Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

BluePlanet · 11-05-2010 1:59pm

Oh i know the answer!
It's FINLAND, they have the best education in world with a very high rate of union membership among staff.

But I already know the Libertarian retort too!

You see it's like this: in cases where socialist systems out perform private ones, it is due to the "character" of that society doing well in spite of the system.

But when socialist systems fail, it's a failure of the system not the character of that society.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 2:02pm

Sorry, private roads to where? To the end of your garden? or would you pay for roads from your house to Dublin, Limerick and Cork? Because if the road network was private, at some point there would be someone who didn't want to upgrade their bit. And would others be able to drive on the bit of road you paid for? As per usual, ludicrously unworkable

Laminations · 11-05-2010 2:07pm

And without trivialising my point, do you now admit that your position of 'liberty trumps all else' is flawed?? Sometimes short term liberty needs to be curtailed to protect or enhance long term liberty. Sometimes liberty is not the most important priority.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 2:09pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 2:15pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 2:17pm

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex · 11-05-2010 2:40pm

Umm, that wasn't quite the point of my post

No parents actually don't place their children in other schools because the other schools tend to be full (why would a school be half empty on the off chance that a neighboring school might fail)

Life doesn't go on, life stops. Or at least stops long enough to cause harm.

This is the problem with things that are too big to fail.

BluePlanet · 11-05-2010 2:43pm

So you see where these anarcho-capitalists are going.

Basically, if ever there is a private entity outperforming a state-run equivalent, it automatically means that it's true right across the board.

It's also an automatic WIN for Libertarianism.
:rolleyes:

It's probably the easiest, lazy-est pov to argue tbh.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 2:45pm

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 11-05-2010 2:49pm

Not really

Permabear · 11-05-2010 2:50pm

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798 · 11-05-2010 3:05pm

Locking up the arsonist is a metaphor for regulating financial markets, df.

The thing you know is necessary but can't bring yourself to admit out loud.

Zombrex · 11-05-2010 3:08pm

Lucky for them. I have, and I've read about it happening as well.

This is the my biggest issue with libertarianism in its purest sense, it is faith that bad things won't happen with no recognition that if they do there is no system in place to help anyone because we can't have government interfering.

If all the roads are private, and all the schools are private, and all the water systems are private etc etc when things fail nothing happens. You are on your own.

If the company who grits your roads doesn't want to grit your roads there is nothing you can do about it except hire another company and that company may not exist.

If your school closes down there is nothing you can do about it except send your kids to another school that may not exist or may be miles away.

Faith in the market is misplaced because the market doesn't care about you. It cares about itself and if your interests don't align with the the interests of the service providers you are screwed.

We don't notice that that much precisely because we live in a country where the government takes the slack when this happens. We don't have poor people dying the streets because private health care companies refuse to treat them because they can't pay. We don't have people denied access to roads because they don't pay the management free to the company that owns the road.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 3:31pm

Nice quick answer. There obviously exist instances where liberty is not greater than xyz. So why doesn't liberty trump your daughters security or education??

Permabear · 11-05-2010 3:34pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 3:35pm

Another point regarding private schools. Why bother educating the dim or poor? I mean I'll get a better return with my school that has an entrance exam and only tutors the intelligent and rich. You think other private schools will pop out of the ether to educate the financially and intellectually less well off in a society??

Laminations · 11-05-2010 3:38pm

No one is arguing for a public/state-only solution. We are NOT statists although you'd like to strawman us as such. I think we are arguing for the coexistence of public and private services - you on the other hand are advocating private-only institutions.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 3:41pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 3:46pm

Excellently stepped into my trap. So rights and liberty go hand in hand with ability and responsibility? You advocate for your baby....who is vulnerable. Are there not other classes of people (even adults) in society who are vulnerable? what about the poor? the disabled? orphans? addicts?

Permabear · 11-05-2010 3:52pm

This post has been deleted.

Taxipete29 · 11-05-2010 3:57pm

I personally have no issue with private schools. I do have an issue with the state paying the salaries of the teachers. Is it any wonder that private schools can provide better facilities when they charge large fees and dont have to pay for their staff.

The vast majority of people in this country could not afford private education under a libertarian system. There must be a public alternative.

People in general will never accept the idea that if it suddenly all goes wrong they are f***ed and that is it, end of. Libertarianism really is the pervue of those who are well off and doing well. Some have worked for it, many others are just born into it. Its not their fault and they shouldnt be punished for it, but to expect people to accept the fact that simply cos little Tarquin was born in the right suburb that they can be educated.Yet someone who works just as hard for their family but would not be considered affleunt, cant afford to send their child to school.

Its nonsense and unworkable in the same way as any other purist society. The human spirit will never accept absolutes. Fair, balanced, mixed societies are the only way it will work in a sustainable manner.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 3:59pm

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 11-05-2010 4:07pm

huh?
What kinda Libertarian thinking is that?
Who decides one is a "minor" and how? Other than some sort of government decree?

