Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Permabear · 13-05-2010 12:15pm

This post has been deleted.

13-05-2010 12:20pm

So you do think that workers are free to organise themselves to collectively bargain for better conditions etc?..you may not choose to but you cant trod on their individual freedoms..

Permabear · 13-05-2010 12:20pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 13-05-2010 12:22pm

This post has been deleted.

Anonymous1987 · 13-05-2010 12:31pm

The current levels of personal indebtedness beg to differ. I'm not saying the state should control this directly but it has a role to ensure transparency and fairness through regulation which brings me back the idea that markets are designed by people. As for moral decisions that's fine as once as one person's moral decision does not impact negatively upon another which would be the case if there was no legislative support.

Laminations · 13-05-2010 12:37pm

pot calling kettle? All within the one post!!

so just because some ministers are totally useless means no government can be trusted?

Permabear · 13-05-2010 12:40pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 13-05-2010 12:41pm

You may be correct in presuming it's all people need. Where your ideology fails is presuming people have these things, I too like to be an optimist but I realise it's better to be a realist. Your views show a complete lack if understanding of human behaviour and motivation

Laminations · 13-05-2010 12:48pm

you can't have it both ways

how many times do you have to contradict yourself before you realise you are speaking complete sh1t?

13-05-2010 12:51pm

Yeah, and DF would be of the view that yer man Neary was dead right in his role as Financial Regulator to have done f*ck all no?

Anonymous1987 · 13-05-2010 12:53pm

Yes and it was a very poor decision because they trusted back officials because they couldn't understand the technical jargon and complex financial instruments. So if adults on mass made poor decisions that just reinforces my argument that something needs to be done to fix the flaw in the market.

Re-read my last comment, I don't think the state should intervene unless someone is negatively impacted on.

Akrasia · 13-05-2010 12:56pm

Why is everything you say a straw man false dichotomy?

Akrasia · 13-05-2010 1:05pm

yeah, but DF also recognises the 'right' for an employer to summarily dismiss an employee for any reason at all, including attempts by employees to form a union. So the right of freedom of association is meaningless as any attempt to exercise that right would result in a strong likelyhood of you losing your job (and you can't be in a workers union if you're unemployed)

BluePlanet · 13-05-2010 1:11pm

Wow, just think of all the sexual harrassment that would no longer be illegal.
Wouldn't want to be woman in the workplace!

13-05-2010 1:12pm

Indeed, and this is getting to where i have issues with Libertarianism..It needs a complete rethink of the role of the corporation in society(or the world, if you're of the view that society doesn't exist), abolishing the concept of corperate personhood, as well as keeping certain means of production open to all..then, maybe you're getting somewhere, but that can start sounding quite socialist very quickly..Libertarianism was all well and good when Ron Paul first took up the torch, but it's not gonna work now..

Permabear · 13-05-2010 1:13pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 13-05-2010 1:18pm

So knowingly, given all the information and fully aware of the consequences, people made very bad financial decisions. How does this show that people are capable rational beings?

Permabear · 13-05-2010 1:24pm

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 13-05-2010 1:25pm

Yeah isn't that the "free market" at work?

The government wasn't interferring and banning 100% mortages and wasn't putting the brakes on all this economic activity.

Exile 1798 · 13-05-2010 1:26pm

And why didn't Lenders care that their customers realisticly couldn't pay back the loans? Because they were simply selling them on, and had no interest in their outcomes. In fact they started designing mortages to target these very people. It was these brokers that were driving the Housing bubble.

Yet, as usual, you heap all your scorn and contempt on the least powerful and least culpable in the situation.

BluePlanet · 13-05-2010 1:28pm

Does it?

How so exactly?

Let's say i'm a pervy manager whom can't score.
But there are is a hottie or 2 working on the production floor for minium wage.
What's to stop me from trying to get some sexual favour from them?
Wouldn't that be contractural sex between 2 consenting adults?
What exactly is your problem with that?

