Support Complete Libertarianism in Ireland?

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Somalia is a Libertarian's wet dream.

Somalia is an anarchy. In a Libertarian society, governments main objective would be to protect your (and everyone else's) rights. An army would be provided to defend the country from external attack. A police force would be provided to protect the safety and security of the individuals and businesses and a court system would be provided to prosecute law-breakers ONLY where the law forbids the transgression of anothers rights, and if there is a specific victim to complain that they have been wronged.

None of this exists in Somalia.

FlutterinBantam

Dean0088 wrote: »

Would you support a new constitution and laws that ensure you can do whatever the fcuk you want so long as it doesn't interfere with others?

Take drugs. Use prostitutes. Gay marraige. Sleep in a hammock on top of a mountain etc... etc...

I'm not saying I support the guy 100% on his policies - but he has the right idea when it comes to libertarianism in my opinion....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6a9549ZeqQ

Do you think we should adopt libertarianism here in Ireland??

No horse, I wouldn't.

Why?


Because you will get wasters , who will ride the system up to the root in the hole.

Because you will get idiots who think they can exist on their own , on a fucking windswept rock in the North Atlantic, but who in reality only want others to support their 'alternative' lifestyle.


Recognise anyone in there buddy?:rolleyes:

RockinRolla

SeanW wrote: »

Somalia is an anarchy. In a Libertarian society, governments main objective would be to protect your (and everyone else's) rights. An army would be provided to defend the country from external attack. A police force would be provided to protect the safety and security of the individuals and businesses and a court system would be provided to prosecute law-breakers ONLY where the law forbids the transgression of anothers rights, and if there is a specific victim to complain that they have been wronged.

None of this exists in Somalia.

Contrary to mainstream belief, Anarchy per se is not total chaos. I, for example, am a Libertarian Anarchist. Which means that I totally agree that armies, police services and courts can all be provided by the market for cheaper and with a better quality service. In fact, there are no legitimate functions of the State. Anarchy is highly organised - it is governed by the rule of law i.e - property rights.

In Somalia's case, there are no laws at all which is fundamentally different to Anarchy. Just like the Old West, Anarchy was governed by the rule of law. The people that lived in the region during those times developed a system of justice. Anarchism is not to be believed as some kind of total chaos - indeed, Libertarianism advocates freedom but they are quick to agree that freedom cannot be enjoyed without the law as having no consequences with the murder of someone else is not freedom. It's a tricky issue at first, but it is one that's important to understand. Anarchy is not what the majority assume or imply.

rubensni

RockinRolla wrote: »

Which means that I totally agree that armies, police services and courts can all be provided by the market for cheaper and with a better quality service.

You totally agree, as in you don't see any possible drawbacks with private sector companies having their own armies, never mind having their own police forces, or courts.

K-9

I don't think libertarians can even agree on what they mean by it, to some it means very little state intervention, RockinRolla's vision of private armies and police services would be the extreme example, bit like Communism for left wingers.

Tbh even the more realistic options seem very much "every man for himself" type stuff with the market as God. If anything goes wrong it never is the market's fault, it's the lack of regulation or lack of enforcement.

It seems a win, win situation to me. Anything good happens it's due to the market, anything bad, big Government's fault.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

Somalia is an anarchy. In a Libertarian society, governments main objective would be to protect your (and everyone else's) rights.
...
None of this exists in Somalia.

actually it does, what doesn't exist is a country wide government, instead it's done on a clan level in most areas but more centralised in Puntland

http://mrgnc.blogspot.com/2011/03/who-gets-paid-when-pirates-plunder.html

It takes a substantial amount of capital to outfit a pirate operation. Motherships (larger craft which carry smaller vessels far out to sea from which they are launched) , skiffs, communications, arms, fuel, and other supplies are necessary as the pirates scour the oceans for their prey. “Like master puppeteers,” financiers and operators including “business and political figures, some with fishing assets, within the region and without” provide the investment. The capital is not necessarily secured before the operation. If not, “then one or more financiers are found to underwrite the costs” after a successful hijacking. A return of thirty percent can be expected. (Eichstaedt 57).

Pirate “stock exchanges” have become a way not only to finance operations but also to improve ties with locals by opening the door to their involvement, be it through contributing cash or weapons. One former pirate boasted that “we’ve made piracy a community activity.” (Ahmed). It is reported that there are currently seventy two “maritime companies” with shares traded in Harardheere alone. Besides locals, members of the vast Somali diaspora is involved in these investments (Ahmed).

