what do you think of Libertarianism ?

Belfast

What do you think of Libertarianism ?
Does anyone think a a party based on these ideas would improve politics in Ireland or have people here become too dependant on the state to solve all there problems?

RedPlanet

I think the Liberatarian Party in USA is a bit of a joke really.
They'll always on the lunatic fringe of the american political landscape.
They seem to attempt to ride a fence between social liberties and conservative attitudes toward government.
Maybe they should drop the game and join up with the Constitution Party, another fringe group.

oscarBravo

Belfast, this isn't a soapbox forum. Read the forum rules and amend your opening post accordingly.

Belfast

RedPlanet wrote: »

I think the Liberatarian Party in USA is a bit of a joke really.
They'll always on the lunatic fringe of the american political landscape.
They seem to attempt to ride a fence between social liberties and conservative attitudes toward government.
Maybe they should drop the game and join up with the Constitution Party, another fringe group.

The way the political system works in America any party other than the Republican or Democrats are classed as 3rd party and part of the lunatic fringe.

Constitution Party (U.S. Taxpayers Party) is a smaller party that the Libertarian Party with many different ideas.

The Libertarian Party is not a right wing, left wing, social liberties and conservative party.

It is party biased on personal freedom and people taking responsibility for their own actions and that government causes problems rather than solve them.

The 2 main parties in American both now believe in big government.
The only thing they disagree on is who should be in charge of it.

feaven

Belfast wrote: »

The 2 main parties in American both now believe in big government.
The only thing they disagree on is who should be in charge of it.

That’s not necessarily true, from an external stand point, perhaps that’s how it appears as all we hear about in Europe is their foreign policies.
The Republican Party is trying to reduce the powers of federal government through the transfer of power to the states and the privatisation of national responsibilities (all except the military), basically moving the power to the corporations that fund and therefore influence the party.
The Democrats however push for a more socialist economic and stronger federal power. This can be seen in their support for national healthcare systems and the 'no child left behind' scheme.

The_Minister

feaven wrote: »

the 'no child left behind' scheme.

Wasn't that George Bush's pet?

feaven

It was introduced as an Act in 2001, so Bush would have been part of its introduction, but the democrats where the ones to propose it and continue to support it.

Belfast

feaven wrote: »

That’s not necessarily true, from an external stand point, perhaps that’s how it appears as all we hear about in Europe is their foreign policies.
The Republican Party is trying to reduce the powers of federal government through the transfer of power to the states and the privatisation of national responsibilities (all except the military), basically moving the power to the corporations that fund and therefore influence the party.
The Democrats however push for a more socialist economic and stronger federal power. This can be seen in their support for national healthcare systems and the 'no child left behind' scheme.

The Republican Party talks about transfer of power to the states and the privatisation of national responsibilities (all except the military) but in practice they do the opposite.

Republican Party does different things with big government to the Democrats.
Both Parties want big government.
The Democrats are more socialist.
The Republicans are Corporatist.

feaven

What do you mean by 'corporatist big government'?
Is corporatist not an alternative big government?

Belfast

feaven wrote: »

What do you mean by 'corporatist big government'?
Is corporatist not an alternative big government?

Corporatism means giving state contracts to large companies.

The link below explains in more detail about Corporatism
Corporatism
by Jonathan Taplin
Dissident Voice
June 3, 2003
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles5/Taplin_Corporatism.htm

feaven

Its still incorrect to say that the republicans believe in big government if they are taking the power away from the state at passing it to a private entity, even it is a company run by an ally and friend of the government. That isEconomic Libertarianism, be it a corrupt face of it. Ronald Regan said "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism" and this is the economic ideology that neoconservatives in the republican party have built on since the 80's.

Belfast

feaven wrote: »

Its still incorrect to say that the republicans believe in big government if they are taking the power away from the state at passing it to a private entity, even it is a company run by an ally and friend of the government. That isEconomic Libertarianism, be it a corrupt face of it. Ronald Regan said "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism" and this is the economic ideology that neoconservatives in the republican party have built on since the 80's.

The power is not handed to private company its a large amount of tax payers money that is handed to them.

Ronald Regan said "the very heart and soul of conservatism is Libertarianism"
that is true but he did nothing about it.

