Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Laminations

joehanley55 wrote: »

ya, i cant really understand how making sharks extinct is going to set someone up for life??

and if your quam with libertarianism is shortsightedness, think about wat the alternative to libertarianism, statism. states of the world havent exaclty shown themselves to be long sighted (how much is the natoinal debt at now). and why would they be, they only have to do enough to keep getting elected till they die. wat a great idea public debt was for them, spend loads, dont tax the equivilant necessary, and let people pay for it when you're dead or retired with all the money you managed to loot from the people. i think anyone can see that a libertarian society would be alot less shortsighted than the state system we have now.:cool::mad::):rolleyes:;)

Here is the "Tragedy of the Commons" structure for fishing. R1 and R2 are reinforcing feedback loops showing the incentive of each fisherman to fish more and more (more hours, more boats, extended range) to increase profits.
This increases "total fishing" and, after some delay, increases the "effort required per fish caught". It takes some time to recognize that the effort required has definitely increased, that the increased effort required isn't just temporary, but a persistent condition. Also, the use of technology can delay the increase in effort required.
When "total fishing" exceeds the ""sustainable ocean fishing capacity", balancing feedback loops B3 & B4 show the increased "effort required per fish caught" reduces profits.
While this does reduce profits, the delay can be enough that the ability of the fish to reproduce reduces the "sustainable ocean fishing capacity", i.e, ocean "carrying capacity" (this feedback is not shown.)
This is the basic structure. Also not shown is that scarcity increases prices and creates incentives to keep fishing regardless of the impact on the resource. Fishermen use technology to more easily find remaining fish and keep costs down.


It's exactly the kind of "thinking" illustrated in the "The Commons: What Tragedy" piece that made Easter Island uninhabitable and it will do the same for the earth unless this ideology is successfully opposed.

Akrasia

joehanley55 wrote: »

the fact of the matter is that when things are communally owned as you are suggesting, no one has any interest in them, and they die out then cause people will go out and fish as much as possible and rape the oceans. if people have an interest in the resource, then they will try to maintain a steady stream of that resource. by protecting the resource.

Its not that nobody has an interest in them, it's that everybody has an interest in them and through collective action, we need to put in place measures to prevent them from being lost through pollution or overfishing.

Your proposition that allowing individuals or corporations to own a species or a patch of ocean would protect ocean life because the owner has an interest in preserving it simply does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. First of all, only a tiny proportion of the sea life is currently commercially lucrative. So while the sharks might be valuable for food or sale to evil villians to use in their plots to kill dissidents, the dozens of other species that are in that ocean space are not commercially necessary to preserve, and if they impose a cost on the shark farmer, they would be killed as if they were weeds or pests. The shark farmer might prefer to feed the shark a high fat pellet rather than allow them hunt thereby making the optimum ecology of his shark farm would be sharks, and nothing else (maybe pilot fish if the sharks aren't pumped full of anti parasite chemicals instead)

your idea of the goverments of the world, who are useless at everything they do, protecting all the species of fish in the ocean using regulations is quite laughable. they may make treaties, but enforcing them would not help them get re-elected, so i dont understand why they would enforce the treaties???:P:P

The treaties are enforced to some degree. There is always some form of poaching when there is a market for the goods, but this level is much lower than what would be extracted if there were no regulations preventing commercial exploitation of these species. (the ban on whale hunting for example led to a strong recovery of whale numbers that were previously threatened with extinction)

Laminations

Bob Powell wrote:

Libertarians recast the very real structure, the "tragedy of the commons" as a "fallacy of the commons."
The libertarian "solution?" Sell off the commons to individuals who will take care of them. That argument is addressed in this section of the Wikipedia entry.