The pirates themselves are “foot soldiers” rented out as teams to organizers who transport them to temporary coastal bases. With few other employment options available there is an abundant supply of Somalians who “serve as a labour pool that can be called upon when needed” (Murphy 128). The pirates can be categorized according to their area of expertise. There are ex-fishermen whose navigation and other seagoing skills make them “the brains of the operation.” On shore there are ex-militiamen who provide armed protection of pirate bases and hostages. With the country having been fought over by warlords for almost twenty years, there is plenty of such “muscle” for hire. Third, there are the “technical experts,” who run the “hi-tech equipment needed to operate as a pirate - satellite phones, GPS and military hardware” (Hunter).

Usually about a dozen of these “grunts” are hired for an attack at the cost of “about five thousand dollars per day,” with an average total operation cost of up to $150,000 (Eichstaedt 62). If a ship is successfully hijacked and ransom paid, each pirate can expect a return of about $10,000. A percentage of the ransom may also go to militias on the ground either for protection of safehouses and bases or merely as a “port tax.” Local communities may charge up to “$100,0000 or more just for the right to … anchor a ship offshore” (Eichstaedt 62). Furthermore, “local merchants sell food and supplies to pirates at outrageously high prices,” such as a can of Coke for $10 (62).

also look at this https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Xeer
for an example of how Somali law works

Law and, consequently crime, are defined in terms of property rights. The law is compensatory rather than punitive. Because property rights requires compensation, rather than punishment, there is no imprisonment, and fines are rare. Such fines as might be imposed seldom exceed the amount of compensation and are not payable to any court or government, but directly to the victim. A fine might be in order when, for example, the killing of a camel was deliberate and premeditated, in which case the victim receives not one but two camels. Fines figure in another interesting way. It is expected that a prominent public figure such as a religious or political dignitary or a policeman or a judge should lead an exemplary life. If he violates the law, he pays double what would be required of an ordinary person. Also, since the law and crime are defined in terms of property rights, the Xeer is unequivocal in its opposition to any form of taxation.[6]

RockinRolla

rubensni wrote: »

You totally agree, as in you don't see any possible drawbacks with private sector companies having their own armies, never mind having their own police forces, or courts.

I welcome a debate about the issue and I assure you that I am not picking ideas out of thin air. I've researched the area quite extensively and even though others may not agree fully, I'll be honest and played with the theory for quite some time myself. However, I've been convinced that private enterprise in the Free market can provide all of these things at a better quality and cheaper price to the consumer.

For example, the reason young men and women are not falling all over themselves to join the army is because of the pay. In fact, a hired military is very feasible if the proper amount of pay is available and offered. This can be done in the Free Market. The market will dictate the pay of these individuals. If the government does not pay them well, then there is no national defense - if the market dictates that these people will be paid €100/hour (purely example) then the army won't be able to handle the amount of applications.

The police - there are literally hundreds of books on this subject. In a truly Libertarian society, roads would all be privatised. This means that the owners of those roads would be responsible for the security of the patrons on those roads - if there is not protection while shopping or even in a residential area, then people will just go elsewhere to a place with more security. For example, the Gardai cannot patrol your area all night but private guards can if contracted. However, with government laws, these private guards cannot legally arrest a thief but they do provide better protection. In all, the owners of those roads have a financial and economical incentive to provide trust-worthy and friendly security that have your interests at heart as they're being paid by you, the consumer as opposed to civil service thugs that receive funding from faceless taxpayers.

The courts have already been debated in this thread. In ancient Ireland, Brehon Law was purely private and not provided by the State in any way, shape or form. Private courts also have a financial motivation to be credible in the marketplace.

I invite you to dive deeper into the discussion. I'm sure when you read about it, you will find yourself agreeing more and more with the Free Market and Libertarianism. The end result is that government is a coercive and dangerous entity with no legitimate functions. In ending, they're a menace to society.

Aurum

I really wish people would stop calling for a new Constitution when they clearly haven't got a clue about the provisions of the current Constitution.

PeakOutput

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think libertarians can even agree on what they mean by it, to some it means very little state intervention, RockinRolla's vision of private armies and police services would be the extreme example, bit like Communism for left wingers.

