Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Permabear · 17-05-2010 12:04pm

This post has been deleted.

Macha · 17-05-2010 12:17pm

Well as we live in a democracy, it's also dependent on civic engagement and putting pressure on politicians to improve educational services.

But you're totally ignoring the PISA report that I referred to above, showing that in fact, government involvement in schools gets the best results.

BluePlanet · 17-05-2010 12:28pm

He keeps talking about privatising education but ignores the reality that private schools here receive a State subsidy - primarily that the State is paying the wages of the staff.

Also ignoring the most successful school system in the western world - Finland - which is a public state-run school system where the vast majority of staff are unionized.

Realities that put major holes in freemarketeer land.

Maybe the Private Schools here get better results because they get to operate a highly discrimantory entrance policy - they don't have to take on traveller children nor immigrants that have/are trying to learn english as a 2nd or 3rd language.

So in effect, they take only well behaved kids that they believe will do well in their school setting.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 12:40pm

This post has been deleted.

Macha · 17-05-2010 12:52pm

But, for example, private schools in Ireland get government support. The same could very well be the case in other countries. Out of the top 10 countries from the OECD report, which one doesn't have government involvement in private schools?

Permabear · 17-05-2010 1:08pm

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 17-05-2010 2:12pm

Lets also not forget that it will require some government interference to break the discriminatory enrollment policy those private schools operate:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0427/1224269158554.html

It's the same story with Private Prisons in USA, there they get to cherry-pick what prisoners they'll take which results in the State prisons housing a disproportionate number of seriously violent criminals.

Ironically however, the Private Prisons don't reap the presumed benefits as they have a much higher rate of attacks against wardens.

Also, the presumed savings a private prison system was supposed to provide taxpayers, hasn't born out.

Closer to home, once we get Travellers, Special Needs kids, and mis-behaving miscreants from housing estates into those Private Schools, doubtless those test scores will suffer.

Laminations · 17-05-2010 2:13pm

They often have entrance exams too, so they take well behaved, intelligent kids who probably have parents that highly value education (hence are willing to pay for it) and all these factors influence the childs performance rather than reflect on school performance.

Laminations · 17-05-2010 2:17pm

Why? under libertarianism, discrimination is your right, it may not be encouraged or condoned but it is accepted. They reckon there will always be someone else to teach the stupid or the poor, sure if there is a demand there will be a supply - who cares if the supply is substandard, sure the layabouts are paying less for it.

BluePlanet · 17-05-2010 2:19pm

Yes but they live in lala Land where everybody behaves like perfect little gentlemen.
Things are different in the real world.

Laminations · 17-05-2010 2:22pm

Just back to the issue on sexual harrassment from a few pages ago - listening to Pat Kenny this morning I heard about this lecturer in UCC being repremanded for 'sexual harrassment' by the university (without the involvement of the state) after simply offending a colleague. He gave a great explanation on how one distinguishes between sexual harrassment and offense (the latter being something the state should not protect its citizens from). It shows that institutional procedures can be majorly flawed.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/470089-sex-fruit-bats-and-politically-correct-zoology-at-an-irish-college

Permabear · 17-05-2010 2:39pm

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia · 17-05-2010 2:45pm

It's not me, it's Barry Schwartz and as a thesis it does stand up to scrutiny.

Excessive choice can lead to psychological harm. There are studies that show that excessive consumer choice can trigger depression and feelings of loneliness as there are fewer shared experiences (back when there were only 2 channels on irish television, people used to discuss what they all saw the night before, now where there are hundreds of channels and the internet, it is unlikely that the people you meet will have seen the same content and so you can not share the experience.

Also when there is a wide choice available and someone chooses something they are not satisfied with, that then becomes their fault for not choosing better, rather than the manufacturers fault for not producing a good enough good/service. People hold themselves responsible for the poor choices they make rather than projecting the blame for any insatisfaction onto the service provider.

The point I am making is that if you are proposing a society where freedom to choose between multiple service providers and commodities is a central part of the ideology, you ought to at least do some study to see if maximum variety and choice is actually better for happiness and outcomes than the system as it stands or used to be

Lockstep · 17-05-2010 3:05pm

Actually FIRE is nonpartisan and defends civil liberties; I wouldn't call the ACLU or the ICCL libertarian either for example.

I came across Lukianoff once before; he's a liberal isn't he? (American style if I remember rightly)

Permabear · 17-05-2010 3:14pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 3:19pm

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 17-05-2010 3:29pm

I'm all for removing "choices" where it's appropriate.
For example how many different types of mobile phone charges do we really need?
If we use government interference and mandate a standard, we can simplify things for consumers and force industry to produce less waste by eliminating the necessity to package a seperate charger with each different model/manufacture of phone.

Lockstep · 17-05-2010 3:37pm

I can count.; Dunn, Innis, Liggio, Sommers out of those.
Few conservatives there too. Unless there's any libertarians I missed out?

Akrasia · 17-05-2010 3:51pm

Gold is the new tulip?

