Libertarian party in Ireland

Duke Leonal Felmet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Eliot Rosewater

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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

Well, to be quite frank, though I'd like there to a liberal party in Ireland I could campaign for, in the absence of it I've much better things to be doing than sitting in jail.

If I can't change the system (which I realistically can't) I can work hard to better my own life. This is much more productive than being behind bars. Life isn't all about politics.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CokaColumbo

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.

Will you explain, specifically, how a lack of regulation caused banks and individuals to act in the way they did?

I disagree with you 100%. Central banks have a deliberate policy of printing out lots of money and with that money buying bonds in individual banks. This fluffs up the reserves of these banks and brings down the cost of lending, i.e. interest rates are suppressed. This sends false signals and bad information to investors and individuals about the viability of taking on debt and embarking upon capital intensive projects. It is a deliberate policy of monetary inflation which artificially stimulates investment bubbles.

As inflation takes its toll, prices rise and interest rates eventually rise also (because bankers realise that the money recouped from loans will be increasingly less valuable because of the inflation and they consequently jack up interest rates to cover any losses). The unsustainable bubble bursts and you get a recession. Interest rates in the USA were slashed from 6.5% in 2001 to 2% in mid-2003. In Ireland, interest rates halved almost overnight when we joined the euro and continued to fall to historic lows.

Without the cheap debt, the property bubble would not have had the legs to go anywhere. Explicit bank guarantees also created moral hazard and made it impossible for markets to regulate themselves. Markets regulate themselves when there exists both risk and greed. One checks the other. But take away risk by instituting a policy of 'too big to fail' and there is no disincentive not to take excessive gambles.

Lastly, in the U.S. the politicians lent on banks to loosen their lending standards from as early as the 1970s and in fact it was a government sponsored enterprise, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which not only created the sub-prime market but was also the biggest buyer of sub-prime mortgages in the world! In the words of Peter Schiff, "the government created the problem and then bailed out everybody who got in on the action."

FF and proud

Im a bit of a libertarian myself, the taxes are still a bit high if you ask me.

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Please, even a lazy few minutes researching this neoliberal political organisation will give you enough information to oppose it.

Duke Leonal Felmet

RichieC wrote: »

Please, even a lazy few minutes researching this neoliberal political organisation will give you enough information to oppose it.

I would wager that before the recession hit, the vast majority of Irish citizens did not know or care about the IMF. The reason people dislike it now is as PBear described, not because of their behaviour in South America or Asia.

Killer Pigeon

I for one welcome my new non-overlords.

Gregor Samsa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Since the financial regulation wasn't implemented, then it obviously wasn't proper. What good are a ream of rules, if the ref isn't watching the game?

Lockstep

Ireland has surprisingly good tools for white-collar crime; the Office for the Director of Corporate Enforcement has fairly decent powers for example.

However, Ireland suffers from a lack of political willpower to tackle corporate wrongdoing and so white-collar criminals know that they can get away with a lot. There's never been a single person jailed for white collar crime in Irish history.

Gregor Samsa

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Will you explain, specifically, how a lack of regulation caused banks and individuals to act in the way they did?

Many people will try to get away with what they think they can get away with - and disregard the consequences. I remember getting an unsolicited letter from my bank pre-approving me for a £15,000 loan while I was on a FAS course. I didn't avail of it, but if they were sending this crap to me, then they were sending it to many others. And later on, they did the exact same thing with mortgages.

Human nature being what it is, some people are just going to say "Well, if the bank think I can afford it, then I must be able to". So they took out the loans, and they got themselves into massive and unmanageable debt, that we're now all paying for. The banks simply should have been made to be more careful about who they lent to.

On top of that, we had some banks actively engaging in subterfuge in an attempt to hide the level of dodgy debt they had from the regulator and shareholders. A stronger regulatory framework would have prevented that.

I understand that Libertarianism is all about personal responsibility, and as someone who once sympathised with Individualist Anarchism at a certain level, I can see the attraction in thinking that everyone should be solely responsible for all their actions. But experience has taught me that quite a number of people just aren't able for that level of responsibility. And while the Libertarian answer might be "Well, tough luck", I think that the failures in society have a bigger detrimental impact on the rest of us than Libertairians recognise.