Tbh even the more realistic options seem very much "every man for himself" type stuff with the market as God. If anything goes wrong it never is the market's fault, it's the lack of regulation or lack of enforcement.

It seems a win, win situation to me. Anything good happens it's due to the market, anything bad, big Government's fault.

Libertarianism has nothing to do with economics and the market why is that so difficult for people to understand? It is very clear that peoples views of libertarians are skewed because of who gets called one in the united states. The political compass goes 4 ways not two

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

Being far left and authoritarian leads to communism and being far right and authoritarian leads to fascism. as far as i know there has been no really libertarian modern society so we dont know what either left or right leads to when coupled with it

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

actually it does, what doesn't exist is a country wide government, instead it's done on a clan level in most areas but more centralised in Puntland

what has that got to do with anything? it is nothing like libertarianism

HavingCrack

RockinRolla wrote: »

Contrary to mainstream belief, Anarchy per se is not total chaos. I, for example, am a Libertarian Anarchist. Which means that I totally agree that armies, police services and courts can all be provided by the market for cheaper and with a better quality service. In fact, there are no legitimate functions of the State. Anarchy is highly organised - it is governed by the rule of law i.e - property rights.

.

To be honest I would disagree that what you're calling is really anarchy as I would understand it. It sounds much closer to anarcho-capitalism which most classical anarchists would not consider anarchism at all. The idea of property rights would be anathema to most classical anarchists.

Under true anarchism nobody really 'owns' anything, at least not in the way that we currently understand it.

Have a look at the anarchist communities that existed in Catalonia and Aragon during the Spanish Civil War or the Shinmin area of Korea or the Cristina area of Copenhagen to see what I would consider real anarchism.

Referring to anarcho capitalism as anarchism is a tad disingeneous I feel.

Amhran Nua

RockinRolla wrote: »

Government intervention destroys economies - look at ours. Bank guarantees ect

Hold on there a minute. It was the government not intervening that caused this mess in the first place by letting the banks go mad, flying in the face of proper regulation. Not just here but in the US. Regulatory capture it's called.

RockinRolla wrote: »

Governments are dangerous. A hazard to your life and your prosperity.

There is this persistent idea among libertarians that governments are some kind of aliens from mars ruling the humans with an iron fist. They aren't, due to the wonders of democracy people voted them in. If you reckon your way of doing things is better, make your case and run for election. And look, then you have your very own government to do with what you will!

Seriously I think both the libertarians and socialists need to grow up and stop acting like little children watching a cartoon, the world isn't black and white, you need a bit from all sides.

Amhran Nua

RockinRolla wrote: »

In fact, a hired military is very feasible if the proper amount of pay is available and offered.

Oh hai, the rest of the world learned the lesson about not using mercenaries during the hundred years war many centuries ago. Keep up!

HavingCrack

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Hold on there a minute. It was the government not intervening that caused this mess in the first place by letting the banks go mad, flying in the face of proper regulation. Not just here but in the US. Regulatory capture it's called.


.

This belief is understandable but incorrect. Firstly, a bank is a private business. If a private business collapses, under the rules of capitalism it has failed and should be allowed to do so without outside intervention. the intervention of the government to keep afloat a failed business is inherently anti-capitalism and is state intervention.

Now, one could argue that a business such as the banks that have such a large grasp on the economy de facto interfere with the lives of everybody whether we want them to or not, thereby violating the basic tenants of libertarianism. To be honest, I do not know if there is a solution to this.

Fukuyama

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

No horse, I wouldn't.

Why?


Because you will get wasters , who will ride the system up to the root in the hole.

Because you will get idiots who think they can exist on their own , on a fucking windswept rock in the North Atlantic, but who in reality only want others to support their 'alternative' lifestyle.


Recognise anyone in there buddy?:rolleyes:

Is there really a need to resort to insulting me on a personal level?

How am I an idiot?

Because I created a fun little thread a while back?

I honestly think you'd thrive and love a libertarian society. That way, you wouldn't have to look after dole spongers, people who are addicted to drugs and commit crimes, don't have a job and suck the life out of the health system. Or are you just happy being miserable?

dlofnep

Libertarianism doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. It is essentially an economic and social model built from the selfish gene. It has very little regard for the welfare of others. Libertarians oppose social welfare, and healthcare. In a Libertarian state, the most vulnerable in society would be eating out of soup kitchens or dumpsters and sleeping on the streets.

