Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Anonymous1987

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually David Cameron is attempting to introduce a level of choice into the education system across the water. Basically parents will receive a voucher equivalent to the cost of attending a public school and can chose to use to attend either public or private schools. Apparently its in operation in Sweden but I haven't looked into it. I'll give a look around and post the article if I can remember where I saw it.

Here it is

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm

Iwasfrozen

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Actually David Cameron is attempting to introduce a level of choice into the education system across the water. Basically parents will receive a voucher equivalent to the cost of attending a public school and can chose to use to attend either public or private schools. Apparently its in operation in Sweden but I haven't looked into it. I'll give a look around and post the article if I can remember where I saw it.

Here it is

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm

You could have just linked to your article without posting the entire thing in the forum.

Anonymous1987

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You could have just linked to your article without posting the entire thing in the forum.

What? I don't recall doing that .

ChocolateSauce

Scofflaw wrote: »

All of that, though, seems like it's just a question of where you draw the line. Presumably, the libertarian perspective is that on principle you do not regulate such things at all, whatever their effect. Anything else is just hanging out on the fringes of social democracy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Seems to be. The enigmatic question, when to regulate? I'm not in the "never ever" camp...which makes things more complicated certainly, but I think also, if regulation is done properly, there can be an overall better outcome than if regulation is not done at all. I'd be wary of over-regulation of course!

donegalfella wrote:

What about the caricatures of Brian Cowen that appeared last year in the National Gallery? Do you think that those were legitimate, even if they were designed to humiliate and ridicule? Can posters that humiliate and ridicule an individual serve an important social and political function?

Certainly a good point. It seems to me that being a public figure by one's own free will goes hand in hand with surrendering the right not to be cartooned. Although cartoons tend to lampoon a person's actions and speeches as opposed to their personal lives, which is a worthwhile distinction.

If facial expressions in the workplace fall under the purview of the state, porn on corporate walls would almost certainly be the government's business!

Best to let people leer away. As I said above, I see it as a question of when as opposed to if. I wouldn't presume to claim to know "when" is best btw.

Scofflaw

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Seems to be. The enigmatic question, when to regulate? I'm not in the "never ever" camp...which makes things more complicated certainly, but I think also, if regulation is done properly, there can be an overall better outcome than if regulation is not done at all. I'd be wary of over-regulation of course!

I'm pretty certain you won't find anyone who is in favour of bad regulation or over-regulation - it's only that we don't necessarily recognise it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

DF although there may be regulation in place, the cases you outline still involve individual decision making. Now although I will argue against the libertarian supposition that humans are perfectly rational I do think we can exercise a modicum of common sense. Hence although there might be legislation about dirty looks or gestures it is unlikely that someone would bring a case against another simply because they didn't like how they looked at them and even more unlikely that a judge would entertain such nonsense. So even though the state may regulate in many areas it still leaves things up to the discretion of individuals, individuals that you can't very well claim are rational if you can't even afford them common sense.

And yes, governments get it wrong quite a bit, we can all admit that, it is not a perfect system. Meanwhile you argue on every point, you do not concede one bit that libertarianism may not be the answer to everything. The Market is moral; liberty above all else. Some of you may claim your position is akin to atheism but all I see is fundamentalism. You cannot see anything wrong with your ideology. Newsflash, no ideology is perfect.

I am glad to see that in the face of much criticism you revealed the cold face of libertarianism and supported peoples freedom to sexually harrass amongst other abuses of power in the workplace. I wonder will the fact that on this even your closest allies are distancing themselves from you, will that change your position at all?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think the libertarian position on regulation (in the sense being discussed the last few pages) is a little harder to defend than freedom of enterprise.

.

It seems at least that other libertarians are realising that liberty cannot trump all else. Can one remain a libertarian with this realisation or do they become a liberal to which some libertarian ideals appeal, like me.

so you can keep trotting out ridiculous examples of things people might get offended by and try to use these extremes as a stick with which to beat the state but it remains individuals who get offended by these things, the state empowers them to do something about it, libertarianism disempowers people on this front with it's 'like it or lump it' approach.

BluePlanet

If people don't think facial expressions and gestures can construe sexual harassment then they are not using their imagination.
Or just being willfully ignorant.

(warning, rather offensive images below)
http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/wanker.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~kenandariel/bjface4.jpg

Imagine such actions as part of a pattern of behavior directed toward you or one of your loved ones by some low life idiot in your/their workplace.