It's a bit like the fatal practical flaw of Communism - human nature just won't allow Libertarianism to run smoothly. It will work great a some levels, and some people will benefit and prosper from it, but a lot of people will fail I don't think that's the making of the kind of balanced society I want to live in.

Duke Leonal Felmet

I love arguments which attempt to dilute individual responsibility. Even if the banks were pushing pre approved loans through the door and acting recklessly, it is still the individuals responsibility to assess whether they can afford it. It is still their decision to put pen to paper. You said yourself that you decided against it because you were on a course. A sensible decision. If only more people were are sensible as you.

Gregor Samsa

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Markets regulate themselves when there exists both risk and greed. One checks the other.

You're leaving out one major factor. Stupidity. When that's added into the mix, it disregards the risk and beefs up the greed, and the self regulation falls apart.

Everyday experience should tell you that many people don't act in their own self interest - and I don't think eliminating moral hazards is enough to regulate that. It certainly isn't in many areas of human behaviour that don't have external regulation or safety nets.

Gregor Samsa

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

You said yourself that you decided against it because you were on a course. A sensible decision. If only more people were are sensible as you.

If only they were. But they're not. And that's the fatal flaw.

Duke Leonal Felmet

phutyle wrote: »

If only they were. But they're not. And that's the fatal flaw.

Yeah, I agree with that. But I also don't like the idea that our elected superiors are somehow better at making my decisions for me. It seems we are just doomed...

johnnyskeleton

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yet an 'economically liberal' (ultra free market) position would be to let the banks fall. So why do you oppose it?

So too would Labour if they had been in power.

Duke Leonal Felmet

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So too would Labour if they had been in power.

I never suggested otherwise.

CokaColumbo

phutyle wrote: »

Many people will try to get away with what they think they can get away with - and disregard the consequences. I remember getting an unsolicited letter from my bank pre-approving me for a £15,000 loan while I was on a FAS course. I didn't avail of it, but if they were sending this crap to me, then they were sending it to many others. And later on, they did the exact same thing with mortgages.

Human nature being what it is, some people are just going to say "Well, if the bank think I can afford it, then I must be able to". So they took out the loans, and they got themselves into massive and unmanageable debt, that we're now all paying for. The banks simply should have been made to be more careful about who they lent to.

On top of that, we had some banks actively engaging in subterfuge in an attempt to hide the level of dodgy debt they had from the regulator and shareholders. A stronger regulatory framework would have prevented that.

I understand that Libertarianism is all about personal responsibility, and as someone who once sympathised with Individualist Anarchism at a certain level, I can see the attraction in thinking that everyone should be solely responsible for all their actions. But experience has taught me that quite a number of people just aren't able for that level of responsibility. And while the Libertarian answer might be "Well, tough luck", I think that the failures in society have a bigger detrimental impact on the rest of us than Libertairians recognise.

It's a bit like the fatal practical flaw of Communism - human nature just won't allow Libertarianism to run smoothly. It will work great a some levels, and some people will benefit and prosper from it, but a lot of people will fail I don't think that's the making of the kind of balanced society I want to live in.

Your whole post ignores the fact that the unwise and excessive actions of lending institutions were all a symptom of a more fundamental problem. It was central banks and other government intervention which created and fuelled the conditions which allowed banks to give loans to anybody and everybody.

Yes private companies and individuals were reckless but that in itself doesn't mean anything. It's like saying that fire burns down buildings. That's true but who lights the match and pours petrol all over the flames? That is the question that needs to be answered and that is the angle from which this crisis should be viewed.

The problem wasn't too little government interference in the market, it was too much. This isn't the fault of the free market. In fact, in the USA, the birth place of the sub-prime lending practices, the politicians were actively putting pressure on banks to be more reckless in their lending!

Finally, yes some people are stupid. But stupidity doesn't bring a country's banking system to its knees. That's a cop out of an explanation. Governments bring the system crashing down, first and foremost, by creating moral hazard and making debt/credit far too cheap. If that's stupidity, which I suppose it is, it is at least not the fault of the free market.

And if you don't believe me look at the predictions of notable Austrian school economists who accurately predicted every aspect of this recession and pointed to the above government interventions to explain their predictions.