Libertarians are hypocrites too. Any Government intervention that will benefit them, they are all for it. If it benefits anyone else however, the oppose it with contempt.

Libertarians are greedy, and not the type of people I would want to call a friend.

Amhran Nua

HavingCrack wrote: »

This belief is understandable but incorrect. Firstly, a bank is a private business.

The belief that the government should have restrained the banks and failed to do so is not incorrect, and can be traced directly back to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in the US.

HavingCrack wrote: »

Now, one could argue that a business such as the banks that have such a large grasp on the economy de facto interfere with the lives of everybody whether we want them to or not, thereby violating the basic tenants of libertarianism. To be honest, I do not know if there is a solution to this.

I agree that the banks have an inordinate amount of power over the lives of citizens without anyone ever having voted for them. Happily there is a practical alternative, two in fact, which are already in operation on a small scale, you can find them here. And I would strongly urge everyone who has a problem with the banks to read that thread top to bottom.

PeakOutput

HavingCrack wrote: »

This belief is understandable but incorrect. Firstly, a bank is a private business. If a private business collapses, under the rules of capitalism it has failed and should be allowed to do so without outside intervention. the intervention of the government to keep afloat a failed business is inherently anti-capitalism and is state intervention.

this is true HOWEVER lack of proper regulation was the root cause of the problem that resulted in a bailout happening

Fukuyama

dlofnep wrote: »

Libertarianism doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. It is essentially an economic and social model built from the selfish gene. It has very little regard for the welfare of others. Libertarians oppose social welfare, and healthcare. In a Libertarian state, the most vulnerable in society would be eating out of soup kitchens or dumpsters and sleeping on the streets.

Libertarians are hypocrites too. Any Government intervention that will benefit them, they are all for it. If it benefits anyone else however, the oppose it with contempt.

Libertarians are greedy, and not the type of people I would want to call a friend.

I really don't see this to be the case.

Libertarianism still has minimal state aid and support. I just think that a regulated yet privatised education system across the board (not just expensive elitist schools like now) would offer more bang for you buck. Same goes for healthcare. Privatisation creates competition. Look at public healthcare now, old men and women lying on trollies for days on end in crowded corridors. Waiting lists the size of the N7. Could it get any worse? Also, welfare would be stricter but fairer. Not this lark of people being on the dole since 2002!

I'm not selfish. I just don't like the 'Nanny State' way of things. Why is it that addicts, people who smoke themselves into a hospital bed and criminals are all looked after handsomely with my tax money? Meanwhile, I stand in the pissing rain waiting for a bus to work?

dlofnep

Dean0088 wrote: »

I really don't see this to be the case.

Libertarianism still has minimal state aid and support. I just think that a regulated yet privatised education system across the board (not just expensive elitist schools like now) would offer more bang for you buck. Same goes for healthcare. Privatisation creates competition. Look at public healthcare now, old men and women lying on trollies for days on end in crowded corridors. Waiting lists the size of the N7. Could it get any worse? Also, welfare would be stricter but fairer. Not this lark of people being on the dole since 2002!

And what happens to those that cannot afford healthcare in your Libertarian utopia? Enlighten me.

Dean0088 wrote: »

I'm not selfish. I just don't like the 'Nanny State' way of things. Why is it that addicts, people who smoke themselves into a hospital bed and criminals are all looked after handsomely with my tax money? Meanwhile, I stand in the pissing rain waiting for a bus to work?

Ah yes, painting the worst case scenario - a common Libertarian tactic. What about the thousands of genuine people who need free healthcare, because they simply cannot afford private healthcare?

You either believe healthcare is a right, or you don't. But stop pussyfooting around and let us know what your stance is.

PeakOutput

dlofnep wrote: »

And what happens to those that cannot afford healthcare in your Libertarian utopia? Enlighten me.

AGAIN, libertarianism is not an economic philosophy it is a social one. The market and what is or isnt paid for by the goverment does not come into it

Fukuyama

Aurum wrote: »

I really wish people would stop calling for a new Constitution when they clearly haven't got a clue about the provisions of the current Constitution.

Well clearly a chance in the political system would need a new constitution. I guess you could just edit the existing one extensively, but that'd be time wasting. I'd rather start afresh and get rid of all religion and sexual bias from the current one while we're at it.