The "tragedy of the commons" is a situation where rational action by individuals to improve individual performance results in destroying the ability of the whole system to perform. And as system performance is degraded, it also degrades individual performance. When confronted with a situation that cannot be addressed at the individual level, but requires a collective solution, libertarians are in denial.
Examples:

• overgrazing on land destroys the land's ability to grow feed
• groups benefit more from getting more resources from a common organizational resource pool, but overload the common resource (e.g., quality, HR, reproduction services)
• individual engineering teams increase the electrical functionality of the system they're designing when they draw more on the electrical power system, but overall exceed the electrical system's ability to supply power
• firms benefit from economic activity that causes pollution, but increase negative health impacts for all
• developers profit from more development that uses common infrastructure, but overwhelm infrastructure

Their solution to this degradation of system performance is to simply, for example, "sell off the oceans." The rationale is that when individuals own them, the individuals will take care of them.
Then, in a display of illogic, this critic denies this "solution" requires a world government to force other nations to agree to selling the commons they use and to enforce the individual property rights. Further, this critic says that "You see only force. I see negotiation, agreement and treaties between nations, not force." Note that this comment doesn't answer the question about what to do when some don't want to sell.
Besides, it's impossible to sell off all commons, for example, to "sell off the atmosphere," even if everyone wanted to sell.

I'd like to think your increase is proportionally correlated to an ignorance quotient but unfortunately many of you are very well educated.


THIS is also well worth reading. As with most things libertarianism has its good points, but its the extreme defence that its proponents take of the ideology that shows their ignorance of the bad points.

P. Breathnach

Akrasia wrote: »

... and there are the conspiracy theorist new world order libertarians who are afraid of the big bad illuminati ...

The great irony is that libertarians, especially the conspiracy theorist type, effectively run their own conspiracy. It's a while (I think about 2 years) since I went exploring, and I found an extensive blog network where the writers all seemed to feed off one another, and where relatively little new content seemed to emerge.

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, we're off-topic. While I appreciate that this thread is a very tempting place to have a go at libertarianism, that's not the purpose of the thread. If it's just going to be a handbag-fest, it will have to be closed.

moderately,
Scofflaw

I find it funny (I laugh a little bit) when mods step in to 'regulate' threads on libertarianism. I mean if libertarians are correct, threads should regulate themselves and never go off topic because of the darn right decency we all show to one another and the self interest we have in the 'continuation of a good thing'. In markets, as in threads there is always someone, who if allowed, would ruin it for the rest of us... you never have to look far.

Nodin

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As to this allegation that libertarians are loonies: two Nobel Economics laurettes are libertarians.

Without commenting on Libertarians per se, I'm forced to point out that Sir Isaac Newton spent a goodly amount of time locked in his room, working out the 'secret code' of the Bible as he believed he'd been chosen by God to interpret the tome. 'loonieness' and achievement are not mutually exclusive.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

kobe. wrote: »

I agree with you

you agree with him on civil liberty matters and for the most part so do I, but that doesn't make me a libertarian.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A country is the sovereign property of its citizens, they have the right to decide how it is run through a democratic process. And emigration IS an alternative, you are free to go and find another country.

Libertarianism is all very good for the property owners, not so much so for the ones left reliant on their charity

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

For people who didn't bother to read the piece above here is an extract on the tragedy of the commons (which yes, I keep harping on about)

Libertarianism and the Tragedy of the Commons
The tragedy of the commons is a first-rate device for testing the efficiency of any human proposal for governing ourselves.
The tragedy of the commons is essentially a parable with a moral, like an Aesop's Fable. In the parable, we all live in a village that shares a commons on which we, farmers all, graze our sheep. The moral of the story is that left to our own devices, we will each decide to add one sheep too many to the commons, destroying it for ourselves and for future generations. The short term benefit to each of us of an additional sheep outweighs the intangible gain of preserving the commons for our grandchildren.
David Boaz gives us the libertarian take on the "tragedy of the commons":

When resources--such as a common grazing area, forest or lake--are "owned" by everyone, they are effectively owned by no-one. No one has an incentive to maintain the value of the asset or use it on a sustainable basis.

In other words, the libertarian answer to the tragedy of the commons is to eliminate the commons. No commons, no tragedy. If the commons was owned by a single individual who charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.
But why is this necessarily so? I could argue the converse, that a village acting collectively is more likely to avoid short-term thinking than one man responsible only to himself.
Hume made the point that in most moral philosophizing, we carry on talking about the "is" until, suddenly, in mid-paragraph, we encounter an "ought". There is no real-world bridge from the "is" to the "ought"; all such bridges are fantasies based on optimism and self-deception.
Where libertarianism crosses this chasm is when it passes from selfishness to enlightened self-interest. A human being who owns the Pennekamp coral reef in Key Largo is entitled to break up the reefs and sell the pieces to gift shops (in the absence of a government expressing the will of the majority and telling him he can't.) He ought to realize that there is more gain in selling tickets to Pennekamp over many generations--that way, it will support his children and grandchildren as well. But most human beings, left in complete freedom to act, will select the short-term gain. This is what the Prisoner's Dilemma teaches: we will select betrayal over cooperation because it grants an immediate benefit more tangible to us than the repetitive, long-term benefits of cooperation.