It would be totally inappropriate and if the management didn't put a stop to it straight way, or was the one doing it, they totally deserve to be brought before a judge or an employment tribunal.

silverharp

so let me get this straight, people are embracing a Libertarian position because they are coming to the realisation that big government has brought the economy to the point where it could potentially bring everyone down. And the reason why they are wrong is that someone might have their bottom pinched and there may not be recourse?
ok you've won me over, carry on wrecking the economy while I step out and convert the rest of my savings to gold. We'll all watch the coming economic dislocation safe in the knowledgre there was no alternative course of action.:D

P. Breathnach

silverharp wrote: »

so let me get this straight, people are embracing a Libertarian position because they are coming to the realisation that big government has brought the economy to the point where it could potentially bring everyone down. And the reason why they are wrong is that someone might have their bottom pinched and there may not be recourse?
ok you've won me over, carry on wrecking the economy while I step out and convert the rest of my savings to gold. We'll all watch the coming economic dislocation safe in the knowledgre there was no alternative course of action.:D

"Do something different; anything, so long as it is different". That's the feeblest case one could make, tantamount to amputating a leg to cure breast cancer.

BluePlanet

silverharp wrote: »

so let me get this straight, people are embracing a Libertarian position because they are coming to the realisation that big government has brought the economy to the point where it could potentially bring everyone down. And the reason why they are wrong is that someone might have their bottom pinched and there may not be recourse?

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
It wasn't "Big Government" that crashed the financial system, it was the unregulated financial sector.

Anonymous1987

silverharp wrote: »

so let me get this straight, people are embracing a Libertarian position because they are coming to the realisation that big government has brought the economy to the point where it could potentially bring everyone down. And the reason why they are wrong is that someone might have their bottom pinched and there may not be recourse?
ok you've won me over, carry on wrecking the economy while I step out and convert the rest of my savings to gold. We'll all watch the coming economic dislocation safe in the knowledgre there was no alternative course of action.:D

Firstly Libertarianism is naive in its belief that in the absence of social legislation that sexual harassment won't happen instead they point to their freedoms being oppressed but there is a clear balancing act to made between the freedom of one individual versus another, that should be obvious. Libertarianism ignores this and gives no solution to these inherent struggles in society and in essence libertarianism in this aspect is fundamentally anarchy/tyranny with property rights.

Secondly while I agree economies and governments worldwide are desperately overleveraged and government has contributed substantially to this, economic collapse is not inevitable unless of course we follow the Libertarian approach which is guaranteed to result in immediate economic and most likely political chaos. I'll agree both choices are terrible but I was of the opinion that "there is no alternative action" was a slogan of Libertarians such that there is no alternative action to the market?

Anonymous1987

BluePlanet wrote: »

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
It wasn't "Big Government" that crashed the financial system, it was the unregulated financial sector.

In fairness though it was both. Poor regulation and low interest rates for too long.

Laminations

silverharp wrote: »

so let me get this straight, people are embracing a Libertarian position because they are coming to the realisation that big government has brought the economy to the point where it could potentially bring everyone down. And the reason why they are wrong is that someone might have their bottom pinched and there may not be recourse?
ok you've won me over, carry on wrecking the economy while I step out and convert the rest of my savings to gold. We'll all watch the coming economic dislocation safe in the knowledgre there was no alternative course of action.:D

Yes big government has made huge mistakeS, we all recognise that (I say we because all of us are unhappy with the current failure! But big government being bad is not an argument for the libertarian minimal to no government (again a false dichotomy), there are many permutations in between with various balances of individual and economic freedoms and protective regulation and legislation. We've all agreed that government is too big in some areas and too ineffective in others. You have completely failed to prove that libertarianism is the best option. Finaaly do you support peoples freedom to sexually harrass and otherwise abuse their position?

silverharp

Laminations wrote: »

Yes big government has made huge mistakeS, we all recognise that (I say we because all of us are unhappy with the current failure! But big government being bad is not an argument for the libertarian minimal to no government (again a false dichotomy), there are many permutations in between with various balances of individual and economic freedoms and protective regulation and legislation. We've all agreed that government is too big in some areas and too ineffective in others. You have completely failed to prove that libertarianism is the best option. Finaaly do you support peoples freedom to sexually harrass and otherwise abuse their position?

who said no government? I want a government with strict limits on what it does and doesnt do

Anonymous1987

silverharp wrote: »

who said no government? I want a government with strict limits on what it does and doesnt do

Where do you see governments position? Would you not agree that it makes sense to legislate for a social issue which most people agree is wrong rather than pushing everyone through our sluggish and costly courts system? There is always the option to appeal against legislation through the courts system.

silverharp

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Where do you see governments position? Would you not agree that it makes sense to legislate for a social issue which most people agree is wrong rather than pushing everyone through our sluggish and costly courts system? There is always the option to appeal against legislation through the courts system.

