Libertarian party in Ireland

OhNoYouDidn't · 07-02-2011 02:46PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I disagree.

Its been done to death on here.

There are three reasons why the Libertarians don't get organised:

1: They can't agree amongst themselves the basics of their -ism. Welfare state, no welfare state. Coercive police force, not a coercive police force. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but some libertarians argue for reform, others for Somalia.

2: They are very short on practical solutions. In short, libertarianism is one of those theories that sounds great on paper, but fails the real world test.

3: By definition, libertarians don't believe in a central organisation.

And there does tend to be a waft of policy arrogance off them. Claiming FF are left wing, attempting to claim that they are the only political philosophy that opposed the bail out etc.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 07-02-2011 02:53PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its been done to death on here.

There are three reasons why the Libertarians don't get organised:

1: They can't agree amongst themselves the basics of their -ism. Welfare state, no welfare state. Coercive police force, not a coercive police force. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but some libertarians argue for reform, others for Somalia.

2: They are very short on practical solutions. In short, libertarianism is one of those theories that sounds great on paper, but fails the real world test.

3: By definition, libertarians don't believe in a central organisation.

And there does tend to be a waft of policy arrogance off them. Claiming FF are left wing, attempting to claim that they are the only political philosophy that opposed the bail out etc.

Who claimed 'they' were the only philosophy opposed to the bailout? Provide direct evidence, not supposition.

Cheers.

OhNoYouDidn't · 07-02-2011 02:55PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Who claimed 'they' were the only philosophy opposed to the bailout? Provide direct evidence, not supposition.

Cheers.

There have been four or five threads on this topic in the last six months.

Do your own reading.

Eliot Rosewater · 07-02-2011 04:27PM

Silly and personalised posts deleted. Less of the pointless contributions please. Keep it civil and respectful, and concentrate on what people are saying rather the people themselves.

/mod.

CokaColumbo · 07-02-2011 05:03PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Can you please explain to the group who the 'leftists' are?

By Irish standards: Labour, Sinn Fein, a significant number of independents and candidates from other socialist groups. How is that not clear "to the group?"

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

...Nothing inherently wrong with that, but some libertarians argue for reform, others for Somalia.

I have read individuals reference Somalia as a "case-study" of libertarianism in action before. How do you suppose that a country which has been marked by 20 years of civil war; attempted military take-overs; government and warlord atrocities; genocide; general state oppression and an absence of free-elections; absolutely no law and order in many parts; and Islamic rule constitutes anything related to libertarianism?

OhNoYouDidn't · 07-02-2011 05:14PM

CokaColumbo wrote: »

By Irish standards: Labour, Sinn Fein, a significant number of independents and candidates from other socialist groups. How is that not clear "to the group?"

And you reckon they will get 50% of the vote?

Seriously?

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I have read individuals reference Somalia as a "case-study" of libertarianism in action before. How do you suppose that a country which has been marked by 20 years of civil war; attempted military take-overs; government and warlord atrocities; genocide; general state oppression and an absence of free-elections; absolutely no law and order in many parts; and Islamic rule constitutes anything related to libertarianism?

Some people advocated a feudal type of Libertarianism whereby there would be no central state whatsoever, no welfarism and privatised police forces. Somalia in other words.

To be fair, most other libertarians disputed that definition.

CokaColumbo · 07-02-2011 05:31PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And you reckon they will get 50% of the vote?

Seriously?

Over the last couple of months, the polls have put their collective support at between 40% and 50%.

CokaColumbo · 07-02-2011 05:41PM

http://www.irishelection2011.com/opinion-polls-leading-up-to-election-2011/

OhNoYouDidn't · 07-02-2011 06:01PM

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Over the last couple of months, the polls have put their collective support at between 40% and 50%.

According to the poll average you posted, the total of Lab and SF is 38%. Independents / others are at 10%. So even if we assume ALL independents are left wing, you are still short.