Until libertarians can solve this question, then their ideology is dangerous and deluded.

Iwasfrozen

Laminations wrote: »

A country is the sovereign property of its citizens, they have the right to decide how it is run through a democratic process.

Exactly as DF said. The entire country may belong to the citizens but each person owns their own property. And the rights of the individual should always come before collective rights.

Laminations wrote: »

Libertarianism is all very good for the property owners, not so much so for the ones left reliant on their charity

Nobody should be reliant on charity. If one has a job then they will be paid a wage for the work they do. If they don't have a job that is their own tough bee's wax.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And thats the true mantra of a selfish nelly, and the reason your ideology would ruin us all.

Read the piece I posted and come back with an answer to his points, he has phrased them more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could. Until you have an answer, your extreme unwaivering stance is little more than tripe

Laminations

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nobody should be reliant on charity. If one has a job then they will be paid a wage for the work they do. If they don't have a job that is their own tough bee's wax.

Lovely. Now we are getting to the true contempt libertarians have for the weak. What of the disabled? What of the neglected?

Libertarianism - the well-to-do's telling the poor that they should be happy with their lot. Oh yes we are all personally responsible even if your parents gave you good genes, a good education and a trust fund and mine gave me a kick in the head and a drug problem.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Exactly as DF said. The entire country may belong to the citizens but each person owns their own property. And the rights of the individual should always come before collective rights.

Complete nonsense.

Society is a balance between individual and collective rights. Sometimes one overides the other, sometimes they correspond.

To say one should always come before the other is an absurd absolutism.

Iwasfrozen

Laminations wrote: »

Lovely. Now we are getting to the true contempt libertarians have for the weak. What of the disabled? What of the neglected?

People from working class backgrounds have as much a chance of getting into a top tier Uni as a middle class person. Working class people are not beings of lesser intelligent. Providing they work hard there is no reason why they shouldn't graduate from Uni with top grades.

Eliot Rosewater

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No: I was in college, away from my bedroom where I keep my Ron Hubbard altar, my conspiracy theorist archive and my computer, on which on I maintain my blog, for which I "feed" off others who share the same views as me.

This whole thread has been an eye-opener for me in fact: I wasn't aware I did all these things until the kind boards.ie posters informed me so.

Laminations

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

People from working class backgrounds have as much a chance of getting into a top tier Uni as a middle class person. Working class people are not beings of lesser intelligent. Providing they work hard there is no reason why they shouldn't graduate from Uni with top grades.

So IQ and success are not correlated? There is no truth in the findings that wealth begets wealth??

Are you seriously saying we are all born equal with equal opportunities? If you are I cannot debate with you.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

No: I was in college, away from my bedroom where I keep my Ron Hubbard altar, my conspiracy theorist archive and my computer, on which on I maintain my blog, for which I "feed" off others who share the same views as me.

This whole thread has been an eye-opener for me in fact: I wasn't aware I did all these things until the kind boards.ie posters informed me so.

Thats all well and good, now if you explain how libertarianism wont result in a huge tragedy of the commons I'd be grateful.

Iwasfrozen

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Complete nonsense.

Society is a balance between individual and collective rights. Sometimes one overides the other, sometimes they correspond.

To say one should always come before the other is an absurd absolutism.

Collective rights do not exist. The only rights that exist are the rights of the individual and the right of other individuals not to have their rights limited by others.

The term "collective rights" is a paradox as one cannot acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he already possesses. Individual rights cannot be subject to a national vote and the majority does not have the right to limit a minorites rights.