Permabear · 11-05-2010 4:08pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 4:10pm

Wrong. A minor is descriptive, and includes anyone below the age of majority. You do not advocate for her simply because she fits the criterion on minor, you do so because she cannot advocate for herself, she is vulnerable. She is vulnerable BECAUSE she is a minor. Would you advocate for your child above the age of 18 if she was mentally disabled? she is no longer a minor then, but she remains vulnerable.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 4:13pm

Exactly, its a consesus among the society, in fact it refers to the age of majority which differs from country to country.

I could be similarly obtuse

What if I have a different definition of minor than you?

Zombrex · 11-05-2010 4:21pm

Well firstly that isn't a solution. If all those things failed we would be in bad shape. And the more vital the service the more necessary that it doesn't fail. I have endless trouble with my phone company. Imagine if my water services or medical services were run like my phone company. I would probably be dead by now. I was six months waiting for Eircom and BT to sort out a problem with my line. Neither of them cared enough about it because it my bill wasn't worth the hassle of fixing the problem. Imagine if that was our health service.

Again that isn't a solution . Governments have their faults but they have a mandate to help the people. A private company doesn't.

This is my other issue with libertarianism, when ever the major flaws in the ideology are pointed out the discussion just turns to how bad governments are.

Governments aren't perfect, but that doesn't explain how the problems with Libertarianism aren't really problems.

You haven't explained what happens when the companies that provide you with a vital service fail and there is no company willing to take its place.

And Michael O'Leary will leave you at the drop of a hat if you become unprofitable for him.

If the passport office was a private company it would have gone bust by now and no one would be getting passports.

Again this is not a solution. You are just saying public governments are just a bad. Ok, if they are just as bad why don't we just keep public governments since they are just as bad in some places and better in others?

You have provided no solutions here to these problems, you have just done what in my experience Libertarians always do, fail back on giving out about public government.

That bit is easy. The hard bit is showing how your solution actually improves things.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 4:23pm

The state is there to advocate for the vulnerable. It is there to ensure their rights are maintained. That is not to say that it precludes a family memberor friend advocating on your behalf, it just means that when all other supports are gone, it will be a safety net in terms of education, welfare, health etc.

This does not stop you sending your child to a private school or getting private health cover. It does mean you have to pay into an insurance scheme that acts as a safety net for you if you need it or for others that are vulnerable due to birth or unfortunate circumstance. Yes I agree it could and should cost less to maintain this safety net but your proposal to scrap it is callous and selfish

Zombrex · 11-05-2010 4:29pm

Exactly.

It doesn't even mean that government will do a particular good job at this, but it is better than having nothing looking out for you with the Libertarian option.

If tomorrow my TV company decide that it is not profitable to supply my area with TV I'm annoyed and I wait until hopefully another company decides to have a go at it.

If tomorrow my hospital decides that it is not profitable to supply my area with health services I die. It may annoy me to wait in an A&E room for 9 hours. If the government is particularly inept people may die waiting in A&E. But the alternative is no A&E at all. My question to the Libertarians is how is that better?

BluePlanet · 11-05-2010 4:30pm

A play on words is it?

Those downtrodden and oppressed have consistantly agitaged for government interference - the "40 hour work week", the right to unionise, safer working conditions, child labour laws, tenancy laws etc.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 4:33pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 4:36pm

I'll repeat the question. Would you advocate for your daughter over the age of 18 if she was mentally handicapped? What if she did not have you or her mother to advocate for her? She'd be left to market forces? Is there a huge market out there for mentally disabled people?

Laminations · 11-05-2010 4:37pm

And the worst thing about all this is that you dont even realise how callous and desrtuctive your ideology is.

Scofflaw · 11-05-2010 4:43pm

The libertarian version apparently has swelling triumphant chords as the invisible hand descends from the clouds to set all to rights.

The market is a good mechanism for matching needs and means, but it's just that, a mechanism. Like all mechanisms, it is a reasonable solution for a certain set of problems within certain specified limits, but it will not solve all problems, and requires safety features if it's going to be operated by humans in close proximity. Fetishising it is as silly as fetishising guns or cars....or unrestricted liberty. Interestingly enough, those often go together.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 11-05-2010 4:46pm

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex · 11-05-2010 4:47pm

Tell her what exactly?

That we should have switched to a Libertarian system where she would have died a lot quicker and with out "wasting" so much money?

Susie Long's case cased out rage because the government had failed it's mandate. If we lived in a free market system no one would have blinked because no health provider would have a mandate to help anyone, only to make money. If Long wasn't going to make them money she would not be helped and no one would think that was wrong.

Has it occurred to you that there is no guarantee this will happen and in practice it often doesn't because other companies are very cautious about providing a service in an area where a company has already failed.

Another company will only step in if it is profitable for them to do so. Which more often that not isn't the case. Compare the public bus routes (that run at a loss) to the private bus routes. Why are the private buses not serving all these low population areas? Because there is money in it. It doesn't matter which company it is, none of them would make money in it. So NONE of them cover these areas. Bus Eireannn does because it has to because its mandate is not to make money it is to serve the public even at a loss.

You have yet to explain how Libertarianism solves this issue in a profit only system.