Sure, i might let her go if she refuses but so what?
If she doesn't like it she can always go elsewhere for a job right?

Anonymous1987 · 13-05-2010 1:29pm

You mightn't be in favour but you're libertarian principlbes would allow others. One of the reasons why the US/UK model of democracy is charitably better than others is because of the checks and balances of power. Extreme libertarianism would remove the checks and balances of the market place allowing market power to become concentrated in the few.

Permabear · 13-05-2010 1:33pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 13-05-2010 1:36pm

This post has been deleted.

Anonymous1987 · 13-05-2010 1:37pm

Maybe, although the risks are more transparent than Collaterised Debt Obligation.

Governments make mistakes too.

So both were wrong but why can't you admit the private sector was equally to blame.

Again, are they rational then?

Anonymous1987 · 13-05-2010 1:38pm

There is an inherent conflict between what is best for the company and what is best for the 60 year old executive nearing retirement and trying to meet profit targets, so he buys into the bubble and lands a tidy golden parachute before the shìt hits the fan. At least that would party explain it.

BluePlanet · 13-05-2010 1:39pm

Well let me tell you, it's not exactly rare in today's "Big Government" society.
Remove the protections Big Government tries to provide and you'll open the door wide open to all manner of abuse.

Can you explain how we should expect less sexual harrassment in the workplace in a Libertarian society?
Are there no pervy Libertarians?

Akrasia · 13-05-2010 1:40pm

Not in favour of sexual harrassment, but opposed to measures aimed at protecting employees from sexual harrassment.

Exile 1798 · 13-05-2010 1:40pm

It's obviously not true that they all knew exactly what they were doing.

They were the least powerful and least culpable in the sense that it wasn't Frank who took out an individual loan he could not afford that was creating a huge housing bubble - but the systematic lax lending which mortgage brokers were responsible for that created and powered that dangerous bubble.

Permabear · 13-05-2010 1:41pm

This post has been deleted.

generalmiaow · 13-05-2010 1:42pm

Maybe I went a bit far. But certainly we are seeing a lot more libertarians on the internet than in real life (and definitely on polling cards!). When I came across communities of people, and this may sound corny, like e-cigarette users, drug users, airsoft players, gay and lesbian forums and hunting enthusiasts, dissidents in repressive countries etc. who are all affected by the march of morality into policy worldwide, it caused me to form the view that people should be masters of their own destiny and order can arise regardless of interference.

You can look in any of the niche forums on boards.ie and find people who are upset about legislation made by politicians who are not experts in their brief that harms their hobby or lifestyle. This is not intended as a strong argument in favour of libertarianism but a partial explanation as to how these views are formed. Before the internet I had no idea just how incredible the ability to speak freely was. I remember how upset people were when they weren't allowed to mention the name of a certain company because of libel/slander laws. That sort of thing.

I like the analogy with the printing press though, even if it was intended as a criticism. I think if there is a big ideological change now historians will say the same thing.

Anonymous1987 · 13-05-2010 1:46pm

Thats a valid observation but Libertarianism is not a solution to this, in fact it would place the power firmly in the hands of corporations.

Permabear · 13-05-2010 1:48pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 13-05-2010 1:51pm

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 13-05-2010 1:55pm

So what are you saying exactly?
Should there be government mandates outlawing such practice?
And methods to bring transgressors to book?

That doesn't sound like Libertariansim, it sounds rather Statish.