Killer Pigeon

I'm liking the idea of a Social Libertarian Party. In fact so much so that I've proposed a flag/emblem for it:

I.S.L.P. = Irish Social Libertarian Party. The crest is actually a political scale of sorts. The vertical is the Authoritarian-Libertarian scale (where the top is the Libertarian side and the bottom is the authoritarian side) and the left and the horizontal represents the left and the right. The dot represents where the social libertarian party would be on the political scale (obviously it would be a little closer to the top but I just drew it like that for aesthetic purposes).



Conversely I could have just used a big anarchy sign but the ISLP wouldn't be totally anarchic, certain elements of society (like a police force and a judiciary) need to be maintained.

Gregor Samsa

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I'm liking the idea of a Social Libertarian Party. In fact so much so that I've proposed a flag/emblem for it.

I'm not sure what the Libertarian position is on intellectual property is, but you could have trademark issues with that logo :










.

Killer Pigeon

phutyle wrote: »

I'm not sure what the Libertarian position is on intellectual property is, but you could have trademark issues with that logo :









.

1. The Open University's log isn't divided up into four sections that represent a political scale.
2. I'm using a different colour.
3. The dot on the the top-left hand cover is a lot bigger than the on one the ISLP's logo.

Gregor Samsa

4. I was joking. It was just that the OU logo was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw yours. Good luck with your party

ei.sdraob

wouldn't the dot have to be in the bottom left? or bottom centre for that matter

the top is usually the authoritarian end of the political 2d axis

Killer Pigeon

ei.sdraob wrote: »

wouldn't the dot have to be in the bottom left? or bottom centre for that matter

the top is usually the authoritarian end of the political 2d axis

phutyle wrote: »

4. I was joking. It was just that the OU logo was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw yours. Good luck with your party

Opps, thanks for mentioning that actually, though I doubt bottom centre because it's the social libertarian party (albeit moderately left). I have thought about a torch (as in the 'torch of liberty') being the party's logo also. TBH the idea only popped into my head about a month ago so I haven't written any party constitution or anything or even marketed the idea - the only amount of advertising I've persued is here on boards. If anyone wants to contribute to the idea please do PM me.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Social libertarian... Thatcher must be rolling in her... oh wait.

meditraitor

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your argument is false and misleading, the Irish have always been a social culture and non materialistic (see monastic values). The libertarian or failed neo cons as I like to call them are nothing more than confused over educated (current ivy league being nothing more than religious"I am better than you" zealots) malcontents.
The last 10 years of libertarian values have brought about the current crisis! I will argue that under all the greed in this country lies a great nation of poets and scholars that will put the ignoramus to shame within 10 years

Duke Leonal Felmet

meditraitor wrote: »

Your argument is false and misleading, the Irish have always been a social culture and non materialistic (see monastic values). The libertarian or failed neo cons as I like to call them are nothing more than confused over educated (current ivy league being nothing more than religious"I am better than you" zealots) malcontents.
The last 10 years of libertarian values have brought about the current crisis! I will argue that under all the greed in this country lies a great nation of poets and scholars that will put the ignoramus to shame within 10 years

Hmm... what gibberish.

meditraitor

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Hmm... what gibberish.

Address it instead of posting kindergarten crayon techniques!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duke Leonal Felmet

meditraitor wrote: »

Address it instead of posting kindergarten crayon techniques!

But it's all meaningless rhetoric, which betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Libertarianism. My post was sufficient.

ei.sdraob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hmm somehow I have all of the above (minus the bag :P) and don't owe a cent of debt to banks etc.
Nothing wrong with having stuff and luxuries if can afford and work hard, its the going mad on credit which is hard to repay that proven to be lethal to the country.

nesf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Hmm somehow I have all of the above (minus the bag :P) and don't owe a cent of debt to banks etc.
Nothing wrong with having stuff and luxuries if can afford and work hard, its the going mad on credit which is hard to repay that proven to be lethal to the country.

Agreed, it's credit fuelled consumption not consumption itself that is the problem.