The argument would be that there are different ways to regulate. For instance I am member of a professional organisation. There are a book of rules I have to follow, some are professional some are ethical etc. As the work place keeps coming up there could be mechanisms to regulate via trade associations. Potential employees could have mechanisms via some form of insurance that might have an arbitration sytem built in. That's only off the top of my head.

I have no problem with a central government and a central or state run court system, and wrt the state I would want their mechanisms for funding limited. Broadly speaking any "services" that the central authority and any regional structures underneath could only be funded via reasonable indirect taxation and maybe corporation tax and any forms of ad hoc funding like minerals rights etc.
Otherwsie Its completely unjust that any government can conscript an individual into their army, tax a person at any rate they feel like and where wealth can be transferred and monies borrowed based on backroom meetings between government or business and government.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

In fairness though it was both. Poor regulation and low interest rates for too long.

A recent paper by UCD economist Morgan Kelly has clearly demonstrated that low interest rates had a minimal effect on Ireland's housing bubble. The real kicker was the relaxed lending policies, ie poor regulation and business practices.

Moreover, if interest rates are low, government can act to mitigate the effect by taxing mortgages and giving tax relief for savings. Under the liberal system proposed here, government would not have the power to take such steps.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

You don't think there were looser inter-bank lending practices?

silverharp

taconnol wrote: »

Moreover, if interest rates are low, government can act to mitigate the effect by taxing mortgages and giving tax relief for savings. Under the liberal system proposed here, government would not have the power to take such steps.

ha ha, I'd love to have seen anyone from the Labour, the Greens or FF/FG put that forward as a serious suggestion in the late 90's. The point is that the politics of the mainstream parties and the structures are incapable of foreseeing the moral hazzard. Being wise after the fact is no good to me as there will not be a new property bubble for a generation.
Will we have to wait for the Euro to fall apart and states to go bankrupt for your future self to say that "well governments shouldn't be allowed to run structural deficits" due to the risks to the system as a whole.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

sorry, the bit in bold, is that evidence that it's not the best societal order or evidence that it is unworkable? Because you've been presented with many reasons why it's unworkable (behavioural psychology deems it unworkable e.g. Tragedy of the commons and prisoners dilemma). And anyway it's not up to us to provide evidence that it's wrong it is up to you to provide something (other than speculation) that it is right. It again shows inconsistency or hypocrisy that you 'believe' in libertarianism without much demonstration of it's existence in reality (humans aren't rational); not exactly the same way you say that you'll remain an atheist until you get evidence of the existence of god. The Market is ammoral and it is definitely coercive, or at least those who hold power in a Market can be coercive.

You don't believe in god, I don't believe in libertarianism. It's up to believers to prove their beliefs are not a fairytale utopian hope. All we've gotten so far is supposition after supposition. 'If people were rational, if people were respectful of property rights etc'. People aren't these things and you have been given evidence that proves that. And funnily you said yourself that people aren't respectful of others property, who washes a rental car after all?

Eliot Rosewater

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You've mentioned that before; do you've a source I could read?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd be more inclined to call it amoral myself, insofar as the morals are left up to individuals (someone morally opposed to condoms doesn't have to buy condoms you know!).

I don't think people are arguing with the fact that it offers the greatest individual liberty. It's just that the others here feel that some of that liberty is worth sacrificing for a greater good.

It's a rather interesting question: how far do you pursue your absolute ideal?

silverharp

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't think people are arguing with the fact that it offers the greatest individual liberty. It's just that the others here feel that some of that liberty is worth sacrificing for a greater good.

It's a rather interesting question: how far do you pursue your absolute ideal?