Laminations

Again a piece from the link I posted, which I am so looking forward to all you libertarians reading and rebuking, and the rest of us reading and nodding in agreement

I am an employer. I do not wish to be forced to hire anyone who cannot do the job--nor do I feel that I am forced to do so by current law. I do not want or need the right to post a sign on my door saying that no blacks need apply. I myself, as a Jew, could not feel equal in a society in which a store could post a sign saying "No Jews or dogs permitted." I feel perfectly equal in a society in which someone can publish a book saying that "No Jews or dogs should be permitted." The latter is speech, but the placard banning me from a store is action. I had the experience once of living in a neighborhood in Paris where I couldn't get my hair cut. One barber told me he was booked for the rest of the week, while another across the street simply let me sit in his shop for an hour, while he took customers who had come in after me. I believe this was action, not speech. A libertarian would say that the barber's property right extends to refusing to cut the hair of anyone for any reason. Note, however, that the employer uses public goods--the air, municipal water, police, garbage collection. If he has property rights enabling him to deny service to anyone, why is it so much different if the government denies him service based on his failure to comply with certain rules? He can always move elsewhere.
If hate was pervasive, individual property rights could be used (and have been used, at certain times and places in thsi country) to deny an entire group access to the free market entirely--no access to credit, no ability to rent a storefront or to buy goods from anyone, or even groceries for one's family. I think the true test of the libertarian scheme is whether an impoverished but talented individual from a disfavored group could get a start in it. If the rest of the individuals could legally band together to starve him to death, as they could do under the libertarian theory of property rights, we have gone far beyond Mill's theory of liberty, to a monstrous selfishness, a tyranny of the individual over society.

Eliot Rosewater

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Thats not how it works in Ireland, its a better description of the system in the US.

What I said was a widely accepted truth about governance (originally sourced in my economics textbook). You can see it in Ireland. The big one is the Public Sector Unions, who got large pay increases for little in return to society: a nice vote winner for Fianna Fail. Ditto with social welfare (dole increased 5% 4 years in a row, then 11% in the election budget). It is the factor that drives TD's such as Heely-Rae to stay independent; win some things for their constituents at the expense of society at large.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Here the votes and campaigns are regional, a thousand votes spread across the entire country isn't worth much.

Which is why it is necessary to please more than one interest group, surprise surprise.

For the record: do you deny what I said? If so, you better get onto Mr Parkin and tell him that his economics books (reviewed by some one hundred economics lecturers) has a flaw in it.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

This is why anarcho-corporatism is the best title for it.

Does Amhran Nua intend to make changes to language too? In that case you should get onto the estate of Eric Blair; I hear they'll be able to help you out.

Exile 1798

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Collective rights do not exist. The only rights that exist are the rights of the individual and the right of other individuals not to have their rights limited by others.

The term "collective rights" is a paradox as one cannot acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he already possesses.

A collective warning to society: Don't trust people who talk like this.

Your speaking in absurd absolutisms. It may seem like thought to you but all it is is meaningless sloganeering.

One cannot lose rights he already posses? Not true, someone who commits a crime, is convicted and sentenced to prison loses rights they previously possessed. Why? Because in that case collective rights clearly triumphs their individual rights.

Someone who hasn't obtained a license doesn't have the right to drive a car. If they take and pass the necessary tests they join a group that does have that right. So they have joined a group that grants them extra rights, as defined by wider society.

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

Thats all well and good, now if you explain how libertarianism wont result in a huge tragedy of the commons I'd be grateful.

Which commons do you speak of?

The ocean is the primary one I can think of. I think it's enough of a unique case to warrant special treatment, especially given the proven track record fishermen have with regards to thinking ahead when they won't be affected.

Iwasfrozen

Exile 1798 wrote: »

One cannot lose rights he already posses? Not true, someone who commits a crime, is convicted and sentenced to prison loses rights they previously possessed. Why? Because in that case collective rights clearly triumphs their individual rights.

Not true, in the case of the convict his rights are being limited because an action he deployed sought to target the individual rights of another person. That being to not have their rights limited by the actions of others.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Someone who hasn't obtained a license doesn't have the right to drive a car. If they take and pass the necessary tests they join a group that does have that right. So they have joined a group that grants them extra rights, as defined by wider society.

In the case of the driver, that person has not gained the right to drive, all adults have the right to drive. But by obtaining a license that person has been granted the "ability" to drive. An ability that he didn't have before he got the license.

Iwasfrozen

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The ocean is the primary one I can think of. I think it's enough of a unique case to warrant special treatment, especially given the proven track record fishermen have with regards to thinking ahead when they won't be affected.

