Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Akrasia

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.

eh, what?

That was a very interesting sequence of highly controversial assertions made with no reference to any evidence or reason, or even a simple explanation of what you define 'rights' as?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Need I remind you that government does not have to be big or equal welfare state. And yes I enjoy those supports because I am lucky, I recognise there are plenty who do not have good families friends or communities to rely on. You recognise this too and ignore it of selfishness

sron

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perhaps it isn't. I suppose children living in poverty have the right to a good education, but when capitalism ensures a tiered society, the right is useless without the means to use it.

Libertarianism to me seems to offer everyone equal rights, but not equal opportunities. Thus it (at the least) makes the world no more fair that it is.

Iwasfrozen

Akrasia wrote: »

eh, what?

That was a very interesting sequence of highly controversial assertions made with no reference to any evidence or reason, or even a simple explanation of what you define 'rights' as?

Source = Objectivism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You made a big point of the importance of ensuring that third level educators have an unassailable job position in another thread, citing an association of professors who took offence at another professor being fired for a disagreement with his institution, incidentally interfering with the operation of the free market by doing so. Have you since changed your mind?

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok so I run a school, I have an engrave exam. If you are not clever or wealthy I will not educate you, why should I. And with the money I make from educating the wealthy I buy the best teachers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, so we have a group of professors who will more happily work in a job they can't be fired from, thus causing most of the the third level institutions to adjust their employment rules accordingly, since they want the best professors, basically strongarming the market into giving them security of employment. Isn't this therefore a case where non-market concerns, specifically "academic freedom" (freedom not to compete perhaps, liberty ho!) supercede those of the operation of a free market, and wouldn't you therefore admit that there are non-market concerns that need to be taken into account, specifically with such situations as social welfare?

You've mentioned also that you have a doctorate, and I can't help but notice that you're also the Letterkenny IT mod. Would it be safe to say that you're involved in third level education yourself?

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And you think the standard of living was better pre-WWII

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You've just proved my point. Playing the offended card.

Nobody called Libertarians Nazis or scientologists, and I said that a large proportion of Self described Libertarians are conspiracy theorists which nobody has disputed yet by the way

Eliot Rosewater

Akrasia wrote: »

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

Meaningful comment? Are you kidding? This thread has been little more than a platform for people to rant about some group of policies they call "libertarianism", which rarely equaled the accepted thing. As has been said, libertarians have been compared with Nazis, Scientologists and conspiracy theorists. We've been described as a group of people "feeding" off each other. Is that your definition of meaningful?

Akrasia wrote: »

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?

Not on boards.ie. I can't comment on anywhere else. All the libertarians I know here - donegalfella, ei.sdroab (I think), silverharp, Soldie etc, are miles from that conspiratorial image people here have tainted us with.

sron wrote: »

Perhaps it isn't. I suppose children living in poverty have the right to a good education, but when capitalism ensures a tiered society, the right is useless without the means to use it.

And here, at last, we have a genuine criticism of libertarianism.

Eliot Rosewater

A selection of the "meaningful" discussion.

Rebelheart wrote: »

[Libertarianism comes from] Ideological nutcase land

Sandvich wrote: »

Imagine this criminal as a rich businessman. Libertarians to me either seem to be this criminal, or the guy that believes him.

meditraitor wrote: »

unworkable crazy economic and social concepts [...] Libertarianism will fall back into its little hiding hole in a couple of years, maybe even with a couple of failed experiments to further blight its value as nothing more than a historical footnote for bored sophists to argue about.

meditraitor wrote: »

I would without a shadow of a doubt put [libertarians] in the same camp as scientologists...

Akrasia wrote: »

Libertarians love instability and think the collapse of an industry is a good thing

Akrasia wrote: »

Right Libertarianism is a new refuge for the hard of thinking and their ranks are over populated with paranoid conspiracy theorists who are only suspicious of authority because they think some shadowey one world government is trying to tax them to death.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The great irony is that libertarians, especially the conspiracy theorist type, effectively run their own conspiracy.

Sandvich wrote: »

Not a healthy society without more people dying in the gutters. [a sarcastic portrayal of libertarian society]

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

YUnless 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.

fontanalis

Akrasia wrote: »

You've just proved my point. Playing the offended card.

Nobody called Libertarians Nazis or scientologists, and I said that a large proportion of Self described Libertarians are conspiracy theorists which nobody has disputed yet by the way

And Ron Paul is a creationist!