Clearliy this is the reality but it doesnt make it right. How does one calculate sacrificing for a greater good? there is an assumption here that the cost will be less then the gains, however without stretching the point it is obvious that the cost will be more then the gains for some people (which seems unfair) and even for the rest, how do you prove it? Look at the economy now, a lot of people are suffering more costs then gains because they let the government run the economy and the planning system for them. It takes a lot of almost religious faith that the greater good statement is in fact true.

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm confused df, if these kids can't afford private schools then they can't afford private schools, right?

I actually agree with the idea of subsidising private students as in the end it does actually save tax payer money if parents are willing to directly pay half the bill for their child's education. This goes for Ireland too.

When anaylising the results of public and private schools one has to consider that private school students are a self selecting group. It will be parents that can afford to pay significant school fees that are sending their children to private schools, ie families with more resources. The other main group will be families with very few resources but that value education highly so they put everything they can into their child's education and push them very hard. These people are also likely remove their child if it becomes apparent they're not getting great benefit from their costly private education. Where are they removed to? The public system.

Indeed America has some truly awful school districts. This is in no small part a symptom of the large underclass that exists in that country, one of the richest in the world. Culture and society play a large role in educational achievement. There's a lot of issues at play here, it's not just a simple matter of "private good, public bad." I find it hard to believe that even you think that.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Obama is loaded df, as you well know.

I'd imagine that Obama supports public education because he knows that people with meagre means couldn't afford a private education.

There's no contradiction there, indeed you have had to feign stupidity to fashion one. As a general rule, when you find yourself pretending to be obtuse to support your argument, generally your argument hasn't got much going for it.

P. Breathnach

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

... I don't think people are arguing with the fact that it offers the greatest individual liberty. ...

First, it's not a fact; it's a claim.

Second, a lot of people dispute the claim, mainly on the grounds that the purist libertarian has no interest in equality of opportunity, vindication of the oppressed, or assisting the disadvantaged.

silverharp wrote: »

... How does one calculate sacrificing for a greater good? ... It takes a lot of almost religious faith that the greater good statement is in fact true.

While it is true that some notions of the greater good can be contested as ill-judged or even intentionally distorted, it looks to me as if the advocates of libertarianism ask for an even greater leap of faith.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

the fact that it offers the greatest individual liberty.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

First, it's not a fact; it's a claim.

Second, a lot of people dispute the claim, mainly on the grounds that the purist libertarian has no interest in equality of opportunity, vindication of the oppressed, or assisting the disadvantaged.

we need to reaaly nail down what is meant by liberty here because the way I see it, the pursuit of absolute individual liberty is a self defeating concept and therefore it cannot be the best societal order. Does it simply mean that we are aiming to maximise the right to choose?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

allowing individuals to make decisions is amoral, morals only come into play for the individuals making the decisions. Anyway under libertarianism everyone might have the right to choose but they do not have the same choices. One persons set of choices can greatly limit anothers and for some people they have many options with most choices involving approach-approach conflicts (i.e. Should I buy a Beamer or a merc; should I holiday in bora bora or St trope?) while for others they are very limited to avoidance-avoidance type decisions (should I stay in this demeaning job or go hungry; should I clean toilets or rely on charity) - so yes they are free to choose but what they have to choose between does not exemplify liberty for me. There is no equality of opportunity. So in an attempt to maximise liberty we've maximised it for some and minimised it for others. A more moral approach would aim to maximise all liberty in as balanced a way as possible so people aren't merely left with the freedom of choice amongst crud alternatives but that they have some viable alternatives - some opportunity. In other words get the most liberty possible for everyone. For this to work you need some distribution of wealth.


This debate ruined Robin Hood for me because I sat through it wondering whether a libertarian wrote it. Yes of course words like liberty and freedom sound great in the face of Tyranny, oppression and injustice. And in the Robin Hood world one has reason to rally against authority and taxation. But the struggle for more liberty is not justification of absolute liberty. If a libertarian did write the script they were confused, as usual, because they also used words like equality and Sherwood forest where they are free from authority and tyranny is as much an example of a socialist commune as it is a libertarian utopia.

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As I said I'm supportive of reasonable subsidies for students from poor families to attend private schools if they so chose.

But Obama is not denying low income people the ability to attend private schools - their low income is. If they could afford it they could go. Has Libertarian fairness not spoken? (yeah I know, the market is cornered by the govt ect ect)

I'd be very surprised if the President's children were receiving government vouchers to attend their private school. In the absence of that there's no contradiction. Further, I'm sure there were many security and privacy concerns to be considered when picking schools for the young daughters of the President of the United States, let's be a bit serious here.

