Where do I fit in in Irish politics?

af_thefragile

Where do libertarians and anarchists fit in there?...

turgon

af_thefragile wrote: »

Well, i don't care about what people do as long as they are free. But if someone decides to set up a brothel next doors to mine (saying its a free country), i would certainly have my objections to it.

Well that fine, and you can raise objections, but unless it directly impacts on you you arent really entitled to force the owner to shut it down.

af_thefragile wrote: »

I say the people in every society should come together and decide how they wanna rule the society without any external interference. So say Dublin could decide it wants to make drugs legal, whereas Galway could take a more conservative stance and say it doesn't want any drugs in its society.

Well thats not libertarian anarchism, thats just a federated state. In your example, why should the majority in the society get to decide what others can/cannot do when it doesnt concern them?

af_thefragile wrote: »

So say some guy likes to take drugs and feels he can't live without it, instead of fighting to bring drugs in the conservative society of Galway, he could move to Dublin.

But if your system was brought in, in all probability every state would continue banning drugs abortion prostitution etc. I would still be tyranny by the majority, because the majority against these things is everywhere.

af_thefragile wrote: »

But apart from these controversial issues of drugs, alcohol, prostitution, homosexuals, abortion etc. people can have the freedom to live however they want to.

But why am I not free to get married to someone of the same sex? Because the others disagree? But it doesn't concern them.

af_thefragile

turgon wrote: »

Well that fine, and you can raise objections, but unless it directly impacts on you you arent really entitled to force the owner to shut it down.



Well thats not libertarian anarchism, thats just a federated state. In your example, why should the majority in the society get to decide what others can/cannot do when it doesnt concern them?



But if your system was brought in, in all probability every state would continue banning drugs abortion prostitution etc. I would still be tyranny by the majority, because the majority against these things is everywhere.



But why am I not free to get married to someone of the same sex? Because the others disagree? But it doesn't concern them.

I get what you're saying. Freedom shouldn't just be for the majority.
But you've gotta think things from both view points, from the conservative and liberal views. A conservative person wouldn't feel safe and comfortable around junkies and prostitutes. While a liberal person wouldn't really have a problem with anything really.

Now if you wanna base a society with no regulation, then the liberals will be happy and free but what about the conservatives? They would have to accept the liberals way of life.

Now if you give the conservatives the freedom to go and form their own conservative society and the liberals to form their own society then both the conservatives and the liberals will have their happy place to live in.

We don't wanna tell people how to run their society. We only wanna make sure every one is free to live their lives the way they want to as long as they're not harming anyone else.

turgon

af_thefragile wrote: »

A conservative person wouldn't feel safe and comfortable around junkies and prostitutes.

Yeah well define "around" junkies and prostitutes. If junkies and prostitutes keep to their own residences, fine. If they choose to loiter outside you gaf or some public place, get you or the owner to kick them off.

af_thefragile wrote: »

We don't wanna tell people how to run their society.

But society is really just a buzzword. Society effects people a lot less than you think.

For example in my town the local society is hanging around street corners. But I dont engage with it and it doesnt bring me down.

Sure have communal consent. But only in situation where people are directly impacted by something against there will.

Well done on trying to devise an all-inclusive solution btw, I wouldnt have the patience!

af_thefragile

turgon wrote: »

Yeah well define "around" junkies and prostitutes. If junkies and prostitutes keep to their own residences, fine. If they choose to loiter outside you gaf or some public place, get you or the owner to kick them off.

Yup, but you still have to live with the worry of what if a drunk or a junkie comes and vendalises my property or tries to mug me while i'm walking down the street. Some people don't want them around in their society and so they'ld rather not have some things in their society. Also there are the religious people and ethical people and all...

But society is really just a buzzword. Society effects people a lot less than you think.

For example in my town the local society is hanging around street corners. But I dont engage with it and it doesnt bring me down.

Sure have communal consent. But only in situation where people are directly impacted by something against there will.

Well done on trying to devise an all-inclusive solution btw, I wouldnt have the patience!

Anarchism promotes society. We want people to integrate more with the society and live happily with working with the society and such. Although we don't dictate people's lives or try to impose our ideologies on others. But yeah, by letting people decide however they want to form their society. Giving both the conservatives, the liberals, the religious, the hippies, all of them their little society to live in...





On a side note, it could also make a good tourist attraction.
And now we enter the wild west town. Over here everyone likes to live like cowboys.
Now here to the left is the hippie town and to the right is the bible town!!
:pac:

turgon

af_thefragile wrote: »

Yup, but you still have to live with the worry of what if a drunk or a junkie comes and vendalises my property or tries to mug me while i'm walking down the street.

The you sue the **** out of them

af_thefragile wrote: »

Anarchism promotes society. We want people to integrate more with the society and live happily with working with the society and such.

Do you think? I would see anarchism promoting individualism.

But I suppose it promotes voluntary society. Rather than the compulsory one we have.

Piste

I got 2, -3.85 for that, I seem to be one of the very few in the 4th quadrant! Apparently I'm somewhere between Labour and the PDs.

conchubhar1

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-4.12&soc=-4.41

what if i had the option to say - some of those questions cant be answered with a simple agree or disagree
life and politics aint that simple...

appaerently im around where gandhi and the dalai llama are - makes sense - im not a ****.....

Joycey

hp?ec=-9.62&soc=-7.44



So all you righties can stop saying that im an authoritarian

Lockstep

Out of interest; how did ye Libertarians answer the question on "globalisation should serve the needs of big business or people"?

Seems a strange question as my understanding of Libertarianism would have that the interests of big business serve people generally.

Joycey

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Out of interest; how did ye Libertarians answer the question on "globalisation should serve the needs of big business or people"?

Seems a strange question as my understanding of Libertarianism would have that the interests of big business serve people generally.

The exam yoke tests "social libertarianism" as opposed to economic. I selected people over big business (as would seem obvious), but am still classed as highly libertarian...

tolosenc

Economic = 8.62
Social = -5.42

What I thought.

paulus837

Hello , can sum 1 tell me were i can do this taste ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.