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A selection of the "meaningful" discussion.

Em, if you're wondering what might be a good way to get people to hold meaningful discussions, picking an economic philosophy that includes empirical evidence somewhere in there would be a good start.

Akrasia

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A selection of the "meaningful" discussion.

It's a selection of viewpoints of how your politics are perceived by others.

Again, acting offended and using that to shut down discussion is not going to make your position any more popular.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A selection of the "meaningful" discussion.

I'm sure the fact that my comments didn't appear on your naughty list was just luck. But I'll ask again, can all libertarians read the essay I linked to and discuss the points made because that piece basically echoes the problems I have with libertarianism. And you saying the oceAn is the only unique commons we have to protect isn't exactly addressing the question of the trgedy of the commons.

Sand

Theres maybe 3 or 4 posters heavily influenced by libertarian thought, some of whom post only the odd time. Hardly an explosion.

Theres certainly a wider, dawning appreciation that perhaps neither a self interested civil service/public sector aristocracy, nor the latest inbred progeny of the last generation of TDs is indisputably the best people to trust with running....everything.

The common thread in the Irish and global economic downturn was that it was preceded by a period when the politicians gave us exactly what we wanted: low taxes, high spending, easy credit, no accountablility or enforcement, public wage increases for little or no return in productivity. Something for everyone in the audience. Rewarded in votes.

If Bertie had ever stood up in the Dail and announced back in 2004 that he was going to ban 100% mortgages, reverse benchmarking pay awards, remove property tax breaks, cut spending back in line with sustainable revenues and so on he would have been dragged from the Dail chamber and lynched on Stephens Green. Or he would have lost the election to whatever party was promising more tax cuts, more spending, more help to get young people on the property ladder.

Populist politics was part of the problem, and populist politics drives the state and its priorities. All of this economic mismanagement was done under the watchful eyes of the civil service and economic planners of our state who were very responsive to the political needs and demands of the people, but with no foresight or independance to justify their existence. Giving them *more* influence hardly seems to be the answer. It will just lead to more populist driven pro-cyclical economic planning with more disastrous results. Teachers and publicans and county councillors whove never ran a serious business in their lives cannot be expected to know the first thing about an innovation economy, let alone how to bring one about.

Instinctively, people grasp that - hence the deep distrust of the state and the complete lack of confidence in the ability of the same civil service that sleepwalked into this mess dragging us out of it.

In that, libertarian thought has some value in that it first challenges the state as to why it should exist at all which is a good starting point for the debate thats needed. This more than anything else explains why libertarian thought is more public these days. However, one needs to be aware that "libertarian" is a description which is probably as bandied about as ignorantly as "Sinn Feinner" was in 1916 and "neo-liberal" is today. Indeed, "libertarian" might be in danger of replacing "neo-liberal" in the vocabulary of some posters when it comes to describing any and all views that dont involve support of the SWP.

There isnt and wont be a sudden mass conversion to libertarianism in Ireland - in a country where the primary concern of every voter is getting *their* potholes filled above and beyond any wider issue it simply isnt possible. Id seriously doubt we will even see much change in the makeup of the Dail - look at Labours rise to popularity, based on little more than hype and populism, promising everyone something and guaranteeing everyone no pain, no reform, all the insiders protected. The easy, populist option patented by Bertie Ahern all over again.

Its good politics for Ireland, and it works. It wont stop working until Irish people stop rewarding it. No sign of that yet. So, in the meantime, lets try insulate the economy from the baneful effects of populist politics leading to disaster. Thats not libertarianism, its common sense.

Cannibal Ox

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

You said collective rights do not exist, that the term collective rights is a paradox, and that rights cannot be voted on by a national vote. My point was not only that collective rights exist, and exist within legislation, but that they are the foundation of modern rights discourse and the justification and legitimation of your rights as a human being, and that throughout history rights have been voted away by national governments leading to absolute violence against particular groups.

The Universal Declaration outlines the rights of human beings. This is why it is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not the Universal Declaration of Individual Rights. This is also why it consistently refers to everyone's rights, and only once refers to individuals, only to recognize individuals responsibility to uphold human rights. You're beginning from a position where rights originate within the individual, where collective rights do not exist, and where the idea of collective rights is a paradox.

The UDHR on the other hand begins from a position where your rights stem from your status as a human being, as a member of a human family, not from your individual rights. These are rights that apply to everyone, equally, because we are all members of a human family. It justifies human rights through the collective membership of a group. The Declaration grants the rights of members of a collective group, of a human family, and does not find rights in the individual, and certaintly not in the Libertarian individual.

