United Left Alliance will form party, says Higgins

Soldie

Rubik. wrote: »

I'll ignore that unnecessacry and unfounded dig there solide. I think if your anarchist liberatarian type went out on the streets of Ireland canvassing for a vote in the election, advoctating the complete elimination of the state, people would laugh in their face. Or a more moderate type calling for the state to limit itself to potection against of acts of aggression, theft, breach of contract..etc, it would be dismissed as unworkable.

No dig was intended. I explained why I think libertarianism has no broad appeal to the electorate, and you disagreed and said that it'd be dismissed simply because it'd be considered to be nonsense, without explaining why that may be. There's little room for debate when you treat your own unsubstantiated opinion as though it is fact.

nesf

CiaranC wrote: »

If a group of people pay a proportion of their income into a central fund, administered by a central administration, which then takes that funding and pays people directly from that fund to build a road, that, to you, is not even a little bit socialist. LOL.

What the hell are you on about? Public investment in infrastructure far predates any concept of socialism. You can have it in extremely capitalist societies. It's simply redistribution of income through taxation, something that even the smallest of small Government libertarians agree with to some extent (excluding extreme anarchists).

If the libertarians on here were arguing that there should be no taxation I could see where you were coming from but they argue for minimal taxation not zero taxation. Even Ron Paul agrees with some level of taxation ffs.

Rubik.

Valmont wrote: »

No, it's the fact that politicians regularly buy elections through the provision of welfare for the masses or legislative favours for their cronies and lobby groups. That a political party who decides to not buy their votes would do worse should seem quite obvious, no?

I'm honestly quite amused that some posters are finding it hard to believe that the same electorate who voted FF back into power in 2007 on the back of one of the greatest giveaways the world has ever seen, would possibly vote for a political party who would propose to give away as little as possible.

Money talks and the Irish electorate demonstrated that very well voting for FF in 2007.

CiaranC, if people really do understand that everything is paid for through taxation, why did they vote for FF and their insanely ridiculous policies that were doomed to destroy our economy as soon as the property bubble burst? Is it perhaps because they were myopically looking at what the could get for themselves in short term? I find it funny that you would overestimate the intelligence of the same electorate who brought us to where we are today. Blame whoever you want, but it was the people who voted for the nonsense policies that have us right where we are.

All this considered, it's bizarre that the ULA think we can all set to work in government projects and be happy for ever after with our shovels and spades.

Rubik. wrote: »

That's a real - it's not us, it's you agruement i.e, it's not our philosophy thats preventing it gaining any widespread appeal, it's you and your statist ways. Libertarianism is rejected by all but a miniscule minority because the vast majority don't accept it as the way things should be done. To blame the majority because you would be unable to convince enough of them to elect even one libertarian candidate is a bit of a cop out really. It's a bit like saying, it's not FF's fault they lost over 50 seats, its the voters fault because they didn't vote for them.

Rubik. wrote: »

It's not obvious to me anyway, I think the the problem is with Libertarianism in itself and it's all too easy to blame the electorate because they won't buy into your political philosophy. Maybe, just maybe, it's your philosophy that is at fault. It's a bit pointless have a political movement that has no chance of appealing to the masses.

Soldie wrote: »

No dig was intended. I explained why I think libertarianism has no broad appeal to the electorate, and you disagreed and said that it'd be dismissed simply because it'd be considered to be nonsense, without explaining why that may be. There's little room for debate when you treat your own unsubstantiated opinion as though it is fact.

I've subsquently had this discussion with someone else and don't see the point repeating myself. If you think I'm treating my opinion as unsubstantial opinion as though it was fact, that's fine by me, I really don't mind.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rubik.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, but The Labour Party will also be claiming to won a large mandate and it remains to be seen how much of the above will get into the Programme for Government. At best some of it, like health care reform, will be diluted but the non-compulsory Irish idea will most likely be shelved. I'm not sure what will happen with about sale of state assets, perhaps some kind of compromise.

Soldie

Rubik. wrote: »

I've subsquently had this discussion with someone else and don't see the point repeating myself. If you think I'm treating my opinion as unsubstantial opinion as though it was fact, that's fine by me, I really don't mind.

The point I'm making is that you've yet to explain why you believe it has little appeal. I claimed that it has little appeal because small government is not compatible with the level of entitlement that exists in this country, which you rejected, and said the electorate will simply see it as "nonsense".