Permabear · 17-05-2010 3:57pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 3:59pm

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 17-05-2010 4:04pm

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20libertarian

Civil libertarianism is not the same as doctrinaire libertarianism (which is what this thread is about)
I'd say nearly everyone in the thread is a civil libertarian. But many are opposed to the form of libertarianism you advocate.

BluePlanet · 17-05-2010 4:11pm

Go on donegalfella, tell us how we consumers have benefited from having different types of propietary mobile phone chargers.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 4:14pm

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach · 17-05-2010 4:14pm

That's not the issue. The producers benefit.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 4:19pm

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 17-05-2010 4:22pm

It took the threat of Big Goverment interference to force the hand of industry.
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/06/10-companies-agree-to-standardized-mobile-phone-charger-in-eu.ars

Lockstep · 17-05-2010 4:25pm

It doesn't conflict with doctrinaire libertarianism, but it is certainly not the same thing.

You're post calling FIRE libertarian (and linking Lukianoff, a liberal to it) was an equivication of the highest order. This thread is about far more than civil liberties and is about libertarianism as an entire ideology. And you know this.

I didn't say all posters. Just nearly all of them.

BluePlanet · 17-05-2010 4:25pm

And your still avoiding the issue i raised donegalfella.

You claim that lots of choice is best, but i've countered with an example of industry waste: all the different types of mobile phone chargers.
Choices of mobile phone charges didn't benefit consumers at all, nor the environment.

So can you tell us why having so many different mobile phone chargers was best for consumers?

If anything donegalfella, you should be arguing against Big Government interfering and forcing the hand of industry to create a standard.
You should be telling us how wrong that is and how wonderful it is to have 10 different propietary phone charges clogging up a deskdrawer at home.

Laminations · 17-05-2010 4:33pm

Exactly. We can all pick out parts of libertarianism that we agree with, and you were correct in saying nearly all of us are advocates for civil liberties, even if DF has the odd idea that we want the government to regulate screensavers - is that really what you got from our argument for legislation to prevent harrassment and abuses of power in the workplace? And you still maintain your detractors are lefty idiots?

I'd like to think I oppose leftist idiocy too, I also oppose libertarianist idiocy.

Your absolutist fundamental libertarianism is what is being critiqued, that and your belief that the market solves all social problems

Akrasia · 17-05-2010 4:40pm

Thats why its called a paradox. People want more choice, but sometimes getting what they want makes them less happy.

It's all fine and well using toothpaste as an example of choice, it's a homogenous product, all toothpaste is essentially the same (I always buy the one that's on special offer) But for things that are actually meaningful, like a car, or an education, if you are given a choice between 3 cars all the same price but with different advantages and drawbacks, whichever one you choose, you'll always have a twinge of regret for the cars you could have had and thus be less satisfied with the car. If you buy a car because it was the only one you could afford or because a family member arranged to get it for you, you'll be happier with the car because you won't know about the other products that you could have had but chose not to.

That's rationalisation, its not how the psychology actually works. In fact, the more research you do before you see the film or buy the product, the more likely you are to be dis-satisfied with any flaws in the product because you will believe that there are better products that you could have chosen (all equally flawed in their own way, but you don't know about those flaws because you never experienced them)

and it is a truism that aquiring posessions does not make people happy. They might desire something, doesn't mean it will make them happy when they have it. (especially with the power of the advertising and marketing industry to influence people into purchasing things they don't need)

I would be extremely interested if you can find a single study that shows that people who try to find happiness in consumerism and seek to always purchase the best product available are in fact happier than people who are satisfied with the more limited choices that they have locally.

Again with the false dichotomy. It's either a squalour, or utopia.
In reality things are more complicated. people want a varied diet, the question is whether people are more happy if they have a selection of 3 different types of cornflakes, (normal, frosted, chocolate covered) or 23 different types?

Permabear · 17-05-2010 4:52pm

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 17-05-2010 4:56pm

Still waiting for you to explain how the threat is wrong and why consumers are better off having lots of different propietary mobile phone chargers.

Lockstep · 17-05-2010 5:01pm

They may or may not overlap but they are not the same thing. Conservatives would frequently agree with libertarians on market issues but disagree on social ones, likewise, libertarians would agree with (American) liberals on social issues but disagree on economics.

Yup and that's what this thread is concerning. If we start cherry picking parts of an ideology then we end up all over the place.

You and I have frequently found ourselves on the same side on issues such as burqas and the banning of pornography. I'd take a guess that you would never refer to me as a libertarian. Or if you did, you would appreciate that it is extremely misleading.

Ah the usual. Traditional values, strong military, low government involvement in the market. Etc.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 5:13pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 17-05-2010 5:16pm

Or to protect your right to marry who you like and say what you like about Jesus Christ - it depends on what people want. Most people do seem, however, to want a government powerful enough to actually carry out the preferences of the electorate, and are prepared to pay 41% of their income to get that.

I'd say, once more, that the "libertarian explosion" is the result of people casting about desperately for simple solutions - and libertarians have simple solutions. That they don't work doesn't currently matter to many people, because they feel the current set hasn't worked either.