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

we need to reaaly nail down what is meant by liberty here

Libertarians advocate liberty in the negative sense. "Liberty" is

1. the state of being free from oppression or imprisonment.
2. a right or a privilege, especially a statutory one.
3. the power or scope to act as one pleases

Negative liberty is the first; positive liberty the third. With respect to government, the provision of positive liberty (free education, for example) necessitates the restriction of negative liberty (the education system is funded though non-voluntary taxes).

One could possibly view the government as a provider of positive liberty. However it's terribly inefficient at this. Taking donegalfella's example of school vouchers, the government spends far more money on education than is actually necessary for the societal return. The inefficiency is composed of a number of things, such as lost money due to pandering to the teachers' unions. Do you think a charity (which could also be viewed as a provider of positive liberty) would receive many donations if so much of its money was being wasted keeping a special interest group happy?

donegalfella wrote: »

As Joe Klein wrote in Time magazine, "the unions, and their minions in the Democratic Party, have been a reactionary force in education reform for too long."

From reading his Time column, I have always viewed Klein as a supporter of Obama, which perhaps makes this indictment all the more attention worthy.

I think it's worth noting that if there was ever a man to tackle the inherent problems in government (such as supporting special interests and other vote winning but socially destructive activities) it was Obama. To see even him fall prey to such things only reaffirms my belief that the problems we see in modern Ireland are as much to do with the very setup of government as with Fianna Fail.


Cheers for the link by the way.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why do you see that as the only solution?

An OECD report concluded that Finland has the best secondary school system in the world. They charge no tuition for full time students, have compulsory schooling until the age of 16 and the schools are administered by local councils with the National Board of Education setting targets.

If we want an evidence-based solution, surely we should be looking to implement a similar system here, instead of automatically assuming that all government involvement is bad government involvement.

Scofflaw

taconnol wrote: »

Why do you see that as the only solution?

An OECD report concluded that Finland has the best secondary school system in the world. They charge no tuition for full time students, have compulsory schooling until the age of 16 and the schools are administered by local councils with the National Board of Education setting targets.

If we want an evidence-based solution, surely we should be looking to implement a similar system here, instead of automatically assuming that all government involvement is bad government involvement.

Indeed - there seems to be an automatic assumption that the things that are wrong with government-run ventures here in Ireland are characteristics of government-run ventures full stop - as opposed to, for example, characteristic of Irish-run ventures, or symptomatic of insufficient public input, or indeed symptomatic of Irish public input.

As they say, to every complex problem, there's a solution that's simple, obvious, and wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

First of all fair play on that DF; a great thing indeed.

On an aside though; you are sort of creating a false dichotomy. Such things are possible in publicly funded schools. I attended a school run and funded by the EU when I was a teenager and had to do around half of my subjects in French. At first, this was a disaster as I had no French ability at all and failed the 1st semester of 4th year (equivalent to 3rd year here) horribly (I got something like 4 out of 10 with 6 being a pass mark). The school recognised this and in order to continue as a student in the school I would need to attend grinds classes. I was happy out to do so and spent the next few years meeting with a teacher who would do one to one work with me. It was slow enough work but I graduated with 90% or something in my Baccalaureate French.

Apologies for the tangent there but there can certainly be such systems in a publicly funded system. We both agree on the need for extra help for students who are behind in certain subjects.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can see merit in the above idea. I'm against performance related pay as a rule (it can be too difficult to judge when it's a school in inner city Dublin or a school in Blackrock) but giving bonuses while maintaining existing pay is a novel idea. I was fortunate enough to have great teachers throughout my schooldays. However, some system would need to be implemented to keep attracting teachers into deprived-area schools while a bonus system is on offer.

However, I wouldn't write off the pressure power parents have. My siblings are now attending public schools in Ireland and parent's pester power can make a huge difference; any time any of the kids do badly then there's a trail of parents on their way to the school to complain; clearly it must be the teacher's fault if little Conor got such poor grades. It was the same in my day with one memorable incident where one girl led a campaign to get the teacher sacked rather than admit that she just didn't do much work for the subject.
Although sadly this doesn't apply to some of the kids in the school who need the help most of all (the Travellers being the best example)


As an aside, I remember reading some years ago why Asian schools tend to produce such high quality students; the article noted that in the West, whena student did badly, the culture had it that it must be the teacher's fault. By contrast, Asian culture has it that a poor mark is the student's mark and that they must work harder to compensate. I can't remember where I read it so feel free to dismiss it but there does appear to be some merit in it.

