Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

silverharp

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

I think you misunderstand or have setup a strawman. Apart from the Libertarian view of justice , the implicit assumptions about the economy or human relations is that there is inbuilt uncertainty. Its the statist that expects nirvana as the result of their inspired policies.


I'll leave you with the well known Hayek quote

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design"

Laminations

silverharp wrote: »

I think you misunderstand or have setup a strawman. Apart from the Libertarian view of justice , the implicit assumptions about the economy or human relations is that there is inbuilt uncertainty. Its the statist that expects nirvana as the result of their inspired policies.


I'll leave you with the well known Hayek quote

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design"

Would you advocate for your child or (actually I dont want you arguing that a child is your direct responsibility so lets just say sibling) if they were mentally disabled and over the age of 18?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Rather ironic of you to be moaning about pot-holes in roads i think.

Isn't it an opportunity for an libertarian entrepreneur to setup and mend stretches of road for a fee from it's users?

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why not highlight the essential liberty being denied a 16 year old one?

Iwasfrozen

BluePlanet wrote: »

Rather ironic of you to be moaning about pot-holes in roads i think.

Isn't it an opportunity for an libertarian entrepreneur to setup and mend stretches of road for a fee from it's users?

That would be ilegal.

Also that's not what irony means...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

All of those are statements of blind faith.

A shur it'll all be grand.

Akrasia

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

exactly, you fool. you maroon, imagine suggesting to a libertarian that there may be anti child labour laws.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We're not talking about my beliefs here, There are plenty of threads about that, though nice attempt at diverting the topic. Is there an official moderating position on that now?

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know which it is but you are either immensely naive or purposely ignorant. The reason it costs the state so much more to cover health is because they take up the slack, they cannot turn people away. So you and I are paying more so that the less well off get looked after. Your private insurer can cover you for less because they don't take on liabilities such as the old or the sick or disabled, at least not for €1500 a year. These liabilities are people, people who wouldn't be covered under a libertarian private system.

Iwasfrozen

Akrasia wrote: »

All of those are statements of blind faith.

A shur it'll all be grand.

They are statements with evidence to back them up. Something I noticed your post lacked.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it's not just counterintuitive, it's ridiculous. You identified one group, minors that do not have the freedom to address their own issues or solve their own problems because basically they have an inability to do so. But you fail to recognise that there are other people in the same boat who need a strong advocate to protect their rights. If you weren't there to advocate for your child what would the Market do with her?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No it costs that much because there is waste. Do I have to keep repeating this? I'm not advocating waste. The aparatus of the state can be run more efficiently. Now how would a libertarian private health system deal with liabilities to the system, besides making entrance for them extremely difficult with very high rates?

Laminations

Libertarians are hypocrites. They believe in freedom of association and property rights. This country belongs to the Irish people, as a citizen you have membership to this club. You may be born here and have automatic membership but if you don't like it you have the freedom of didassociation. As a membership club with defined borders we have certain rules, one of which is that we all agree to pay taxes to try and ensure a basic standard of living for all members. If you don't like this you have the freedom to leave.

Akrasia

Laminations wrote: »

I don't know which it is but you are either immensely naive or purposely ignorant. The reason it costs the state so much more to cover health is because they take up the slack, they cannot turn people away. So you and I are paying more so that the less well off get looked after. Your private insurer can cover you for less because they don't take on liabilities such as the old or the sick or disabled, at least not for €1500 a year. These liabilities are people, people who wouldn't be covered under a libertarian private system.

plus private health insurers don't pay anywhere near the real economic cost of the public health services they use.

Private health care in Ireland is heavily subsidised

Iwasfrozen

Laminations wrote: »

Libertarians are hypocrites. They believe in freedom of association and property rights. This country belongs to the Irish people, as a citizen you have membership to this club. You may be born here and have automatic membership but if you don't like it you have the freedom of didassociation. As a membership club with defined borders we have certain rules, one of which is that we all agree to pay taxes to try and ensure a basic standard of living for all members. If you don't like this you have the freedom to leave.

One also has the right to try and change the rulesof the club. That does not make one a hypocrite.

Akrasia

Laminations wrote: »

No it costs that much because there is waste. Do I have to keep repeating this? I'm not advocating waste. The aparatus of the state can be run more efficiently. Now how would a libertarian private health system deal with liabilities to the system, besides making entrance for them extremely difficult with very high rates?

Whatever about waste, the U.S. spend far more per capita in health care costs than anywhere else in the world. The U.S. health care system is enormously expensive.

Given that private companies are supposed to be so efficient, how come health expenditure per person is almost 3 times more in the U.S. as it is in the U.K where there is universal free healthcare
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

Laminations

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

One also has the right to try and change the rulesof the club. That does not make one a hypocrite.

Up to the point where you want to see the state abolished? I don't think that's a right, I think you'll find it's treasonous

and I think as a sovereign club, the Irish people should tell you to get the boat.

Iwasfrozen

Laminations wrote: »

Up to the point where you want to see the state abolished? I don't think that's a right, I think you'll find it's treasonous

Do you even bother reading previous posts ? Libertarians do not want to abolish the state. Mearly minimise it.