Capt'n Midnight

RockinRolla wrote: »

However, I've been convinced that private enterprise in the Free market can provide all of these things at a better quality and cheaper price to the consumer.

at one time the ESB were the third cheapest provider of electricity in the EU, before they were tweaked for privitisation.

In fact, a hired military is very feasible if the proper amount of pay is available and offered. This can be done in the Free Market. The market will dictate the pay of these individuals. If the government does not pay them well, then there is no national defense - if the market dictates that these people will be paid €100/hour (purely example) then the army won't be able to handle the amount of applications.

A few problems there.

Mercenaries are not protected by the Geneva conventions.

Ignoring what's going on in Libya , ignore the distat past, lets look at recent western mercenaries. The private security companies in Iraq have more or less been given a get out of jail card. In Yugoslavia some British mercaneries were firing on amblances of the other side to stir up things.

Mercaneries have a vested interest in continued fighting, they have no incentive to behave in a civilised way being outside international law.

dlofnep

PeakOutput wrote: »

AGAIN, libertarianism is not an economic philosophy it is a social one. The market and what is or isnt paid for by the goverment does not come into it

Healthcare is a social issue. So I ask again, what happens to those that cannot afford healthcare in a Libertarian utopia?

Fukuyama

dlofnep wrote: »

And what happens to those that cannot afford healthcare in your Libertarian utopia? Enlighten me.



Ah yes, painting the worst case scenario - a common Libertarian tactic. What about the thousands of genuine people who need free healthcare, because they simply cannot afford private healthcare?

You either believe healthcare is a right, or you don't. But stop pussyfooting around and let us know what your stance is.

• Those who need healthcare will still have access to it. Pubic healthcare doesn't vanish under this system. It's not capitalism ffs.
• My main issue isn't with healthcare etc.. anyway. They can remain corrupt and useless if needs be. I'll have to use them at some stage so will have to bear the brunt like the rest. My main quip is being told that doing something that harms nobody else is illegal. Such as brewing putín, smoking a J etc.. Tell me how that right?

Fukuyama

dlofnep wrote: »

Healthcare is a social issue. So I ask again, what happens to those that cannot afford healthcare in a Libertarian utopia?

A medical card system. Like now.

Healthcare would be a social issue in a libertarian society...or 'utopia' as you choose to put it. As it stands, healthcare is very much so an economic issue. It's all about numbers. Not the pensioners lying on hospital trollies in disease ridden corridors..

dlofnep

Dean0088 wrote: »

• Those who need healthcare will still have access to it. Pubic healthcare doesn't vanish under this system. It's not capitalism ffs.

Of course it vanishes, as you are required to pay tax to fund it. I've yet to meet a Libertarian that supports state-supported healthcare or welfare. So no, they will not have access to it. A common phrase is peddled 'Healthcare is not a right'.

Dean0088 wrote: »

• My main issue isn't with healthcare etc.. anyway. They can remain corrupt and useless if needs be. I'll have to use them at some stage so will have to bear the brunt like the rest. My main quip is being told that doing something that harms nobody else is illegal. Such as brewing putín, smoking a J etc.. Tell me how that right?

While I agree with you that Hash and brewing your own poitín should be legal - I don't agree that heroin should be legal. In a Libertarian utopia, it would be legal. Heroin addicts harm the society in which they live by stealing to feed their habit, and mugging people - therefore I would not support it's legality. That is why I support Government restrictions on drugs.

dlofnep

Dean0088 wrote: »

A medical card system. Like now.

Well, you're the first Libertarian that I have spoken to that supports socialised medicine.

HavingCrack

dlofnep wrote: »

While I agree with you that Hash and brewing your own poitín should be legal - I don't agree that heroin should be legal. In a Libertarian utopia, it would be legal. Heroin addicts harm the society in which they live by stealing to feed their habit, and mugging people - therefore I would not support it's legality. That is why I support Government restrictions on drugs.

To be honest, heroin, crack cocaine and crystal meth are the 3 drugs that I would keep illegal. Nobody uses these recreationally. However, the current war on drugs format isn't working for heroin. Look at the epidemic we have in Ireland at the minute.

HavingCrack

dlofnep wrote: »

Well, you're the first Libertarian that I have spoken to that supports socialised medicine.