Plagues bring out the faith healers and quacks - economic hard times, the libertarians and the rest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach · 17-05-2010 5:26pm

You really shouldn't poke fun at libertarians: they are a largely humourless bunch, and some of them like guns.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 5:27pm

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 17-05-2010 5:52pm

There are different brands of liberals though. I'm broadly in favour of free speech and all that, but I would, for example, draw the line at newspapers printing articles when there are clear national security risks. THere would presumably be libertarians who would agree on this issue and overlap between libertarians and liberals.

FIRE makes no claims on economic issues, that is true. But would you not agree that it is extremely misleading to refer to an organisation as "libertarian" in a debate which concerns both social and economic issues?

Of course. If we don't believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we don't believe in it at all. Etc.

I was vilified by the hard left in Galway for refusing to blockade David Irving speaking at NUIG and for organising votes in favour of him being alloawd speak. I was accused of betraying my working class roots.:(

Permabear · 17-05-2010 5:56pm

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater · 17-05-2010 5:57pm

This is obviously a negative aspect of the free market, but it pales in comparison to some of the negative aspects of "big government". In Ireland the educational standards in mathematics seem to be continually falling, something that has a lot to do with the unions' and the government's monopoly on education. I sat an economics exam today, and one of the questions related to public choice theory. To illustrate the proposition that governments tend to favor special interest groups over what is best for society as a whole, I used the example of the school vouchers donegalfella mentioned earlier, where Obama and the Democratic Congress abandoned the successful voucher programme at the behest of the unions. I do feel that poor education standards are a result of government pandering to unions, and that the alternative choices proposed here do nothing to break the union-government strangle hold.

If you are expecting me to account for every single thing that could happen under a libertarian society, you should be ready to account for what I've said above. And I don't know about you, but education is slightly more important to me than mobile phone chargers.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 6:06pm

This post has been deleted.

Anonymous1987 · 17-05-2010 6:15pm

Surely interest groups such as unions would still exist and have the ability to exert power under libertarianism? After all Libertarians call for self interest to regulate society?

Permabear · 17-05-2010 6:23pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 17-05-2010 6:25pm

No, I'd say that's an example of bad regulation - but the existence of bad regulation doesn't prove that regulation is bad.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater · 17-05-2010 6:37pm

In a libertarian society unions would not be able to employ the coercive force of the state to get what they want. One of the main problems with public sector unions is that their employer doesn't operate under the same economic constraints that private businesses do. Because of this, unions can make totally unrealistic demands and actually get them. All the state has to do is increment tax by 1% and, as per what I was saying earlier, the government wins lots of votes but loses relatively few. Also, unions maintain the monopolies donegelfella spoke of, once again because they can use the state to impede any kind of efficient competition.

By the way, this "libertarian explosion" didn't come out of the recession, in my experience: most of the libertarians here believed in what they do before the downturn occurred.

thebman · 17-05-2010 6:58pm

Well the alternative is taking on the unions to get working standards in place for appraising teachers but which political party has the will to do this?

Or increase standards and hear from Mary who's kid can't get to college now and how its the governments fault not her kids who didn't put in the effort to get the course they wanted.

Quite simply, I would much prefer a free, state education system but one must acknowledge the failures we have at the moment and propose ways to fix these problems. Donegalfella's solution seems drastic to me but at least he has put forward a potential solution.

Personaly I would prefer to see teachers not be state employee's as they won't get the union protection they have at the moment and Irish political parties don't seem to have the will to take on these unions. However, I do think we should have free education too. I guess that would mean the government paying grants to private schools to take on pupils and the costs would have to be regulated however it would remove some of the power of the state to enforce grade inflation.

One cannot say the current system is working so what is the state solution to the problem and when will we see it?

That kind of makes the stats a bit uselss though IMO but given the whole problem is manipulation of stats then who's stats can we trust?

Permabear · 17-05-2010 7:13pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 17-05-2010 7:35pm

The problem, though, is that while I can agree with that point, it's a bit like saying "people can sometimes use the law in ways we don't want, so we're better off without it" or "employees sometimes use their rights in ways that we would prefer they didn't, so it would be better if they had none".

In other words, the pink thing in the bathwater is a baby.

I wasn't really suggesting your numbers had increased, though, or even that there are more actual libertarians - I'm suggesting that you currently get a better reception for your ideas than at other times, and that this has the effect of amplifying the libertarian signal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater · 17-05-2010 9:01pm

Obviously. However I have tried to make the point here that the problems in government don't stem from the particular administration (Fianna Fail in Ireland's case) but rather the system itself, which strongly favours interest groups and appears to have a tendency to get larger as time goes on.

Additionally, the way in which government provides education in this country means that we have to take whatever they give us, which restricts choice and, ultimately, quality. This monopoly is far worse than any potential Ryanair monopoly people use to criticize liberal economics. All the alternative solutions proposed here are still working within that framework that gives Teachers' Unions and other interest groups such as the Gaelgoirs too much clout, attempts a one-size-fits-all school system and is motivated by political gain.

Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Comments