Ron Paul stood on Libertarian principle for the Republican nomination for president was told by many his libertarian ideas had no place in todays republican party and was asked by commentators was he a member of the wrong party.

The Republicans once believed in Libertarianism. So many people have left the republican party that are are few left but the neo-conns and social conservatives.

The neo-conservatives are the enemies of the libertarians not their friends.

Libertarians are regarded by social conservatives in the republican party as dope smoking devil worshippers

Neo-CONNED speech by Ron Paul in the house of Congress.
It explains how the neo-conns have taken over the republican party and how they are opposed to Libertarianism.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-495829089909498224&q=neo-conned&ei=l4onSMH2KabeigLPi5nuCQ&hl=en

oscarBravo

Belfast, please familiarise yourself with the forum's rules, particularly on the posting of video links, before posting again.

Belfast

feaven wrote: »

Its still incorrect to say that the republicans believe in big government if they are taking the power away from the state at passing it to a private entity, even it is a company run by an ally and friend of the government.

The main power transferred to a private company is the Federal reserve.

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank.

This is a major transfer of power to a private organisation.

It gives the power to control how much money is printed and what price is paid to borrow money to a private organisation.

Under the US Constitution only the CONGRESS can issue money.

Both the republicans and the democrat are infavour of The Federal Reserve issuing money.

oscarBravo

Belfast wrote: »

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank.

That's a misleading simplification.

Belfast

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a misleading simplification.

Not sure how that is a simplification or misleading.

oscarBravo

Because the Federal Reserve isn't a bank. It's a system. It consists of a Board of Governers, the Federal Open Market Committee, twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, and - ultimately - the actual commercial banks, which are obliged by law to own stock in the regional Fed banks.

Belfast

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because the Federal Reserve isn't a bank. It's a system. It consists of a Board of Governers, the Federal Open Market Committee, twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, and - ultimately - the actual commercial banks, which are obliged by law to own stock in the regional Fed banks.

The Federal Reserve is still a private organisation that controls the money supply.

The Federal Reserve is also acting out side the law.

Only the Congress is allowed to issue money under US Constitution.

oscarBravo

Belfast wrote: »

The Federal Reserve is still a private organisation that controls the money supply.

The Federal Reserve is not an organisation, public or private. It's a system. The Federal Reserve board is appointed under Congressional oversight. The Federal Reserve banks are "privately owned" in the metaphysical sense that privately-owned banks are required by law to hold stock in it.

It takes a serious leap of imagination to describe an entire banking system as a "private organisation".

The Federal Reserve is also acting out side the law.

What law?

Only the Congress is allowed to issue money under US Constitution.

The Fed was established by an act of Congress. If it was unconstitutional, I'm sure the Supreme Court would have noticed by now.

This is moving out of the realm of theory.

forkassed

Sorry if posting vids is frowned upon oscar, but heres an interview from yesterday you two might be interested in in relation to the fed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txhabgZF_gE

oscarBravo

What's it about? Who's in it? What do they say? What's your opinion on the content?

Belfast

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Federal Reserve is not an organisation, public or private. It's a system. The Federal Reserve board is appointed under Congressional oversight. The Federal Reserve banks are "privately owned" in the metaphysical sense that privately-owned banks are required by law to hold stock in it..

The Constitution of the United States
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5. The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

Congress does not have the power to delegate this function to another body.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It takes a serious leap of imagination to describe an entire banking system as a "private organisation". What law? The Fed was established by an act of Congress. If it was unconstitutional, I'm sure the Supreme Court would have noticed by now.

For the Supreme Court court to act a case would have to come before it.

Belfast

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is moving out of the realm of theory.

Good point

What do people in Ireland think of the theory of Libertarianism ?

forkassed

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's it about? Who's in it? What do they say? What's your opinion on the content?

Ron Paul talking on Fox business news taking an objectionable view of the Fed and the role they play in creating bubbles in the markets by lowering interest rates.

Im just finished reading his new book and he makes some good counter arguments against the feds role in creating inflation due to increased money supply (artificially low interest rates).

The inflation that ensues occurs at different intervals and allows the first users (bankers & government/military) of the newly minted money to use it before prices have risen. By the time this money has trickled down to the middle and lower class who now pay higher prices while earning the same income.