No actually you won't because I imagine you don't have the funds to actually set up such a company. You would be relying on investment and investors are naturally cautious about entering into a field that has already failed companies.

Again this is the myth of the free market, that there will always be another company to go to if you are unhappy with your current company. Which of course is nonsense in the real world.

You have yet to explain how the free market solves these problems other than saying you go to another company.

You haven't explained what you do if no such company exists, or if the other company does not provide the service to a level you require or can afford.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 4:49pm

Outside of certain 'problems', the invisible hand isn't worth a ****

thebaldsoprano · 11-05-2010 4:54pm

If you can't afford private health care and need to go to the HSE you may not get properly looked after.

If you go to the free market you won't.

Akrasia · 11-05-2010 4:59pm

There but for the grace of god go I.

Libertarians of the 'I'm alright jack' variety might not be so anti government if they were thrust in a desperate situation that they have no control over.

the possibility of the birth of a disabled child is one that is real enough for so many people to realise just what a necessary comfort the safety net is.

No insurance company would be prepared to cover the life long expenses of a severely disabled person. It would be impossible for one person to cover those expenses on an average wage, what would this family do in a libertarian 'society'?
What horrible choices would they be 'free' to make?

Laminations · 11-05-2010 5:03pm

I'm still waiting to find out if DF would advocate for a mentally (or physically) disabled offspring that had reached 18yrs of age.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 5:05pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 5:13pm

There is always a supplier in a market where there is demand. But to have demand you need a means to purchase. Supply doesn't follow wants, it responds to means of purchase. Example, I want a flying car that can travel at mach 1, no one is going to go and invest to start a company that will supply that to me if there is not a hope that I can pay for it. You seem to think the poor can just purchase a less good service. The poor already do that with their welfare. Without their welfare they have no means of purchase, they carry no sway and no markets would respond to their needs let alone wants. Tesco does not provide food to the homeless or unemployed, not in any great quantity. They sell food for profit and poor people can buy that food based on the welfare they get.

thebaldsoprano · 11-05-2010 5:28pm

Lack of funding for a health service she could use.

The VdeP is the largest charity in Ireland and spent 50 million on its services in 2008. The HSE had a budget of 14.9 billion in the same period. Even with the inefficiencies of the HSE, I know who I'd take my chances with.

Iwasfrozen · 11-05-2010 5:42pm

If we take away tax, PRSI and the minimum wage the number of employed people will raise to its max. After all no company is going to turn down the ability to raise more manpower at very low cost.

Also companies will pop up to service these lower wage earners. Competition will ensure it, the popularity of Lidl proves this.

Zombrex · 11-05-2010 5:49pm

Because she was waiting for a public hospital to treat her. She wasn't turning up in the Blackrock clinic or the Beacon hospital and throwing money at the doctors.

I have, they are very impressive. If you have the money you are going to be fine.

Now look at the survival rates in America for uninsured patients (all 40 million of them).

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/cancer_is_hitting_un.php

"Uninsured cancer patients are nearly twice as likely to die within five years as those with private coverage, according to the first national study of its kind and one that sheds light on troubling healthcare obstacles"

Compare that with the French system which have survival rates as high as America yet everyone received health care.

Again I've no issue with the idea that when the free market works it works well. But you have yet to explain what you do with the people effected when it doesn't work. In America they slap half hearted and ineffective government programs on them. But would you even do this?

It is still there, but because of things like the bank bail out the government has little money to fund it.

Explain how Libertarianism solves this.

I've asked you this a good few times and you seem to be refusing to answer.

BluePlanet · 11-05-2010 5:53pm

I'm still not sure about this concept of an individual being a "minor" and therefore does not have liberty.

Today, it is done by state decree.
The age of being a minor may vary from state to state.

But how can this concept be done in a truly Libertarian society?

Iwasfrozen · 11-05-2010 6:02pm

Libertarians do not want to compleat abolition of the government. Rather we want the government to be as minimal as possible. The government would still exist to publish legislation.

BluePlanet · 11-05-2010 6:11pm

Oh is that right?

Slippery slope me thinks.

Once u let the government in on one area, for example comprimising essential liberty (declaring such and such a "minor"), then you open the door for all manner of interference.
For example, night-time curfew for those minors?
Child labour laws, minium wage, holding parents to account for transgressions commited by those minors.

Iwasfrozen · 11-05-2010 6:14pm

Don't be silly, when you include those things the ideology is no longer Libertarianism.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 6:15pm

You dont seem to grasp the difference between 'low wage earners' and 'no wage earners'. The latter are at best a long term investment (for the state), some may never be productive. If I was poor, disabled, uneducated I could not go into Lidl and ask that they supply me with food for the next n years after which I may be in a position to contribute something back to them. The state is in place to provide people the equality of rights and opportunity (to a basic degree). Its why they speak of education as an investment for the future, we are investing our taxes/time/energy in educating the young. If education was privatised, the energy would go into educating those that would give the greatest yield - i.e. the intelligent that will succeed and pay and/or the wealthy who already have the means to pay. Why would a libertarian system concern itself with educating those that may not succeed, the risk is too great in that investment

Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Comments