Of course, no one should own the ocean. Even Libertarians don't go that far.

Sandvich

They will tolerate government regulation, wealth redistribution, social programming, and so on. But every nation has a breaking point—and I think we are fast approaching ours.

Yeah, the issue is definitely that the common man on the street will eventually get sick of people "taking" money from the fat cats and giving it to people who actually need it. Some people get sick of that you know? Not a healthy society without more people dying in the gutters.

Cannibal Ox

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Collective rights do not exist. The only rights that exist are the rights of the individual and the right of other individuals not to have their rights limited by others.

The term "collective rights" is a paradox as one cannot acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he already possesses. Individual rights cannot be subject to a national vote and the majority does not have the right to limit a minorites rights.

Your rights are part of the collective rights of human beings.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Your rights in Ireland are derived from your status as a citizen of Ireland, and the rights you enjoy as an Irish citizen, spring from the collective rights of Irish citizens.

Unless you're strictly talking about the Libertarian philosophy of rights, in which case, have a look at the case of the stateless in the period between WW1 and WW2, or jews in Nazi Germany. Neither group had a guarantor of rights, and both groups were horrifically exploited. Rights require a guarantor. Locke, the man who first outlined the libertarian view on rights, knew this, and he placed the guarantor of individuals rights in god. Unfortunately for us, god has a habit of not protecting people's rights, and the vast history of human rights abuses since Locke have done nothing to prove Locke right, and everything to prove a view of rights as springing from the collective rights of human beings, needing a secure guarantor in the form of a state or a supranational organisation, as the only workable conception of rights.

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

What I said was a widely accepted truth about governance (originally sourced in my economics textbook).

Believe it or not, that only works in the absence of consequence for politicians, which is where the parish pump comes in, as was already explained to you. The critical issues we face in Ireland are not endemic to every country on earth, but are exacerbated by our particular system. A government with a mid to long term awareness of the consequences of its actions has an incentive to act in those interests.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Which is why it is necessary to please more than one interest group, surprise surprise.

For the record: do you deny what I said? If so, you better get onto Mr Parkin and tell him that his economics books (reviewed by some one hundred economics lecturers) has a flaw in it.

Ah the old argumentum ad verecundiam, nothing like having an economist tell you how the political system works.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Does Amhran Nua intend to make changes to language too? In that case you should get onto the estate of Eric Blair; I hear they'll be able to help you out.

You do realise that all the words we speak didn't just pop out of the ether wholesale. Of course you could just try to make yourself look smarter by missing the point instead.

Iwasfrozen

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Your rights are part of the collective rights of human beings.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Your rights in Ireland are derived from your status as a citizen of Ireland, and the rights you enjoy as an Irish citizen, spring from the collective rights of Irish citizens.

Unless you're strictly talking about the Libertarian philosophy of rights, in which case, have a look at the case of the stateless in the period between WW1 and WW2, or jews in Nazi Germany. Neither group had a guarantor of rights, and both groups were horrifically exploited. Rights require a guarantor. Locke, the man who first outlined the libertarian view on rights, knew this, and he placed the guarantor of individuals rights in god. Unfortunately for us, god has a habit of not protecting people's rights, and the vast history of human rights abuses since Locke have done nothing to prove Locke right, and everything to prove a view of rights as springing from the collective rights of human beings, needing a secure guarantor in the form of a state or a supranational organisation, as the only workable conception of rights.

Why did you bother quoting my post if what you say has got nothing to do with my post. Instead of addressing my post as is the norm here you went off on a one man rant about how the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" proves there is such a thing as collective rights.

Of course you are wrong. The universal Declaration of Human Rights provides an outline of rights to the individual, not to people collectively. Also the universal Declaration of Human Rights is the minimum rights that one should have. It is not a limite on the rights that one should have.

As for the Holocaust, well Sir. I am going to have to call Godwins law on you. As well as point out that had Nazi Germany respect for the right of Jewish people and others in the concentration prisons the Holocaust would never have happened.

Your post was less an attack on Libertarianism and more of an attack on National Socialism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Unless you're strictly talking about the Libertarian philosophy of rights, in which case, have a look at the case of the stateless in the period between WW1 and WW2, or jews in Nazi Germany.