Equally, if you are a child, a woman, a refugee, or a military combatant you have specific collective rights based on your membership of a group. As a citizen of a nation state you have specific rights as a citizen of that state that non-citizens do not have. Above all of these collective rights you have rights, not as an individual, but as a human being in the UDHR.

Ignoring Godwin's Law, the status of rights as human rights cannot be understood outside of the context of their origin in the aftermath of WWII and the discovery of the concentration camps. Throughout the inter-war period states consistently repealed certain groups status as citizens, and as a result, denied them any rights that they might have had, and opened them up to abuse by the state.

This continued throughout the twenty century, despite the UDHR, Rwanda, Darfur, and the former Yugoslavia, but, at least, in those situations their exists some kind of body and framework that groups can appeal to. The absolute failure of the rights movements pre-WW2 was its failure to recognize and protect the rights, not of individuals, or groups, but of human beings.

My problem with your quote is basically my problem with libertarianism. Libertarianism is built on a justification of an individuals property rights that finds it's origin in an imaginary thought experiment. It is a conception of property rights that ignores the context property rights are made in and ignores the reality in which appeals to rights are made in. Libertarianism, to me, seems like an imaginary thought experiment. It tells us what this wonderful libertarian world would be like, and then ignores reality to try to sell us all this wonderful dream.

Eliot Rosewater

Akrasia wrote: »

It's a selection of viewpoints of how your politics are perceived by others.

I'm quite aware of that. I posted the above to counter a claim you made: that there was meaningful discussion on this thread. Statements that libertarians come from "Ideological nutcase land" offer nothing meaningful. This thread was saturated by that kind of thing, as well as a trend of libertarian opposer's telling the libertarian supporters what libertarianism is.

Against this backdrop, any semblance of rational discourse is lost. Even though I disagree profusely with him, I have to at least thank Amhran Nua for communicating his position respectfully. It's only a pity I couldn't talk with him properly what with all the fud being thrown about.

Later on in the thread sron posed the problem of opportunity. As someone interested in libertarianism I'd like to discuss these things, to inform myself better, but such discussion is impossible with all the aforementioned fud thrown about.

Akrasia wrote: »

Again, acting offended and using that to shut down discussion is not going to make your position any more popular.

I'm not offended: I've long become accustomed to my views being dismissed before they're even explained. But you're beginning to spin this myth that I'm the one who shut down the discussion; on the contrary, it was those who offered nothing but rhetoric and sloganeering that smothered the debate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Victor

northwest100 wrote: »

I don't know if a libertarian system would work, but the one we have at the moment seems to favour the lawless corrupt and incompetent scum of the earth.

Of course, in a completely libertarian society these words would be effectively meaningless.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

The Universal Declaration outlines the rights of human beings. This is why it is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not the Universal Declaration of Individual Rights. This is also why it consistently refers to everyone's rights, and only once refers to individuals, only to recognize individuals responsibility to uphold human rights. You're beginning from a position where rights originate within the individual, where collective rights do not exist, and where the idea of collective rights is a paradox.

The UDHR on the other hand begins from a position where your rights stem from your status as a human being, as a member of a human family, not from your individual rights. These are rights that apply to everyone, equally, because we are all members of a human family. It justifies human rights through the collective membership of a group. The Declaration grants the rights of members of a collective group, of a human family, and does not find rights in the individual, and certaintly not in the Libertarian individual.

This is where you are getting it wrong. The UDHR is a piece of legislation that upholds the position of individual rights, the UDHR ensures that each individual human being achieves a minimum standered of living.

This idea of inividual rights is self-evident in the wording of the legislation take Article four for example:

Article four wrote:

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

This Article ensures no person is sold into slavery and no person can be the property of another.

Similerly we can take another article, article eighteen which states:

Article eighteen wrote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Again we see this piece of legislation is specifically designed to meet the needs of the individual human being.

Article eighteen wrote:

Equally, if you are a child, a woman, a refugee, or a military combatant you have specific collective rights based on your membership of a group. As a citizen of a nation state you have specific rights as a citizen of that state that non-citizens do not have. Above all of these collective rights you have rights, not as an individual, but as a human being in the UDHR.