A monetery system backed by something as it was in the U.S until the feds inception denied the banks to be able to carry out these artificial boom/bust cycles which enrich the politically well connected at the expense of everyone else.


These to me seem like very good counter arguments, dont you think?

feaven

Belfast wrote: »

Good point

What do people in Ireland think of the theory of Libertarianism ?

I would say not many in Ireland are aware of the possibilities practical interpretation of these theories would have. There isn't a dedicated Libertarian party, or even a well established activist group as far as I'm aware. If you mention 'privitisation' or 'decentralisation' to most people, they'll associate them with the failings of our current government.

sink

My view of Libertarianism, is that it's an interesting theory that has some good suggestions but it not fully thought trough.

It seem to be entirely focused on inflation without taking other needs of businesses and the economy into account. Such as:

Raising capital for investment. This is the "magic fairy dust" that makes everything in the world of business grow. Without the ability to raise large amounts of capital quickly business can not fund large expansion and research projects. The technology boom would never have happened and the information age would not have come about. If you were to take away access to capital now, thousands upon thousands of businesses would fail as companies would run into enormous cash flow problems. Millions would become unemployed and the economy would go into a long term recession like nothing we have ever seen.

Lack of proper impartial regulation. Holes in the system would open up to the size of the grand canyon. The scope for un-scrupulous business practice would be huge. Take this scenario. The drug market is regulated by private firms which provide certificates of safety, authenticity etc. There would be many firms offering the same services. In order to compete they would have charge lower prices continuously cutting the bottom line. When managers are under extreme pressure from competition, they tend to make dumb decisions. Pretty soon so some corners will get cut and through unintended consequences some people will get sick, die, whatever. Now this is the sort of thing that makes the public, and hence clients go running in the other direction. The firm would fail and go out of business, problem solved right? Wrong! Eventually other companies will make similar poor decisions because no one is infallible. People are not going to trust new companies with their lives either so eventually the market will dwindle down to one big player which becomes a virtual monopoly. And as any economist will tell you monopolies breed inefficiency.

These are just two that come to mind now but there are many more issues like that. Libertarianism sounds good in concept but will fall down in practice. It is similar to Communism in a way in that it sounds good in theory but is pretty unworkable in practice. These two are polar opposites. Social Capitalism on the other hand is basically the centre ground in that it borrows from both concepts in moderation and it seems to work best.

forkassed

No comment from myself... just a series produced by the JBS that should be watched by those who find this thread interesting!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTQQJOEn9yI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW6AKVyi6As

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23JIFy8Vm6Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I16M-qH3SbU

Belfast

sink wrote: »

My view of Libertarianism, is that it's an interesting theory that has some good suggestions but it not fully thought trough.

It seem to be entirely focused on inflation without taking other needs of businesses and the economy into account.

The main focus Libertarianism is Liberty,.

sink wrote: »

Such as:
Raising capital for investment. This is the "magic fairy dust" that makes everything in the world of business grow. Without the ability to raise large amounts of capital quickly business can not fund large expansion and research projects. The technology boom would never have happened and the information age would not have come about. If you were to take away access to capital now, thousands upon thousands of businesses would fail as companies would run into enormous cash flow problems. Millions would become unemployed and the economy would go into a long term recession like nothing we have ever seen.

There is not about Libertarianism that would prevent the raising capital for investment.

sink wrote: »

Lack of proper impartial regulation. Holes in the system would open up to the size of the grand canyon. The scope for un-scrupulous business practice would be huge. Take this scenario.

Government regulation of business is never impartial.

sink wrote: »

The drug market is regulated by private firms which provide certificates of safety, authenticity etc.

This is what happens in America now. The FDA no longer test drugs. It simply rubber stamps the test the drug companies do. The drug companies have monopolies through the patent system.

oscarBravo

Belfast wrote: »

The FDA no longer test drugs. It simply rubber stamps the test the drug companies do.

Got any evidence for this? I used to work in an FDA-regulated company which had several senior executives go to jail for non-compliance.

Belfast

FDA ready to loosen rules for clinical trials, allowing drug companies to make them up as they go along
http://www.naturalnews.com/019615.html

oscarBravo

Nice article. Got any evidence for what you claimed earlier?