It very much varies depending on your position on the libertarian spectrum. A left libertarian generally would support socialised medicine (to an extent) while a right libertarian most definately would not.

Unfortunately right libertarianism seems to have a lot more coverage than the left wing of the ideology.

TPD

rubensni wrote: »

Silly analogy as flying is discretionary, but putting out fires is everyone's business.

Simple question: Would you agree with the 'no pay = no spray' system being adopted by your local fire brigade, yes or no?

I'd rather the system weren't in place, but if my town's fire brigade closed and we were offered coverage from another department for a small fee, you'd be damn sure I'd pay it. The system may be wrong but the actions of the fire department weren't.

The people either get no coverage or coverage for a fee. If the fire brigade had let him pay after putting out the fire, nobody would pay until they had a fire. And with nobody paying, nobody would be covered by the fire brigade.

Fukuyama

dlofnep wrote: »

Of course it vanishes, as you are required to pay tax to fund it. I've yet to meet a Libertarian that supports state-supported healthcare or welfare. So no, they will not have access to it. A common phrase is peddled 'Healthcare is not a right'.



While I agree with you that Hash and brewing your own poitín should be legal - I don't agree that heroin should be legal. In a Libertarian utopia, it would be legal. Heroin addicts harm the society in which they live by stealing to feed their habit, and mugging people - therefore I would not support it's legality. That is why I support Government restrictions on drugs.

Okay okay, I'll concede that state welfare and healthcare may need looking at in terms of this system. But then, I'm not calling for full on libertarianism. Just basic 'stay the **** out of my life' laws when concerning the government.

Also, with heroine. Why NOT legalise it? Let's look at it on a prctical level.

Under prohibition: Junkies take it regardless of the laws and will do anything to get it - even KILL it's so addictive. Garda time is devoted to both combating the drug itself, and the associated crime.

Legalised: The drug could be controlled. Organised crime would stop in terms of drug warfare. Garda can tackle only the heroine addiction related crime (robbery, muggings etc) instead of combatting the drug (navy, army, air corps and garda operations) and the drug dealers (garda time).

If you can come up with a more reasonable solution then I'll take my hat off to you. If they made heroine legal tomorrow I know I'm not going to go out and shoot up. Yet if cannabis remains illegal, I've no bother funding organised crime to get it if the government are silly enough to force me down this route. I'd much prefer to stroll into a registered business, purchase my goods, contribute tax eurons, safe in the knowledge that everything is above board and I'm not harming anyone.

Amhran Nua

Dean0088 wrote: »

Yet if cannabis remains illegal, I've no bother funding organised crime to get it

Jesus, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

dlofnep wrote: »

Well, you're the first Libertarian that I have spoken to that supports socialised medicine.

I think many of these people describing themselves as libertarian here, are just socially liberal. Which I am as well, but I'd never describe myself as libertarian because I find libertarian economic policies as being wrong and damaging to society.

Incidentally there are some genuine libertarians on boards who oppose almost all forms of government intervention, and I'm wondering where they are at the moment, they'd bring some form of rational debate to this thread other than constant misinterpretation of what libertarian means.

PeakOutput

dlofnep wrote: »

Healthcare is a social issue. So I ask again, what happens to those that cannot afford healthcare in a Libertarian utopia?

they get it obviously

PeakOutput

dlofnep wrote: »

Well, you're the first Libertarian that I have spoken to that supports socialised medicine.

the whole thing about libertarian is you are allowed do things that dont harm anybody else. not providing health care to the vulnerable in society causes harm.

any opinions expressed after that are based on the right / left view of economics not a libertarian / authoritarian view of society

Pace2008

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I think many of these people describing themselves as libertarian here, are just socially liberal.

This.

If you don't know what libertarianism is and aren't arsed useing Google, think anarchy tweaked to suit rich people, which isn't quite accurate but is on the right track.

PeakOutput

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I think many of these people describing themselves as libertarian here, are just socially liberal. Which I am as well, but I'd never describe myself as libertarian because I find libertarian economic policies as being wrong and damaging to society.

you are judging what libertarian is because the people that say they are libertarian in the united states also happen to be right wing the two things are mutually exclusive.

ghandi for example is a good example of someone whos economic views would be on the left but whos views of society would be in the libertarian area, friedman is a good example of someone who is economically right but also more liberal then authoritarian. stalin is obviously on the left economically and about as authoritarian as you can get wereas thatcher and hitler are on the right economically but also quite authoritarian

all the examples i have used can be found on the website political compass. org and there is also a lengthy test there that you can take that will tell you were you are both economically and socially

Fukuyama

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Jesus, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Why should I care if there's no other viable option. Governments fault. I'd gladly purchase from legit stores but there are none. So black market it is.