I also note that you used the term "anarchist libertarian" (no such thing exists), which suggests you're somewhat confused as to what libertarianism is. Anarchists wish to see the state abolished, which is a view not shared by libertarians. The more doctrinaire libertarians would see the state's role limited to the enforcement of contracts and the protection of private property, whereas the vast majority of libertarians (from my experience, at least) see some role for the state in providing a minimal safety net, some infrastructure, etc.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, some do! :P

karma_

Soldie wrote: »

Well, some do! :P

Like that is somehow more idiotic than a left-wing party entering government with a right-wing one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chinasea

Richard Boyd Barretts supporters are a militant shower of either track suit wearing or dock martin wearing non contributing social welfare dependents. Vast majority of them never worked either - now they are conveniently blaming everything including the kitchen sink for the state of the country and will hide behind this convenient factor to dodge working for another few decades.

It is hard to know what the Boyd Barretts agenda is - champion of the militant non working and non contributing.

Say what you like but Mr Barrett wouldn't be living in the middle of a council estate breathing in the toxic fumes of the plastic burning caused by his supporters who won’t even pay to get their rubbish taken away unless the tax payer does, and I bet he won’t be sending his kids to the local rough rubadub schools either nor do his other champagne socialist chums.

Lefticus Loonaticus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A center right government with a center left party in it, only on our demented island would such a thing be possable.

Do you really think the hard left will be "a lot less" after another few years of right wing butchery? Me no think so.

Eliot Rosewater

CiaranC wrote: »

I work, pay my rent, save up and travel around the world. I dont demand any medals or recognition for it, unlike some, who demand to be recognised as some kind of hero for not claiming childrens benefit or whatever its called for their daughter, or who demand to be recognised for having a personal philosophy of not being a ****ing leech, like this is some kind of revelation.

I'm sorry if you're coming at this from a different context. From my own context, amongst college students, not desiring the government to provide for me puts me in a minority of about 5%.

I don't think the government should help me get a job whatsoever. I'm quite content to do it myself. Do a lot of people believe in that too? I'm not so sure.

CiaranC wrote: »

Do you think our young pinko comrades sit around in their community halls decked in their keffiyeh scarves, smoking gauloises fags discussing how they can get the state to increase their dole and add their ventilin inhalers and extra thick spectacles to their medical cards? Really?

The ULA's champion cause was the undoing of cuts and taxing the rich. People voted for them because they wanted increases in social welfare (or, technically speaking, the decreases to be undone: it's the same net effect). This is most certainty greed. Those voters feel they have a right to demand their government take money off of others to give it to them.

And I don't mean that to be a broad libertarian anti-social welfare statement: it's not. Desiring a social safety net does not count as greed. But the ULA are going above and beyond a mere social safety net. They want cuts that have followed cost of living decreases to be undone. In real terms they want increased welfare. Even though that's obviously not necessary.

CiaranC wrote: »

Brilliant stuff Howard Rourke. I think its obvious the great minds on this thread should club together and either start a political movement to destroy the red menace or form some kind of cult on the wild plains of the Rosses.

As I said, I don't see a political movement to be necessary. I'm quite happy to implement my ideals in my personal life.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

doopa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Any examples on the depiction of Kenny as Pinochet - a google search for the terms hits this page first? Also - a lot of people don't like him not just the left.

An 8 euro cut to the dole is around 4%. I never found it particularly instructive to consider the amount of tax in absolute terms but rather percentages. I'm not disagreeing that the dole should be cut but its more useful (I would argue) to think of it in percentage.

So given your previous posts that you pay 100,000's of euros in taxes we can guessitimate that 4% would be somewhere in the mid 10,000's for yourself. Perspective is difficult at this stage since that cut for you (only 4%) represents an entire years earning for someone else. They would naturally enough not think it fair that you should have your taxes increased by such an amount since it is so significant a number to them. But for you - sure it would only be 4%. Similarly for you it most be hard to look at 8 euro and consider how such a small amount of money could have any bearing on a person's wellbeing?

The only persepctive you seem to be able to put things in is your own. Its an afflition we all have but it is worth trying to change. Especially when making pronouncements on what others should be doing.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

An inconvenient fact that lefties ignore. But would you expect anything less from them?

K-9

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

An inconvenient fact that lefties ignore. But would you expect anything less from them?

Yes, but what the righties (so cute) ignore is that an immediate 50% cut in PS pay and welfare will affect the private sector and tax revenue.

The €34 Billion in tax revenue will drop substantially too and the budget wont balance so tax increases will have to be made.

Tbh, when it comes to basic maths, the cut, cut brigade fail as well.

Cutting affects the economy as well. You don't just half PS pay and Welfare and everything is grand! The Revenue side worsens and you have to cut, cut, cut and the circle continues!

dsmythy

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but what the righties (so cute) ignore is that an immediate 50% cut in PS pay and welfare will affect the private sector and tax revenue.

The €34 Billion in tax revenue will drop substantially too and the budget wont balance so tax increases will have to be made.

Tbh, when it comes to basic maths, the cut, cut brigade fail as well.