Laminations

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you even bother reading previous posts ? Libertarians do not want to abolish the state. Mearly minimise it.

And do you answer questions? After the state is minimised who looks after the liabilities in the system? Your minimising of the state would be a direct attack on it's citizens. So who looks after the liabilities in the system?

Iwasfrozen

Laminations wrote: »

and I think as a sovereign club, the Irish people should tell you to get the boat.

As I've said one has the right to try and change the rules of the club.

BluePlanet

It really beggars belief that these people want rid of Child Labour Laws but at the same time believe children should be classed as minors and have their liberty curtailed.

It's all about money and profit.
Is there a difference between Libertarians and the Anarcho-Capitalists posting here?

Iwasfrozen

Laminations wrote: »

And do you answer questions? After the state is minimised who looks after the liabilities in the system? Your minimising of the state would be a direct attack on it's citizens. So who looks after the liabilities in the system?

Didn't your mother ever teach you not to answer a question with another question ? Also you never asked me the above question. However since you did, I shall answer it. Because that's how I roll.

People will, in a Libertarian world, actually have to (and this is the shocker,) look after themselves !! :eek:

Now I know what you're thinking, "That guy is mad ! How can I, as an average person ever be expected to take care of myself !!"

But believe me when I say the average person is more then able to look after themselves.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

*Stunned silence as an online forum poster discredites an entire worldwide political movement and several Libertarian philosophers.*

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

*Stunned silence as an online forum poster discredites an entire worldwide political movement and several Libertarian philosophers.*

I don't see any reason for stunned silence: discrediting Libertarianism is easy.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You may think your trite reply is an answer but you still haven't addressed how the vulnerable who are liabilities in a system would fare under libertarianism. Or does the corpus of libertarian thought concern itself only with the 'average' person. If your response is simply 'people can look after themselves' then why look after your kids? They are a group who can't look after themselves? What happens to orphans, addicts, homeless, disabled? All valid questions despite you thinking you can brush them aside

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I also accept and respect property rights and the freedom to associate. The reason you are hypocrites is that you say you respect these things but you do not respect the state, the prperty of the Irish people

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't see any reason for stunned silence: discrediting Libertarianism is easy.

Indeed. Myself and others have done it many times during this thread to be met with explanations like 'we can look after ourselves'

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

Indeed. Myself and others have done it many times during this thread to be met with explanations like 'we can look after ourselves'

I don't think you got many explanations; you got assertions.

Why should we accept even the most basic (perhaps the only) Libertarian social claim? The right to property is a social construct. Our forebears devised the idea (admittedly in a happenstance way) as a component in a set of arrangements for living in some form of society. Abolish society as we know it, and all bets are off.

Zombrex

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Apologies for the hyperbole, but you still haven't answered the question.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Only 18% of hospitals in France are private. The rest are public and non-profits linked to public hospitals. The majority of GPs are private (as here) but every single tax payer pays public insurance.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm asking you how libertarian polices deal with things when they go wrong.

Your response seems to be to simply provide criticism of public government polices when things go wrong. Fair enough, but you haven't explained how your polices would be better.

I could proclaim governments just won't be corrupt, but that would be as naive as proclaiming there will always be another company to go to in a free market.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course they do. It is a pretty simply question. You demand (quite rightly) for social democracy policies to explain how they deal with different situations. It makes sense that libertarians explain how their policies deal with different situations.

If a supporter of government run social democracies said "Oh governments won't be corrupt because of fear of not being elected in the next election" you would laugh that off as hopelessly naive position to take.

So why do you us expect us to take an equally naive position that the free market will never fail people.

QUOTE=donegalfella;65837124]
The counterintuitive answer (at least for the statist) is that libertarianism does not set out to "do" or "solve" anything. It simply involves giving people, individually or in groups, the freedom to address their own issues and solve their own problems.[/quote]

And if they can't, what happens? After all our back and forth you have yet to answer this rather simply question.

Leonid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBHicyqMML4

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Leonid wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBHicyqMML4

lolbertarian. Classic

Laminations

Laminations wrote: »

You may think your trite reply is an answer but you still haven't addressed how the vulnerable who are liabilities in a system would fare under libertarianism. Or does the corpus of libertarian thought concern itself only with the 'average' person. If your response is simply 'people can look after themselves' then why look after your kids? They are a group who can't look after themselves? What happens to orphans, addicts, homeless, disabled? All valid questions despite you thinking you can brush them aside

So the fact you have no policies aside, what would be the consequence for thislack of concerted policy, this lack of a state to intervene, on the lives of the non average person?

Valmont

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

I'm not sure, I've been led to believe that any invisible hands descending magically from the clouds would look like this:



I think the Libertarian "explosion" is still growing so the next few decades will be very interesting in seeing where it all leads. I would like to think that people will grow wary of the continued growth of the state but as long as they are voting for their freebies, I don't see it happening. The best a libertarian can hope for is if some group of billionaires buy a country and start from there.

af_thefragile

I find libertarians make the most sense out of everyone out there.
Their policies and simple and straight to the point.
They also tend to not lie like most other politicians do.