Complaints? Direct them towards the source of the problem - an Dáil Éireann.

PeakOutput

Pace2008 wrote: »

This.

If you don't know what libertarianism is and aren't arsed useing Google, think anarchy tweaked to suit rich people, which isn't quite accurate but is on the right track.

not really at all, I can believe completely that I should be free to do whatever I want with as little intervention from the state AS POSSIBLE (note not none), that makes me liberal, while still believing that we have a responsibility to help the vulnerable in society.

even if you stay with the traditional left right opinions any reasonable person can see that the answer lies vaguely in the middle. people who argue that the answer is extreme in one direction or the other are usually idiots imo

HavingCrack

PeakOutput wrote: »

all the examples i have used can be found on the website political compass. org and there is also a lengthy test there that you can take that will tell you were you are both economically and socially

That political compass does appear to be flawed however. Anyone I know who has taken it has been classed as a left libertarian. I just find it odd that everyone seems to get the same result but yet there is no mainstream left libertarian parties around.

PeakOutput

HavingCrack wrote: »

That political compass does appear to be flawed however. Anyone I know who has taken it has been classed as a left libertarian. I just find it odd that everyone seems to get the same result but yet there is no mainstream left libertarian parties around.

Well I got right in the middle of both right and liberal.

I would imagine that the currently polarised view of political opinion plays a large part in people assuming there is no room for change. I also think libertarian ideals would have to be written into the constitution for them to actually work because unless the goverment is literally physically prevented from taking control of certain areas I think any goverment will inevitably try to slowly increase their control and influence.

K-9

PeakOutput wrote: »

Libertarianism has nothing to do with economics and the market why is that so difficult for people to understand? It is very clear that peoples views of libertarians are skewed because of who gets called one in the united states. The political compass goes 4 ways not two

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

Being far left and authoritarian leads to communism and being far right and authoritarian leads to fascism. as far as i know there has been no really libertarian modern society so we dont know what either left or right leads to when coupled with it




what has that got to do with anything? it is nothing like libertarianism

Depends on which libertarian it is tbh. There seems to be a huge faith in the market and private sector and as little Government intervention as possible.

PeakOutput

K-9 wrote: »

Depends on which libertarian it is tbh. There seems to be a huge faith in the market and private sector and as little Government intervention as possible.

yes i get that but that would make you a right leaning / extreme right libertarian I am just making the point that you can be a left leaning / extreme left libertarian as well

I do agree that pretty much all you see on tv from the states are right leaning ones, but thats cause the tea party has taken off in a big way.

I think socially very liberal and economically a bit more then moderately conservative is the way to go but thats just me

RockinRolla

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Hold on there a minute. It was the government not intervening that caused this mess in the first place by letting the banks go mad, flying in the face of proper regulation. Not just here but in the US. Regulatory capture it's called.


There is this persistent idea among libertarians that governments are some kind of aliens from mars ruling the humans with an iron fist. They aren't, due to the wonders of democracy people voted them in. If you reckon your way of doing things is better, make your case and run for election. And look, then you have your very own government to do with what you will!

Seriously I think both the libertarians and socialists need to grow up and stop acting like little children watching a cartoon, the world isn't black and white, you need a bit from all sides.

Far from the truth. I suspect you're not too familiar with economics. It was government interference in the economy that got us here, and continues with our "normalised" boom/bust cycle. There is no boom/bust cycle in the Free Market. It is government involvement in monetary policy that causes inflation with the printing of money. The boom/bust cycle is the direct consequence of the market trying to balance itself out after coercion.

And then we're fed absolute rubbish via a self-critical opinion that it was our fault or that we partied. The cheek and the absurdity of them. The State has been a vile nuisance for civilised men. As Mises once noted, "collectivism is a doctrine of war, intolerance and persecution, if any of the collectivist creeds should ever succeed in it's endeavors, all people but the great dictator would be deprived of their essential human quality. Luxury is the roadmarker of progress, in so far as they think consistently, moralists who condemn luxury must recommend the comparatively desire-less existence of the wild life roaming the woods as the ultimate ideal of civilised life". We didn't party - we played the hands that were given to us. Government borrowed on our behalf and now we're left to fit the bill. For what? A welfare system exceeding all logic and under-performing public services.