Again you confuse rights with abilities. If we take your example of a citizen being aable to vote while a non-citizen cannot. That is true. However it is a Human right that the non-citizen is a citizen of some country. Thus they do not have the ability to vote in their home country but they have the right to call some country home.

Article eighteen wrote:

Ignoring Godwin's Law, the status of rights as human rights cannot be understood outside of the context of their origin in the aftermath of WWII and the discovery of the concentration camps. Throughout the inter-war period states consistently repealed certain groups status as citizens, and as a result, denied them any rights that they might have had, and opened them up to abuse by the state.

Exactly, had the individual rights of Jews and other minorities in concentration camps been respected we would never have had the Holocaust.

northwest100

Victor wrote:

Of course, in a completely libertarian society these words would be effectively meaningless.

i'm open to change, a lot of people in ireland seem to fear this.

Amhran Nua

sand wrote:

In that, libertarian thought has some value in that it first challenges the state as to why it should exist at all which is a good starting point for the debate thats needed.

Its an extremely poor starting point, middle point, or end point since its shoddy intellectual underpinnings swiftly lead anyone who has thought things through to the conclusion that almost anything else would be better. Also, its not like its the only game in town.

sand wrote:

So, in the meantime, lets try insulate the economy from the baneful effects of populist politics leading to disaster. Thats not libertarianism

Quite right.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Imagine that, having to compete for seven whole years before being made permanent. Its actually really easy to argue that the market is being sidestepped, because that's the reality. It doesn't matter if its seven years or seven days before being made exempt from market forces, the exemption still exists.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If one exemption exists for whatever reason, you can't deny that other exemptions can also exist. Why should third level educators be sheltered from the market while the poor, disenfranchised, and weak get thrown to the wolves in your ideal society?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, its what happens when you ignore the reasonable and realistic points being made by others and try to move the discussion from reality into your own version of reality. At first people try to discuss things rationally, but when objections are ignored, what is left but pillory?

Laminations

Sand wrote:

Populist politics was part of the problem, and populist politics drives the state and its priorities.

so to summarise that post, politicians are fallable because they give the people what they want to win votes. Fine, accepted. But this could be improved without scrapping government entirely (Dan O Brien had some good points on the frontline special tonight). There is a real danger/desire to throw the baby out with the bath water here.

And what would a libertarian system replace politicians with? Companies that give the people what they want to win Market share ? I mean how can one argue in favour of individual decision making but be so against decisions made by groups of individuals, and not just any group (see politicians vs. Company directors).

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm quite aware of that. I posted the above to counter a claim you made: that there was meaningful discussion on this thread. Statements that libertarians come from "Ideological nutcase land" offer nothing meaningful. This thread was saturated by that kind of thing, as well as a trend of libertarian opposer's telling the libertarian supporters what libertarianism is.

Against this backdrop, any semblance of rational discourse is lost. Even though I disagree profusely with him, I have to at least thank Amhran Nua for communicating his position respectfully. It's only a pity I couldn't talk with him properly what with all the fud being thrown about.

Later on in the thread sron posed the problem of opportunity. As someone interested in libertarianism I'd like to discuss these things, to inform myself better, but such discussion is impossible with all the aforementioned fud thrown about.



I'm not offended: I've long become accustomed to my views being dismissed before they're even explained. But you're beginning to spin this myth that I'm the one who shut down the discussion; on the contrary, it was those who offered nothing but rhetoric and sloganeering that smothered the debate.

Sorry but on every thread on libertarianism that I have contributed to I bring up the equality of opportunity argument. Now you can continue to complain about fud being throw or deal with the issues raised in the essay I linked to

Scofflaw

It's possible that there isn't actually an explosion in the number of libertarians, but rather that a smallish number of libertarians are prolific, and more importantly that they never change their opinions in the face of debate - leading to endless threads arguing pointlessly with libertarians.

Just a suggestion.

mischievously,
Scofflaw

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Where did anyone call libertarians nazis or baby killers?

Why do you need to invent attacks in order to be defensive against them?

BluePlanet

Maine Republicans Adopt Tea Party Platform

An overwhelming majority of delegates to the Maine Republican convention tonight voted to scrap the the proposed party platform and replace it with a document created by a group of Tea Party Activists.

The official platform for the Republican Party of Maine is now a mix of right-wing fringe policies, libertarian buzzwords and outright conspiracy theories.