Cutting affects the economy as well. You don't just half PS pay and Welfare and everything is grand! The Revenue side worsens and you have to cut, cut, cut and the circle continues!

If Fianna Fáil were a proper right-wing party true to the name people give them then the wage and welfare levels wouldn't be nearly as high and more money would have been set aside year on year for today. But they decided to spend the lot over the last 10 years to the applause of the people.

Chucky the tree

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but what the righties (so cute) ignore is that an immediate 50% cut in PS pay and welfare will affect the private sector and tax revenue.

The €34 Billion in tax revenue will drop substantially too and the budget wont balance so tax increases will have to be made.

Tbh, when it comes to basic maths, the cut, cut brigade fail as well.

Cutting affects the economy as well. You don't just half PS pay and Welfare and everything is grand! The Revenue side worsens and you have to cut, cut, cut and the circle continues!

Cuts to welfare won't have a massive difference for the private sector or tax revenue.

K-9

dsmythy wrote: »

If Fianna Fáil were a proper right-wing party true to the name people give them then the wage and welfare levels wouldn't be nearly as high and more money would have been set aside year on year for today. But they decided to spend the lot over the last 10 years to the applause of the people.

That wasn't really in my post at all.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Cuts to welfare won't have a massive difference for the private sector or tax revenue.

You think so?

Who do you think spends locally in shops, on bare essentials, the state pays out over €20 Million on Welfare, though that includes Pensions.

You think if that was halved tomorrow, it would have no effect on spending, business revenue, profits, employment and resultant Income taxes, PRSI, Social levy, VAT and Corporation tax revenues?

dsmythy

K-9 wrote: »

That wasn't really in my post at all.

Well perhaps so in one way. But that's how the right wing gets the anti-poor people stick from. Correcting high welfare, public spending and deficits brought on by other policies. The discussions being had here wouldn't be had if we had a proper right wing party in charge over the last few years because the issues of huge cuts wouldn't need to exist in the first place.

Duke Leonal Felmet

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but what the righties (so cute) ignore is that an immediate 50% cut in PS pay and welfare will affect the private sector and tax revenue.

The €34 Billion in tax revenue will drop substantially too and the budget wont balance so tax increases will have to be made.

Tbh, when it comes to basic maths, the cut, cut brigade fail as well.

Cutting affects the economy as well. You don't just half PS pay and Welfare and everything is grand! The Revenue side worsens and you have to cut, cut, cut and the circle continues!

We are cutting welfare in half now? That's news to me.

Even if it was cut in half like your red fantasy predicts, that is still better than no social welfare, which is the result of allowing our financial sector to disappear and closing the door to external credit.

Too bad.

Duke Leonal Felmet

K-9 wrote: »

That wasn't really in my post at all.



You think so?

Who do you think spends locally in shops, on bare essentials, the state pays out over €20 Million on Welfare, though that includes Pensions.

You think if that was halved tomorrow, it would have no effect on spending, business revenue, profits, employment and resultant Income taxes, PRSI, Social levy, VAT and Corporation tax revenues?

Welfare is being halved now? Thats news to me.

Dirk Gently

I don't mean to bring the thread back on topic but is there any confirmation that these groups are actually forming one single new party?

Duke Leonal Felmet

clown bag wrote: »

I don't mean to bring the thread back on topic but is there any confirmation that these groups are actually forming one single new party?

I'm not sure, I always wondered why the left was so splintered in Ireland. Surely it is in their interest to join forces.

K-9

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

We are cutting welfare in half now? That's news to me.

Even if it was cut in half like your red fantasy predicts, that is still better than no social welfare, which is the result of allowing our financial sector to disappear and closing the door to external credit.

Too bad.

Well if we cut spending to meet tax revenues it would need to be.

But feel free to ignore the main point of my post and throw around another pointless label.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duke Leonal Felmet

K-9 wrote: »

Well if we cut spending to meet tax revenues it would need to be.

Good points, well made. I see by your figures that you account for deflationary press... oh wait. It's just a statement with no backing. Babble.

Even if the cuts are half of welfare, it is better than cutting all of welfare. Don't ever forget that fact, comrade.

c_man

clown bag wrote: »

I don't mean to bring the thread back on topic but is there any confirmation that these groups are actually forming one single new party?

Yeah, Joe Higgins was talking about it on the RTE Election Results show on Saturday. Can't remember the specifics but they will be registering as a party soon.

K-9

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Good points, well made. I see by your figures that you account for deflationary press... oh wait. It's just a statement with no backing. Babble.

Even if the cuts are half of welfare, it is better than cutting all of welfare. Don't ever forget that fact, comrade.

What usually happens as part of a constructive discussion is that you would add your own figures now, if you are interested in one, that is.