Inflationary results from a combination of fractional reserve banking, the government's grant of monopoly powers through a central bank (the U.S. Federal Reserve in the case of the U.S. or the ECB), and the central banks open market operations to manipulate bank reserves (e.g., monetising debt). How you could support a fiat currency is well beyond all intellectual and independent discourse. In a Capitalist society, the banks would have fallen and new ones would have replaced them. In fact, in a truly Libertarian framework, you or I could become bankers if we had sufficient gold in our vaults - enough to justify the printing of our own private currencies. Because isn't that what bankers around the globe strive for? A single currency where they hold monopoly privileges i.e - not required to be backed by gold.

I was particularly perplexed by your "wonders of democracy" comment. Is this the game we play where 51% of the population get to infringe their values on the other 49%? And yet, who is running this game? Established Statists all playing a cat and mouse game where their only goal is to get re-elected. The concept where government can only be government based on the consent of the governed? In this situation, government is sure to grow: they must buy votes by favoring some over others. In order to get votes and keep votes from one's competitors, one must please a majority of those who will vote by "serving" them (tariffs, redistribution, actualising their favorite programs, etc) and, since those cost money that the government does not itself generate, it must coerce money from other citizens. But this can't simply happen in one shot: it must continue because, as long as there are elections, there is competition to outdo who is trying to outdo you. People must be pleased and as old favors become habit, new favors must be promised. As long as you have the power to give to some with the wealth from others, you have the power to pick winners and losers, generally rather arbitrarily by imposing a favorite view of "fairness" onto everyone.

Lastly, your last paragraph - bit from all sides, a mixed economy. It doesn't exist. For as long as government interfere in the economy either through money or subsidising industry over others, the Free Market cannot exist. Therefore, a mixed economy does not exist. I thought Amhran Nua may have brought some common sense to the table. But your policies and views are inextricably and quite similarly comparative with the establishment - you will go far indeed.

philologos

No state in the world has complete libertarianism.

That would mean being able to do whatever you wanted, including murder, rape, steal, and so on. We place limits on what people can and cannot do, securing liberty to a certain degree where it is reasonable and where it does impose on other peoples liberty. That's why the State ultimately needs to exist.

RockinRolla

philologos wrote: »

No state in the world has complete libertarianism.

That would mean being able to do whatever you wanted, including murder, rape, steal, and so on. We place limits on what people can and cannot do, securing liberty to a certain degree where it is reasonable and where it does impose on other peoples liberty. That's why the State ultimately needs to exist.

You've no idea what Libertarianism is.

philologos

The OP mentioned "complete libetarianism" in the opening post. That has broader implications than just saying "libetarianism". Complete libetarianism = complete freedom to do whatever you want. We actually can't give complete freedom because it would mean people trampling on other peoples rights. Therefore the State imposes limits on our freedoms in order to ensure reasonable freedoms for others and vice versa.

A valid point pointing out a valid flaw in the OP's post.

RockinRolla

philologos wrote: »

The OP mentioned "complete libetarianism" in the opening post. That has broader implications than just saying "libetarianism". Complete libetarianism = complete freedom to do whatever you want. We actually can't give complete freedom because it would mean people trampling on other peoples rights. Therefore the State imposes limits on our freedoms in order to ensure reasonable freedoms for others and vice versa.

A valid point pointing out a valid flaw in the OP's post.

No state in the world is libertarian so I'm not quite sure what your "fully libertarian" comment is supposed to imply. The answer is in your question, no statists can be libertarian because libertarians support the rollback of the State. Also, "fully libertarian" does not mean murder and stealing are permitted - libertarianism is governed by the rule of law. If libertarianism is freedom, then no freedom exists in a society where one is permitted to steal from another or to murder one another.

I think you have a warped view of the topic.

celtictiger32

did he just say each state should decide whether children should have drugs, alcohol etc. :eek:

philologos

Read the title of the thread. How can one offer complete and utter freedom in a State?

Definition of "libetarianism" - 'An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention'

One could assume that "complete" given this definition would only mean no state intervention.