Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Civil unrest may force June election...

Options
123578

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #123
    Martyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭Martyr


    donegalfella wrote:
    This post has been deleted.
    donegalfella wrote:
    This post has been deleted.

    yes, i did read the first part, which is what you're against.
    you would rather have self-order...what did i miss?
    donegalfella wrote:
    This post has been deleted.

    exactly..great, prepare for meltdown


  • Options
    #124
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #125
    Martyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭Martyr


    no no donegalfella, stop waffling, please - you know what you said, now think about it.

    analyse what you just said..

    this is what you think is good:
    donegalfella wrote:
    This post has been deleted.
    doengalfella wrote:
    I don't think you fully understand what I'm saying. A minimal liberal government would seek only to secure people's basic inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    how could a truly liberal government protect anyone if they weren't allowed to object to anything?


  • Options
    #126
    peasant
    Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    well ...someone has to tell the mob (that just brought you into power) what's going to happen next ...that someone would be you in that case :D

    So, if I understand you correctly, on the 8th of April, from your little pedestal, you would tell the gathered masses that "the state" as they know it has ceised to exist, to go home and fend for themselves ...is that it?

    All of it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Martyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭Martyr


    donegalfella wrote:
    This post has been deleted.

    you don't see the flaw in your own logic.
    without order, there is anarchy.


  • Options
    #128
    peasant
    Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Martyr wrote: »
    you don't see the flaw in your own logic.
    without order, there is anarchy.

    I think DF mentioned somewhere that he would leave "the law" (i.e. police and the courts) in place, as well as a ministry of finance of some shape or form.

    If he manages to disentangle himself from century old chinese quotes he may yet tell us about his overall plan :D


  • Options
    #129
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #130
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #131
    peasant
    Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Sorry but the waffle to realism ratio still isn't quite what it should be.

    Without you expressedly telling all the civil servants that they are now unemployed, all of them will still show up for work the following day and demand pay at the end of the month ...and riot if they don't get it.

    So...please elaborate just a little more. Who exactly are you going to tell to find some other form of gainful employment ...who can stay? What about the gardai ...do you still want them ...I presume so. Whereas all the hospitals will be closed, awaiting private investment, isn't that right?

    Come on ...tell us !


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    What if it's more profitable to allow patients die, especially poor or elderly ones?


  • Options
    #133
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #134
    peasant
    Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    So far you haven't given me/us much to either agree or disagree with :D

    Some vague, diffuse statment about the smallest governement possible and everything else sorting itself via the free market.

    But how exactly is this going to work on this here island in the current context?
    How will it be implemented?
    How much governance will there be left, if any?

    What about your new philosophy in relation to current contractual situations Ireland is in ...e.g. the EU ...do we stay, do we leave?

    Please elaborate

    (You know ...I'm over 40, but that doesn't mean that I'm not open to new ideas ...but they should be explained properly, so that even the elderly like me can understand them. Catchphrases alone won't do ...and as for chinese proverbs ...they go off a bit after 2000 years :D)


  • Options
    #135
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    With respect to DF and other posters what appears feasible on paper is often not possible in practice, that is the nub of the matter. Advocating minimalist government or state intervention in the economy, we can say it, write it but it would never happen. Like minded people would be needed with like minded principles, just not possible. Life would be dull, oh so dull.
    The point is not that the state has ceased to exist; it's that the role of the state has changed. But yes, the essential message would be that everyone is now free to pursue his or her own way in life.

    The problem for me here is how would greed and corruption ( both of which never go out of fashion) be controlled? it would be like a sort of capitalist anarchy. In nature the strongest rules, survival of the fittest, the weakest die.


  • Options
    #136
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Have you policies on drugs, on drink-driving, on product safety, on the treatment of children?

    I presume you would have no planning constraints on building, and no immigration controls. Am I right about that?


  • Options
    #137
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #138
    deadhead13
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭deadhead13


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Is there a Irish libertarian political party, has anyone been elected on a libertarian agenda, has anyone tried? Or is it just a theoretical concept, way beyond even the fringes of Irish politics. What has this "debate" have to do with the op - will there be civil unrest, will there be a june election?


  • Options
    #139
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Do you believe that the social democratic welfare state is the only form of government that has ever existed?
    Of course not, I have read history on occasion.

    Why does greed have to be controlled? When did wanting more or better become a problem that government has to solve?

    I did not say solve greed, as it never goes out of fashion.

    How does your ideal equate to human nature and how it lets itself down all the time. Human nature itself is such a vast variable and as I alluded earlier only the strongest survive if left without control, like ancient civilizations. No such thing as a Utopia. We are all flawed.


  • Options
    #140
    stepbar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    Greed is taxed at 41% AFAIK. The problem is that is offset by a section 23 property in Leitrim or the like. Perhaps these avenues for tax avoidance should be closed off asap. The country might be the better for it.


  • Options
    #141
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Doesn't this require regulation or who is going to ensure financial institutions don't take advantage of customers or perform irregular banking practices and threaten our whole economy like has already happened with lapsed regulation?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    To any of the posters here squabbling over how the govt rules.

    Have any of you live through 1985 in Ireland?

    Ask any Garda of sufficient age and he/she will tell you it was the most horrendous year career wise where civil unrest threatened to usurp the authority of traditional/governmental Ireland where such crme was unheard of at the time.

    1985 was the year when unemployment hit Ireland very hard. After that serious emigration started.

    Back in the day Traditional Ireland as what it was known was seriously undermined by serious anti-social problems which were unheard of then.
    Fast forward 25yrs and we have an Ireland with tens of thousands of young men with nothing to do.
    It only takes a fraction of them to cause mayhem and i'm afraid as evidenced in other countries, thats what we face now.