Godwin strikes again!

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Neither group had a guarantor of rights, and both groups were horrifically exploited. Rights require a guarantor

Hence why libertarians believe that the state should protect individuals' rights from both internal and external forces.

sron

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But this ignores the act that some groups of people need to be treated differently. The disabled should have a right to maintenance grants and so on (which they need) that others shouldn't.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And using individual rights an individual or even a group of individuals have the right to discriminate on all those fronts.

sron

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Hence why libertarians believe that the state should protect individuals' rights from both internal and external forces.

I'm curious as to how far the libertarian view takes this. Surely capitalism, for instance, would be impossible in a society where no-one is allowed to tread on the toes of others.

Laminations

sron wrote: »

But this ignores the act that some groups of people need to be treated differently. The disabled should have a right to maintenance grants and so on (which they need) that others shouldn't.

Not according to libertarians. The disabled and vulnerable should rely on charity or preferrably die in a gutter in line with social Darwinism

Eliot Rosewater

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Believe it or not, that only works in the absence of consequence for politicians

I'll repeat. Politicians pander to specific interest groups, abusing the fact that benefits are concentrated and costs diluted, to win the votes of a specific few without losing the votes of others. The majority, operating under a rational ignorance and a general apathy towards the minutiae of expenditure, don't respond negatively.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Ah the old argumentum ad verecundiam, nothing like having an economist tell you how the political system works.

The specific chapter dealt with the provision of public services, and how governments do not allocate resources (ie budget money) in the best interests of society. But you reject the principle?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You do realise that all the words we speak didn't just pop out of the ether wholesale. Of course you could just try to make yourself look smarter by missing the point instead.

I wasn't responding to the point you were making, rather the way in which you feel an ideology's 200-year old (?) title should be renamed to suit your interpretation of it. I have previously explained the title to you, it being based upon negative liberty, but you dismissed the explanation out of hand, if I recall correctly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

sron wrote: »

I'm curious as to how far the libertarian view takes this. Surely capitalism, for instance, would be impossible in a society where no-one is allowed to tread on the toes of others.

How so? Perhaps if you provided an example...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sron

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

How so? Perhaps if you provided an example...

Even the most ardent capitalist wouldn't deny that capitalism is a game of winners and losers. I think my statement is self-evident.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In short, you're on your own. Live and let live, die and let die

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

No: I was in college, away from my bedroom where I keep my Ron Hubbard altar, my conspiracy theorist archive and my computer, on which on I maintain my blog, for which I "feed" off others who share the same views as me.

This whole thread has been an eye-opener for me in fact: I wasn't aware I did all these things until the kind boards.ie posters informed me so.

I find there is always a point in any conversation with Libertarians where they get all defensive and willfully disengage from meaningful comment.

There have been plenty of perfectly legitimate criticisms of Libertarianism made by numerous people on this thread, but all you can do is trot out the faux offense rather than actually tackle any of the meaningful points.

Do you, or any of the other libertarians on here at least acknowledge that a significant number of self described libertarians on the internet are as I described?

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'll repeat. Politicians pander to specific interest groups, abusing the fact that benefits are concentrated and costs diluted, to win the votes of a specific few without losing the votes of others. The majority, operating under a rational ignorance and a general apathy towards the minutiae of expenditure, don't respond negatively.

I think you'll find that the majority are going to respond pretty negatively at the next elections, one of the rare cases where the parish pump has been superceded by national concerns. Which brings us right back to the point I was making.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The specific chapter dealt with the provision of public services, and how governments do not allocate resources (ie budget money) in the best interests of society. But you reject the principle?

Its like trying to finish a jigsaw puzzle with only half the pieces, would be the appropriate criticism. You've mentioned you are studying economics, do you mind if I ask where?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I wasn't responding to the point you were making, rather the way in which you feel an ideology's 200-year old (?) title should be renamed to suit your interpretation of it.

Yeah, use the google-fu look up endocentric compound words, might save us all some time. Its anarcho-corporatism, because it surely has nothing to do with liberty.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Although I disagree with it the golf club example is justified in the same manner as womens gyms or marathons etc. A libertarian would be quite happy accepting 'no blacks signs' on public houses or 'no disabled need apply'

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What's your position on big government as it pertains to tenured third level educators?