More red scare nonsense in other words.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 07-02-2011 06:05PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

According to the poll average you posted, the total of Lab and SF is 38%. Independents / others are at 10%. So even if we assume ALL independents are left wing, you are still short.

More red scare nonsense in other words.

In that very post you quoted he said '40-50%'. If just 2% of Ind/other are lefties then you have 40%.

Seems like a fair call, to me.

OhNoYouDidn't · 07-02-2011 06:15PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

In that very post you quoted he said '40-50%'. If just 2% of Ind/other are lefties then you have 40%.

Seems like a fair call, to me.

He said 'over 50%' initially, which I called him on.

And it would need to be 20% of the independents being lefties...

Permabear · 07-02-2011 06:32PM

This post has been deleted.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 07-02-2011 07:04PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

He said 'over 50%' initially, which I called him on.

And it would need to be 20% of the independents being lefties...

Two percentage points. You knew that. Don't drag the thread down again, please.

CokaColumbo · 07-02-2011 07:23PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

He said 'over 50%' initially, which I called him on.

And it would need to be 20% of the independents being lefties...

I did not say 'over' 50%; I said 'up to' 50%. If you study the page I linked, the 16/12/10 Irish Times poll puts Labour & SF at a collective 40%. So does the 03/12/10 Irish Sun poll. Leftists also form a significant chunk of the 11% of Independent candidates, perhaps a majority, so 40%-50% is accurate.

Cannibal Ox · 07-02-2011 07:52PM

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Like the IMF? I'm not sure if you're arguing whether this is a positive thing, if you're not you can ignore the next part.

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

If you're arguing that the law itself is illegitimate, which I'm assuming, and as such it is justifiable to circumvent it when the opportunity presents itself (i.e, tax or welfare fraud), who exactly decides when it is illegitimate, on what grounds it is possible to judge when it is illegitimate, and when it is justifiable to circumvent it?

In other words, what gives them the right to circumvent the rule of law when confronted with what they deem unjust laws? Is this really the Libertarian spirit? Because I don't see how the attitude you've identified, which I largely agree with, is anything other then utterly corrosive in a democracy and responsible for more then it's fair share of the mess in Ireland.

Permabear · 07-02-2011 08:25PM

This post has been deleted.

UsernameInUse · 08-02-2011 04:08PM

liberal front are libertarians

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-02-2011 04:38PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I see what you are getting at, but I assume as a Libertarian you object to paying a TV licence.

So don't.

How much more stark can you get in terms of "fight[ing] to prevent that rule of law from becoming too stifling of social and economic freedoms" than non-compliance on a massive scale?

If the law is an ass, it should be ignored.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 08-02-2011 05:01PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I see what you are getting at, but I assume as a Libertarian you object to paying a TV licence.

So don't.

How much more stark can you get in terms of "fight[ing] to prevent that rule of law from becoming too stifling of social and economic freedoms" than non-compliance on a massive scale?

If the law is an ass, it should be ignored.

Yeah, Libertarians love nothing more than the prospect of imprisonment. It goes right to the core of freedom and liberty.

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-02-2011 05:09PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yeah, Libertarians love nothing more than the prospect of imprisonment. It goes right to the core of freedom and liberty.

I'm so happy you said that.

That dovetails nicely into the argument that libertarians are all talk. If something is wrong, fight it. Back to my point about the real world test.

Say what you like about the ULA types, they are willing to go to jail for their beliefs....

Duke Leonal Felmet · 08-02-2011 05:13PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'm so happy you said that.

That dovetails nicely into the argument that libertarians are all talk. If something is wrong, fight it. Back to my point about the real world test.

Say what you like about the ULA types, they are willing to go to jail for their beliefs....

Yes, you gotta admire people who assault Gardai. Better to resort to violence, when people disagree with your worldview.

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-02-2011 05:26PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yes, you gotta admire people who assault Gardai. Better to resort to violence, when people disagree with your worldview.

Have any members of the ULA or their constituent groups ever been convicted of assaulting Gardaí?

Should be an easy claim for you to back up...