The document calls for the elimination of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve, demands an investigation of "collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth," suggests the adoption of "Austrian Economics," declares that "'Freedom of Religion' does not mean 'freedom from religion'" (which I guess makes atheism illegal), insists that "healthcare is not a right," calls for the abrogation of the "UN Treaty on Rights of the Child" and the "Law Of The Sea Treaty" and declares that we must resist "efforts to create a one world government."

PDF here:
http://www.mainepolitics.net/sites/default/files/Maine_GOP_platform.pdf

Welcome to Hell.
Wasn't somebody saying something about conspiracy theorists among Libertarians?

Akrasia

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm quite aware of that. I posted the above to counter a claim you made: that there was meaningful discussion on this thread. Statements that libertarians come from "Ideological nutcase land" offer nothing meaningful. This thread was saturated by that kind of thing, as well as a trend of libertarian opposer's telling the libertarian supporters what libertarianism is.

There could be meaningful discussion in the thread but you decide not to engage.
My first post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65814676&postcount=115 discussed the idea of moral hazard and also the libertarian principle that businesses and sometimes whole industries must be allowed to fail if they act recklessly or are inefficient in order that they be replaced with something better. Instead of dealing with any of the points I made, You just cut out a portion of a line 'libertarians love instability' and posted that as if it was just a crass insult against your position.

I'm not offended: I've long become accustomed to my views being dismissed before they're even explained. But you're beginning to spin this myth that I'm the one who shut down the discussion; on the contrary, it was those who offered nothing but rhetoric and sloganeering that smothered the debate.

All I am saying is that it is very easy to feel have your views 'dismissed' when you focus on what you perceive to be the negative and don't even try to pick out the points that may be worth debating.

Scofflaw

northwest100, please don't post random Youtube videos.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And you aren't admitting that when one exception exists in your ideology, another can surely exist. Maybe you have to work hard to get it, but you can still get it. Who is to say that someone who worked equally hard in another discipline where practitioners hadn't gotten round to strongarming the market yet, but fell on hard times shouldn't have a safety net? Or is the gold standard for hard work now academic tenure?

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As per usual a totally simplistic and wholly unsatisfactory defence of your position. Harvard exists, hence you are right. Havard provides tertiary education, my school would be more like the institute of education operating in a Market where all other schools are fee paying and there is no state education. Now the fact that the institute exists does not mean that nobody else gets an education (to use your retarded logic). This is only true because there are state funded alternatives. Your true position is that the poor are not entitled to an education as you do not see it as a right.

Agreed entirely—but a libertarian might argue that the above is not a curiosity specific to Ireland, but a corrosive trend wherever people get to vote for what is popular (generally, more benefits, more entitlements, more free stuff) while leaving politicians to figure out how to pay for it all.

yes and companies don't have the saying the customer is always right. God forbid business ever gave extra benefits, entitlements and free stuff to their clients, naive in the extreme, again as per usual

Laminations

Oh and just on your point re Harvard, I've been to Harvard. It cost me 300 dollars, the rest was funded by the American state (NIH). Under your regime that'd be another opportunity lost for many.

Akrasia

Laminations wrote: »

As per usual a totally simplistic and wholly unsatisfactory defence of your position. Harvard exists, hence you are right. Havard provides tertiary education, my school would be more like the institute of education operating in a Market where all other schools are fee paying and there is no state education. Now the fact that the institute exists does not mean that nobody else gets an education (to use your retarded logic). This is only true because there are state funded alternatives. Your true position is that the poor are not entitled to an education as you do not see it as a right.

This is a fundamental problem with Libertarianism. Without free education, you're just building intergenerational inequality. The children of the wealthy can access top class education, while the children of the poor are sent out to work in menial jobs to support the family. It makes a total mockery of the idea that libertarianism would have equality of opportunity when the game is fixed so heavily in favour of those who already have wealth and their progeny.

No libertarian I have ever spoke to has ever outlined a solution to this problem that is consistent with their opposition to socialised education

They prefer to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Akrasia wrote: »

Why do you need to invent attacks in order to be defensive against them?

You didn't read this post then, did you?

There are many valid criticisms of libertarianism and I would actually like to discuss these (despite the best attempts of the opposition to stereotype me as someone with their hands clasped about their ears shouting "la la la").

But why should I respond to a post that declares that "libertarians love instability"? I'm sorry, but that just isn't my idea of a meaningful contribution, and I'd be rather disappointed if it was yours. If you have a good argument, lay it out in a balanced manner and I will respond. I honestly don't believe that I'm as dogmatic as Scofflaw thinks I am.