  • Options
    #143
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #144
    Martyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭Martyr


    donegalfella wrote:
    This post has been deleted.

    you know, i actually think that there might be some sense to all you're saying, donegalfella.

    but i'm still not convinced those bankers would behave themselves.. those primal instincts would eventually kick in and we'd be back to square one again..

    so maybe the solution to the human deficiency of greed is if we replace every banker with robots, or have current bankers implanted with a chip in their brains.. like that johnny mnemonic guy? these chips would control the behaviour of the banker.

    thats it! create cyborgs to work in the banking system, where they have a set of prime directives, set by the finance department of our new utopian society.
    1. "Serve the public trust"
    2. "Protect the innocent"
    3. "Uphold the law"
    4. (Classified)
    5. (Classified)
    6. (Classified)
    7. (Classified)
    8. (Classified)

    who can say what those classified directives are, but any violation of these would obviously result in shutdown.

    don't dismiss it straight away, think about it..computers always do what they're told, so who better to control the banking system?

    perfect.


  • Options
    #145
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    In response to my question
    Have you policies on drugs, on drink-driving, on product safety, on the treatment of children?
    donegalfella wrote
    Yes, formulated along the general principle that the individual may pursue his interests as he sees fit, as long as he does not harm others.

    Some questions:
    Is it okay for me to sell heroin on the basis that selling it does not harm anybody?
    Is it okay for me to use heroin on the basis that the one I am harming is myself?
    What is to be done about heroin addicts who steal, rob, or engage in prostitution to fund their habits?

    Is it okay for me to drive after a night's drinking alcohol provided I don't hit anybody or anything?

    Should food products have sell-by dates?

    Should parents be obliged to provide an education for their children?
    If "yes", what does that mean?


  • Options
    #146
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    No, i agree with what you say above. It needs poltical balls to do it but they won't hence we are heading into 80's style recession again.

    I was just reacting to how some posters who seem to have never gone through the 80's think we are going to have an easy ride as they never saw how bad it was here back then. (maybe they are too young and were not born back then :D)


  • Options
    #147
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #148
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    There are many problems with this post but I'll address these two.

    I don't see how your system would work if there were no expired date on certain food stuffs. I know what your argument would be but I don't see the point since we can just say that they are required to carry it and we are almost certain to reduce the risk substantially to peoples health. This would seem to be a better option, why are you actually against having this requirement on food stuffs?

    The short answer is I don't think that you are, you want it to be done by the individual companies as they will sell more if people can be sure the food is safe but why wait for them to do that? The government generally doesn't want to introduce these types of rules, they are forced to due to inaction on the part of the companies. I think if you were actually implementing your policies rather than just talking about them on a forum, you would probably end up with a more liberal version of the current system but not a completely free market even if you were doing it yourself. There are certain things which it would be immoral to undo given the possibility that companies will just take advantage of the relaxation immediately since they are used to being regulated.

    Your system is saying death is acceptable in certain circumstances but the market will work these issues out until new ones appear and then it will work these ones out eventually until there are new ones etc.... I think this chaos is unacceptable to the majority of people including myself. You could argue our current system does the same but our system enacts laws to ensure the problem doesn't occur again in that area. Your system takes no such measures so it is possible that the same problems will occur again and again even if it is unlikely, it makes it impossible to support your system IMO.
    I agree completely. The worst times this country has seen in recent centuries—from the Famine to the protectionist 1930s to the unemployment-ridden 1980s—were all caused by illiberal (not to mention downright stupid) policies enacted by government. I can't think of any instance where such conditions were created under liberalism!

    The problem as I see it is with governments, you have these atrocities every so often (when was the last one in Ireland?) on a large scale but with a free market you have daily atrocities on much smaller scales and sometimes you will have them on large scales too. People will die in your system through no fault of their own. Lots of them too and many lives will be destroyed from drug abuse especially young people which is why your system will not gain mainstream support from the people IMO.

    I think your going back an awful long way to find working examples and to apply those rules to todays society is a bit of an extreme jump to assume they would work.

    Nobody is saying the current system does not have problems but at least it aims for a good ideal of protecting the citizens and ensuring fair standards and ethics are practiced. I think the main problem with your system is it doesn't fix the problems and it doesn't try to. It doesn't aim to be any better really. You just say we'll have higher economic output but that isn't the only thing people want and I don't think it is even their number one need which is why people don't want your system.

    I will link to the below not that it is absolute but I need something to demonstrate my logic.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

    Your system will never guarantee people the right to these needs, even the basic ones, which is why it will always be rejected regardless of its merits by the majority of people IMO.


  • Options
    #149
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    donegalfella wrote
    Yes, formulated along the general principle that the individual may pursue his interests as he sees fit, as long as he does not harm others.

    Such concept or ideal relies on an individual having a conscience. Many powerful people do not, the likes of Stalin felt nothing for anyone and pursued his interests to the day he died. He is an example of a kind, others in the corporate world behave in a ruthless fashion and politicians as well, never seeing harm that they do to others in pursuit of their own interests, and such individuals will deny wrongdoing as long as they live.


  • Options
    #150
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Posted by donegalfella
    I don't believe that people have the "right" to have their needs met by a redistributionist welfare state. I believe people have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in their own way, and make what they can of their lives, so long as they do not interfere with other people's right to do the same.

    The latter part of your post could only happen if humankind became tolerant to each other. Never going to happen, its not in our genetic makeup. Our very nature is that we are never satisfied its what drives us in our goal orientation and strife to get ahead or survive.


Advertisement