I must say that I have the utmost respect for 90% of the teachers I've encountered in my life; it's not an easy job by any means and in my experience, most do stirling work.

Sand

@taconnol

An OECD report concluded that Finland has the best secondary school system in the world. They charge no tuition for full time students, have compulsory schooling until the age of 16 and the schools are administered by local councils with the National Board of Education setting targets.

The only standout quality of the Finnish education system that I have seen highlighted is that simply put, the Finnish teachers are better teachers, and better motivated. Its probably important to note that they arent better paid.

Whilst Irish teacher trade unions focus on class sizes, international research has not discovered any particular impact of class size on student outcomes. Instead it reinforces that better teachers lead to better outcomes. The point DF is making is that a heavily unionised staff of teachers is not helpful for delivering better teachers and thus better outcomes for students. Private schools can get better results because they can look for better teachers. Unionised schools have to take on and keep the sloggers.

Thats a uncomfortable issue for the teacher trade unions who dont like confronting the reality of bad teachers, but its the root problem we have to sort out.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why do you say they're the exception and not the rule? Have you looked at the other countries in the top 10? There's Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, Lichtenstein, Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and Belgium. As far as I can tell, the government is somewhat involved in all of those education systems and heavily involved in most of them.

Sand wrote: »

Thats a uncomfortable issue for the teacher trade unions who dont like confronting the reality of bad teachers, but its the root problem we have to sort out.

OK I agree - sort out the teacher trade unions. That does not equal an argument for making all education private.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

In fairness though it was both. Poor regulation and low interest rates for too long.

I can understand how government policy could result in an excessively high interest rate, by setting the base rate at a high level, but how can libertarians argue that the state forced private institutions to set their interest rates too low.

It was just another market failure, all these private companies trying to increase market share and entice new customers without any regard for the long term consequences of fueling a credit bubble.

Libertarians blaming the government for the market failure because they didn't force the banks to cut back on lending or increase their interest rates is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics

Akrasia

silverharp wrote: »

Clearliy this is the reality but it doesnt make it right. How does one calculate sacrificing for a greater good? there is an assumption here that the cost will be less then the gains, however without stretching the point it is obvious that the cost will be more then the gains for some people (which seems unfair) and even for the rest, how do you prove it? Look at the economy now, a lot of people are suffering more costs then gains because they let the government run the economy and the planning system for them. It takes a lot of almost religious faith that the greater good statement is in fact true.

But there is no way of knowing how a fully privatised planning system would have functioned in the same conditions with the same pressures and potential for a quick buck.

You're pointing at the failures of the weak planning system and implying that no planning system at all would have had a better outcome, but there is no evidence of this. Is it not likely that a fully unregulated construction sector could have resulted in vastly worse ourcomes?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Laminations wrote: »

we need to reaaly nail down what is meant by liberty here because the way I see it, the pursuit of absolute individual liberty is a self defeating concept and therefore it cannot be the best societal order. Does it simply mean that we are aiming to maximise the right to choose?

Just on this issue, there is a guy Barry Schwartz who writes about "the paradox of choice" and he essentially argues that too much choice can make people unhappier than they would be if they had exactly the same outcome but no choice in how it was arrived at.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ElQVdxAipZ0C&dq=paradox+of+choice&source=bl&ots=fV3YDKS0K-&sig=naSKJshOk6Tsoc8iEbueGzD1h4A&hl=en&ei=kBHxS9e0HYenOPDkhLII&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAw

(eg, if you offer someone a choice between 3 different prizes in a competition, they are less happy with the prize than they would have been if they were just given a fixed prize and no choice (because they have the opportunity cost that makes them regret not choosing the other prizes)

If the libertarians are trying to force us to all have dozens of choices to make about every aspect of our lives on the basis that more choice is better, they should at least make some effort to demonstrate that more choice is in fact 'better', and what does 'better' even mean?)

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What you're doing is telling me the education system in this country is bad and that we have no alternative due to time constraints, but to dismantle the entire public education system. Two few points:

1) There is no way that dismantling the entire public education system would result in faster results than reforming the existing system.

2) You still haven't explained why, other than time, why a 100% private education system is the only alternative to the Irish education system in its current form.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.