I do accept that the right wing libertarian, anarcho-capitalist system is the way to go. I believe in a more center weighted, welfare state system.
But in today's economy the libertarian system is a good starting point to start re-building society upon.

Like seriously listen to the opinion people like Ron Paul and Daniel Hannan have about the war, foreign relations, economny etc. and tell me it doesn't make sense to you.

Sandvich

Leonid wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBHicyqMML4

Ahahahaa. Oh man. I have known some tarians to be pretty dramatic like that.

Scofflaw

Valmont wrote:

The best a libertarian can hope for is if some group of billionaires buy a country and start from there.

Yes indeed.

deeply amused,
Scofflaw

thebaldsoprano

Hm. Seemingly it's possible to be a libertarian and support state welfare.



From this quick quiz.

Scofflaw

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Hm. Seemingly it's possible to be a libertarian and support state welfare.



From this quick quiz.

Interesting:



cordially,
Scofflaw

Sandvich

af_thefragile wrote: »

I find libertarians make the most sense out of everyone out there.
Their policies and simple and straight to the point.

That's the whole point! It's the same with US conservatism.

Their policies are EASY TO UNDERSTAND. That means it's easy to convince people who know NOTHING ABOUT POLITICS OR ECONOMICS OR SOCIOLOGY.

People take the piss out of Objectivists constantly for good reason; so many of their policies, again like american conservatives, are based on slogans, not arguments. Is Man not Entitled to the Sweat off his Brow???

Of course a lot of lefties are like this too, but at least they mean well by comparison.

That's not to say the simples views are always the worst. But it doesn't make them right, either. What makes sense to you, the average joe(probably) isn't the same thing as makes sense on a more objective level(not objectivIST obviously, which doesn't make sense at all ).

You've been had, mate.

af_thefragile

Sandvich wrote: »

That's the whole point! It's the same with US conservatism.

Their policies are EASY TO UNDERSTAND. That means it's easy to convince people who know NOTHING ABOUT POLITICS OR ECONOMICS OR SOCIOLOGY.

People take the piss out of Objectivists constantly for good reason; so many of their policies, again like american conservatives, are based on slogans, not arguments. Is Man not Entitled to the Sweat off his Brow???

Of course a lot of lefties are like this too, but at least they mean well by comparison.

That's not to say the simples views are always the worst. But it doesn't make them right, either. What makes sense to you, the average joe(probably) isn't the same thing as makes sense on a more objective level(not objectivIST obviously, which doesn't make sense at all ).

You've been had, mate.

So saying that us going to war and invading countries like Iraq and Afghanistan is only going to fuel more hatred for "the west" and thus the best way to keep our countries secure is to just focus on our own matters and leave the other countries to themselves as its none of our business meddling in their matters... Is that statement completely false?

I said I don't agree with libertarianism 100%. I do agree there needs to be some form of government regulation over the market and there needs to be laws which do give people the freedom they deserve but at the same time restrict the citizens from crossing the boundaries. And there needs to be a welfare system for distribution of wealth to uplift the poor of the society.

Basically I like the libertarianist system but there needs to be boundaries defined which the citizens and the market cannot cross. Along with a social welfare tax which distributes money from the rich to the poor. Apart from this the citizens and market should be free to do whatever they want as long as they stay within the boundaries.

Anyway, that's what I believe in a few lines.


I do have a good knowledge of politics and I also know that things have been overly complicated in it so that the politicians can easily fool people with their empty promises to remain in power.

I would say the current political system is perfect and doesn't need to be changed if it was well... perfect! But it isn't. People are losing jobs, the country is in massive debt, there are two wars going on which have achieved nothing significant and instead left the countries in more of a mess than they were before, there is rising taxes along with pay cuts, people are working more hours for lesser pay. Do you call this an efficient system?

Sometimes the simplest answers DO work the best.

af_thefragile

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Hm. Seemingly it's possible to be a libertarian and support state welfare.



From this quick quiz.

Hmm... this is what I got:

Says I'm a centralist.

Though I believe that quiz is too short on questions to give a proper answer.

I don't believe in a "Free Media" where people can go about writing all sorts of **** in the papers and show all sorts of stories in the news. Stories that have little credibility and do more harm than good. Fox News and pretty much everything from Rupert Murdoch's News Corp company fits in here. I also don't believe the government should be allowed to have full control of the media either to use it as a propaganda tool. I believe there should be a screening and regulation for the media that only the credible and honest stories are broadcasted without any bias, sensationalism or propaganda cuz unfortunately that's all we get from today's media.

Though this thread is not about my believes and its about Libertarianism.
I've already stated it, out of all the political leaders out there, Libertarianists are the most appealing to me because they speak common sense and don't make blatant false lying statements like all other politicians. In any case a free society is a better society to live in than a government controlled one.
I think this is exactly what the world wars were fought on. To stop fascism. To stop rest of the world turning into Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. And we keep going on about how we live in a free society. Yet we so readily give away our freedom when the government asks us for it.