HavingCrack

The current economic situation in Ireland and indeed in other states has been fuelled by massive amounts of unnecessary government intervention in the financial sector and property markets. The main contributors were lowering of interest rates and Section 23 tax breaks, both of which were entirely uneccessary whatsoever. As a result you'd think Irish people would be interested in voting for an fiscally conservative party but no they'd prefer socialist economics...oh well :rolleyes:

CokaColumbo

HavingCrack wrote: »

The current economic situation in Ireland and indeed in other states has been fuelled by massive amounts of unnecessary government intervention in the financial sector and property markets. The main contributors were lowering of interest rates and Section 23 tax breaks, both of which were entirely uneccessary whatsoever. As a result you'd think Irish people would be interested in voting for an fiscally conservative party but no they'd prefer socialist economics...oh well :rolleyes:

That's the problem. All of the parties are statist in their outlook. Not one asserts the primacy of economic freedom and free markets over government hegemony and so none of them will point to the ECB and other market interventionism as the cause of the recession. It conflicts with their big government ideology so we can only expect to hear ignorant falsehoods from party ranks such as, "it was a lack of regulation that caused the collapse!" or, "it was all the fault of the banks!" And that catches on and people start to denounce capitalism and throw their weight behind the very ideology which killed our economy to begin with!

Liberal Ireland

Hi All,

Interesting to find this thread up and running. Delighted to see liberty alive and well in the Irish electorates mind. I urge all of you to keep an eye on upcoming events which are being planned. We are in talks with libertarian leaning groups across the nation in attending an event in the near future.

There will be dinner and drinks available and we hope to have some recognisable voices speaking at the event which will take place in a Dublin hotel. As a note, LI don't consider members "joining". We encourage involvement at the highest level. Therefore, you may speak at the event, introduce yourself and have time to tell all of us why you attended.

Our hopes is to register 300 members in the coming months so that we may run our candidates under one banner. Of course, we could run as independents but the aim is to give the ideology a voice as a party and not as separate entities. Indeed, we have candidates who intend to run in the next election from boards.ie and politics.ie - including well known admins.

Our website is what will keep us together in the coming weeks. We plan to update and give it a make-over, complete with a forum. I'd hope people would sign up with the intention of running in their constituency. If so, we may need your acceptance to post your picture online. We will give you all the support you need.

So get involved.

Euroland

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yet an 'economically liberal' (ultra free market) position would be to let the banks fall. So why do you oppose it?

+1, Fully agree!

Duke Leonal Felmet

Lockstep wrote: »

Labour were the only party to oppose the bank bailouts, doesn't mean they're economically libertarian.

Watching the debate the other night reminded me of Labour's position, which was to nationalise the banks. This is not to be confused with the libertarian position of not assisting the banks in any way, which includes nationalisation.

Just thought I would clear that up for you.

floydmoon1

So were any of the independents elected Libertarian.
I dont see Fine Gael lasting long and think they will be another election within 2 years.
Time to start getting a Libertarian party organised.
Would libertarians be in favour of going back to the punt?

CokaColumbo

floydmoon1 wrote: »

So were any of the independents elected Libertarian.
I dont see Fine Gael lasting long and think they will be another election within 2 years.
Time to start getting a Libertarian party organised.
Would libertarians be in favour of going back to the punt?

I think libertarians are generally strong in their criticism of the single currency because our current problems have largely stemmed from our involvement in it. Personally, I would be very much in favour of ditching the euro whenever it is practical or viable to do so but I do not know how we would go about doing it. Would we peg the punt to the British pound or would we ideally institute a gold standard? I don't know.

Duke Leonal Felmet

A gold standard would not suit a small open economy like Ireland. The value of the punt would be at the mercy of commodity markets. It would not be good for trade.

HavingCrack

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I think libertarians are generally strong in their criticism of the single currency because our current problems have largely stemmed from our involvement in it. Personally, I would be very much in favour of ditching the euro whenever it is practical or viable to do so but I do not know how we would go about doing it. Would we peg the punt to the British pound or would we ideally institute a gold standard? I don't know.

I think a return to the gold standard is a bit of a non runner for the for seeable future, there's a reason it's been pretty much abandoned worldwide. I'd be in favour of it personally but can't see how it would be implemented. I think the euro is turning out to be a disaster because of all the different economies within the currency zone. The only way it could survive is if Europe was federalised which I don't think will happen.