Scofflaw · 13-05-2010 1:57pm

So, were it not for "tax breaks, protectionism, government contracts, and the like" companies like Microsoft wouldn't be a problem. I see.

amused,
Scofflaw

silverharp · 13-05-2010 1:57pm

And power is not concentrated in the hands of a few now? To me it looks like all the taxpayers of the western world have been signed up to bail out a "cartel" of banks ( in our interests of course:rolleyes:)

I would dispute that market power would concentrate in the hands of a few whatever that actually means? care to quantify? Its pretty much an axiom that companies have a life cycle. Innovative companies become large eg Microsoft, smaller companies setup to compete and chip away at whoever the local 200 lb gorilla happens to be. Its a statist framework that allows regulation capture, grants monopoly power to organisations and enforces what can be an onerous patent or IPR system. All the local grantee has to do is throw enough money at whoever is in power and bingo! we have the corporatism we are seeing now.
The only checks and balances required is the ability to vote with ones feet, I am being denied that right on a daily basis, and to be honest I am fed up of being forced to support farmers, hoteliers, RTE and the numerous quangos that all get a slice of the action because they have ear of the government.

13-05-2010 2:04pm

Yeah, Monsanto, Haliburton and the like just await the removal of regulation so they can usher in a new era of philantropy and shelter the needy, taking drug addicts in off the streets, curing those without Health insurance..If only they didn't have to pay tax, then they could start using their profits for the good of humanity..Charitable donations for all..

Laminations · 13-05-2010 2:05pm

And of course libertarianism is the only solution to this

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0501/breaking11.html

I'll pull yo7u up on this point again. What you are describing above 'knew exactly what they were doing', 'no arm twisting' seems to me to be an example of the freedom endorsed by libertarianism, and what now is the consequences of that freedom? what would it be if governments around the world were not stepping in to mop up after individual mistakes (and YES I admit there was HUGE government failing too that brough about the bust but you just demonstrated a failing of individuals, acting by your estimation without coercion. You've demonstrated a failing of libertarianism. And you've yet to admit the culpability of private instituions, although we all can recognise the failings of government.

Seriously?? YOU want to blame the government for his mistake. Because without government this would still be Franks (an individuals) mistake and libertarianism would do nothing to solve or prevent these mistakes!

Laminations · 13-05-2010 2:11pm

Tax breaks? they'd pay no tax?
Protectiuonism? From who? the corporations could undercut any competitor and you'd quickly get monopolies.
Government contracts? Under libertarianism there'd be little government left?

Permabear · 13-05-2010 2:13pm

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia · 13-05-2010 2:14pm

A lot of them were spending that money looking for reduced regulations on their industry. Libertarianism just cuts out the middleman and gives them no regulations at all for free.

Laminations · 13-05-2010 2:15pm

Lol. And you actually care about this? Have you used any of your current freedoms to try and change this? When was the last march you organised against the bail out? When was the last march you were on? Have you written to your TD? Do you intend to vote for change in the next election - if you see no change to vote for do you intend to run yourself??

BluePlanet · 13-05-2010 2:15pm

Can you please answer the question?

Sorry i'm editing this.

The question is: what sort of mechanisms do Libertarains propose to tackle sexual harrasment in the workplace?

Exile 1798 · 13-05-2010 2:16pm

I'm talking about Frank the Yank.

As much as I'd like to believe Ireland held that kind of sway, it wasn't our property bubble's collapse that caused the GFC.

Laminations · 13-05-2010 2:17pm

DF, maybe you are taking time to consider my point but I'll phrase it another way if that helps.

Are people rational and capable?
By your explanation of the crash (and all my experience of psychology and behavioural economics) it appears they are not

Does libertarianism require them to be for it to work?
This is the same fundamental flaw that existed in neo-classical economics.

Laminations · 13-05-2010 2:21pm

Well raping and beheading are obvious cases of an abuse of someone elses rights. You have said yourself you dont have the right to take offence, yes?
So my employer saying to me that I should wear lycra shorts to work is illegal how? Under a statist system where the government has a say on decency and morals there is a line, or at least an area that can be thrashed out in court. Under libertarianism, who is to say sexually provocative comments are encroaching on anothers rights??

YA BIG RIDE YA

Permabear · 13-05-2010 2:22pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 13-05-2010 2:23pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 13-05-2010 2:25pm

Yes, I'm sure the ESB were just hoping for the energy market to be regulated

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/energy-sector-changes-may-spark-competition-but-for-how-long-2147141.html

Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Comments