally poor!

The thing is that legal entities like companies were created to prevent people from losing their houses and presonal property. Before that if a business failed you were personally liable for the debt. With a company you are only liable for the amount of unpaid shares you own; the money from the shares you already paid for going to service the debt. This is not to say thay everything SF say is wrong but this is barmy. Yes we can legislate to control big business but abolishing legal entities from owning property is not really progressive. Here it is on page A272

Sinn Féin opposes the extension of property rights
to bodies corporate, trusts, partnerships, limited
companies etc.

Property (including Land) not be held in trust? companies not own the buildings they are in? An individual must own it? If the company goes bankrupt then what? The building owened by one person be kept or sold by him and the workers of that company get nothing since the company itself owns nothing? Why should the collective gains in capital through work of a company be held by one individual?

A clearly revolutionary idea which indicates the Marxist Statist and anti entrepreneurial roots of SF.

Cronus333

They do have economic policies. They're just about as constructive as the hydrogen bomb though.

Sand

SFIRA are unfortunately laden down with Soviet era clap trap. Hilariously enough, the Provos were originally formed by the anti-communist, god fearing Catholic, armalite in both hands "traditional" IRA guys who despised the secular, socialist political approach the Officials adopted. Adams floated hard line communism to isolate and attack his opponents in the IRA, by radicalising the Belfast IRA footthugs who were less and less drawn from traditional IRA families.

Once he had eliminated the Catholic anti-communists he backed off it again (apparently he was humiliated by his opponents who laughed at his simplistic two page document on how the IRA should go communist, he never forgave the embarrassment and forced the SFer who laughed at him to flee the country), but having won power in the IRA on the back of it, its still very much part of the rhetoric and he cant very well about turn on it. Id say hes still embarrassed by it, and Adams more than anyone has to recognise hes got the tricky task of abandoning it without looking like hes abandoning it.

Either way, the right to private property is the only guarantee of freedom people have. Without it, your freedom is dependant on what the government chooses to give you.

ISAW

Sand wrote:

SFIRA are unfortunately laden down with Soviet era clap trap. Hilariously enough, the Provos were originally formed by the anti-communist, god fearing Catholic, armalite in both hands "traditional" IRA guys who despised the secular, socialist political approach the Officials adopted. Adams floated hard line communism to isolate and attack his opponents in the IRA, by radicalising the Belfast IRA footthugs who were less and less drawn from traditional IRA families.

Once he had eliminated the Catholic anti-communists he backed off it again (apparently he was humiliated by his opponents who laughed at his simplistic two page document on how the IRA should go communist, he never forgave the embarrassment and forced the SFer who laughed at him to flee the country), but having won power in the IRA on the back of it, its still very much part of the rhetoric and he cant very well about turn on it. Id say hes still embarrassed by it, and Adams more than anyone has to recognise hes got the tricky task of abandoning it without looking like hes abandoning it.

Either way, the right to private property is the only guarantee of freedom people have. Without it, your freedom is dependant on what the government chooses to give you.

This seems a fairly decent analysis. Could you point me to any references which support it?
www.ssc.upenn.edu/polisci/faculty/bios/Pubs/oleary.FDR.pdf

is an interesting link in which you might be interested from the Field Day Review. Read pages 241-244 in the light of your above analysis of Adams as a "marxist". I dont think it is really that simple as to be put in a few words but you do get a lot into a few paragraphs.

Cork

Do people actually vote for SF because of their "economic policies"?

SF are completely Euro Skeptic.

They believe that coperation taxes should be raised.

They however don't seem to have an analysis of what this will have on foriegn direct investment.

I think that they also believe in nationalisation of banks.

Again they don't seem to have an analysis of what this will have on foriegn direct investment.

The Irish Examiner gave the SF econimic policies a damning review a number of months ago.

Time Magazine

Cronus333 wrote:

They do have economic policies. They're just about as constructive as the hydrogen bomb though.

But how do you justify the hydrogen bomb?

*Sigh*. After reading that, I fear it's far too subtle for people to gauge. In case anyone's wondering, it's very subtle humour. It alludes to the fact that you can expect Shinners on here anytime soon justifying their economic policies (and their theories on just about everything else) relative to other wrongs or extremes, as opposed to justifying it as a seperate entity.

Diorraing

Do Sinn Féin have economic policies

Yes, the problem is they would bankrupt the country. Whatever party goes intp government with them will make sure SF won't have the Finance porfolio

samb

Angry Banana wrote:

But how do you justify the hydrogen bomb?
.

Well the Hydrogen bomb may have prevented a few conflicts from the treat of its use. Perhaps if it didn't exist the cold war would have been hot?..?
As for Sinn Feins economic policies...Sorry

samb

ISAW wrote:

Property (including Land) not be held in trust? companies not own the buildings they are in? An individual must own it? If the company goes bankrupt then what? The building owened by one person be kept or sold by him and the workers of that company get nothing since the company itself owns nothing? Why should the collective gains in capital through work of a company be held by one individual?

A clearly revolutionary idea which indicates the Marxist Statist and anti entrepreneurial roots of SF.

That doesn't sound marxist to me but the extreme opposite. Who has that quote about the left meeting the right?