I meant more the ULA folk who were jailed for refusing to pay bin charges.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 08-02-2011 05:33PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Have any members of the ULA or their constituent groups ever been convicted of assaulting Gardaí?

Should be an easy claim for you to back up...

I meant more the ULA folk who were jailed for refusing to pay bin charges.

What was it you said to me? Oh yes, I remember.

Go do your own reading.

As for your jailed comrades, they are now learning a harsh lesson. In a democracy, civil discourse is the best means of bringing about change. We don't live under a dictatorship. However, if people don't agree with your views (ie. people don't vote you into power), this does not give you the right to break the law. It's how civilised people behave. This is why Libertarians don't adopt such strategies, I presume.

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-02-2011 05:45PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

What was it you said to me? Oh yes, I remember.

Go do your own reading.

You made the claim, you back it up.

I take it from that you cannot, and are too arrogant to retract.

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

As for your jailed comrades, they are now learning a harsh lesson. In a democracy, civil discourse is the best means of bringing about change. We don't live under a dictatorship. However, if people don't agree with your views (ie. people don't vote you into power), this does not give you the right to break the law. It's how civilised people behave. This is why Libertarians don't adopt such strategies, I presume.

They aren't my 'comrades'.

But this is the core of the argument. 'Civilised' people? Is there any circumstance when Libertarians might stop talking about things and actually act? Or is the 'ism' just a load of hot air?

ei.sdraob · 08-02-2011 05:45PM

What is it with new accounts from users who have the same arguments and writing style as pass members who have now disappeared somewhere

just observing...

anyways there wont be a Libertarian party in Ireland, in order to get elected you need to lie and promise more entitlements and fud without accountability once you do get elected, could you imagine a party running on the platform of having balanced budgets and living within means.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 08-02-2011 05:49PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You made the claim, you back it up.

I take it from that you cannot, and are too arrogant to retract.

No, I made a simple request for you to provide a link before and you responded with 'go do your own reading'. So I guess your post above is self-reflective.

Anyway, I am no Libertarian, so I cannot defend their beliefs. Maybe one will arrive soon.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 08-02-2011 05:52PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

What is it with new accounts from users who have the same arguments and writing style as pass members who have now disappeared somewhere

just observing...

I presume that is directed at me?

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-02-2011 05:53PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

No, I made a simple request for you to provide a link before and you responded with 'go do your own reading'. So I guess your post above is self-reflective.

Anyway, I am no Libertarian, so I cannot defend their beliefs. Maybe one will arrive soon.

I mentioned an opinion of mine based on numerous debates.

You mentioned a statement of fact.

Gregor Samsa · 08-02-2011 06:34PM

CokaColumbo wrote: »

When up to 50% of the electorate is intent on voting for leftists who want to increase government intervention in the economy (when excessive intervention is the source of our problems) one can't but lose hope!

It was the lack of government intervention (in the form of proper financial regulation and planning processes) that caused the initial problems with banks and developers. That bit wouldn't be improved under a Libertarian system.

The after-the-horse-has-bolted intervention (bailout, bank guarantee, etc), which of course is a problem in itself, wouldn't have happened in a Libertarian system. But it certainly wasn't leftists that instigated that.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 08-02-2011 07:15PM

phutyle wrote: »

It was the lack of government intervention (in the form of proper financial regulation and planning processes) that caused the initial problems with banks and developers. That bit wouldn't be improved under a Libertarian system.

The after-the-horse-has-bolted intervention (bailout, bank guarantee, etc), which of course is a problem in itself, wouldn't have happened in a Libertarian system. But it certainly wasn't leftists that instigated that.

Both are sort of correct, but it requires a little more careful thought. The reasons banks act so recklessly is because they know they will be bailed out. Google "too big to fail" to see what I mean by this. It's called moral hazard. Under a libertarian system, moral hazard would not exist. If a bank fails, it fails.

You need to ask yourself this. Which system would lead to banks acting more prudently?

Libertarian party in Ireland

Comments