So your refutation to the moral hazard argument referred to the insurance industry. I think there are a number of advantages of private run insurance over government.

• Those who are insured actually pay premiums. I doubt travel agents have been handing in payments to the government in case of a disaster.
• Private insurance companies will asses risk, accounting for moral hazard, and charge a premium proportional to the risk that that person or group poses to the company. Given that the owners of the company are those paying up, they will be better motivated to truly discern the level of risk.
• In a government system everyone pays. If the travel agents get their bailout it will be me, you and everyone else on this thread paying for it. I never gained by way of insuring the agents, and I did nothing to cause the volcanic explosion (though, I am a libertarian so I probably had something to do with it!).

I think a lot of the criticisms of libertarianism stem from cultural issues. For example, currently individuals do not save for an extended time without work, nor do they seem to save for their children's education. This is because the government pays for these things already, and people fell they don't have to. In the idealistic libertarian society individuals would assume greater responsibility for these things.

It is because of this cultural issue that libertarianism could probably never be fully introduced, especially in the “year zero” sense. As Valmont put it best, the central problem with libertarianism is that it's trying to apply rational principles to an irrational world. However, I think there are some elements of libertarianism, such as personal liberty in social matters, a restrained government and privatized services, that could be introduced now.

And, to whisk right back to the original thread topic, I think an awareness of the benefits that liberal and libertarian policy could bring to our country is fueling the supposed “explosion”.

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

By your own free market philosophy, you should be the one arguing in favour of that. Now stop dodging the question - you admit exceptions exist, apparently more than one, why not accept that other reasons besides pure free market forces should influence lots of things?

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Except for third level educators and supreme court judges.

Taxipete29

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Under a libertarian system, with no state funded education and presumably no requirement to attend school a child born into poverty may never recieve an education.

This appears to contradict the statement liberty trumps everything else because without an education your choices and hence your freedom are limited. The choice was made for you before you were even concieved by virtue of the fact that your parents are poor.

P. Breathnach

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a fundamental problem with Libertarianism. Without free education, you're just building intergenerational inequality. ...

It's not a problem: it's a feature.

Liberty is more important than justice.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

First of all, yes it is a problem, you just want to ignore it and bask in your freedom.

Secondly, it is obvious that you do not consider reducing poverty the top priority of a civilized society. Libertarians see protecting human freedom as top priority, as you pointed out. Fine,this is an acceptable goal, but you just described a transaction (trading some amount of security/education/welfare for some amount of liberty) without describing the cost. Aren't we entitled to know the cost in order to make the decision?

So how many people will have to go without education/food etc. (how many will have to die) in order for you to get and maintain your liberty? Whats an acceptable number to you??

And we get to the nub of why libertarianism is a disgusting ideology

Exile 1798

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Meaningful comment? Are you kidding? This thread has been little more than a platform for people to rant about some group of policies they call "libertarianism", which rarely equaled the accepted thing. As has been said, libertarians have been compared with Nazis, Scientologists and conspiracy theorists. We've been described as a group of people "feeding" off each other. Is that your definition of meaningful?

Not on boards.ie. I can't comment on anywhere else. All the libertarians I know here - donegalfella, ei.sdroab (I think), silverharp, Soldie etc, are miles from that conspiratorial image people here have tainted us with.


And here, at last, we have a genuine criticism of libertarianism.

With respect this is nonsense.

There have been a number of very meaningful criticisms of Libertarian views, especially in regards to current events. These have been completely ignored. Indeed yourself and Dongelfella, probably the two best Libertarian identifying debaters have made a point of ignoring them and repeatedly sought to focus on quips made by various posters, and labour the idea that no one has put forward anything but.

The only inclination to engage in serious debate that any Libertarian has shown in this thread shown is on theoretical level. No one would deny the attractiveness of Utopian theories, but as Libertarians make much more worldy claims for their ideas it would be nice if they could debate them in their practical reality.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65811434&postcount=53

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65811434&postcount=53

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65815296&postcount=122

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65814676&postcount=115

And many more besides.

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Okay, so you are in favour of judges that can be fired now, but not third level educators. Does it not seem possible that in your philosophy therefore that good reasons besides the free market, better than the free market, exist for things like social welfare? As already mentioned they were providing a primitive form of social welfare back in the bronze age - at a time when extremities were an everyday fact of life, doesn't it seem odd that this form of social insurance was made a priority?

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have a nice piss on our constitution there. well done