Support Complete Libertarianism in Ireland?

Capt'n Midnight

RockinRolla wrote: »

There is no boom/bust cycle in the Free Market.

Explain, using diagrams if necessary, the role of the Dutch government in Tulip Mania. Or the role of the UK government in the South Sea Islands.

Some famines are caused by wars others by totalitarian governments. As well as this the famines caused by hoarding that occured in places with liberal financial laws
Now can you please list the major famines that in true democracies.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

Amartya Sen holds the view that there was no overall shortage of rice in Bengal in 1943: availability was actually slightly higher than in 1941, when there was no famine.[12] It was partly this which conditioned the sluggish official response to the disaster, as there had been no serious crop failures and hence the famine was unexpected. Its root causes, Sen argues, lay in rumours of shortage which caused hoarding, and rapid price inflation caused by war-time demands which made rice stocks an excellent investment (prices had already doubled over the previous year). In Sen's interpretation, while landowning peasants who actually grew rice and those employed in defence-related industries in urban areas and at the docks saw their wages rise, this led to a disastrous shift in the exchange entitlements of groups such as landless labourers, fishermen, barbers, paddy huskers and other groups who found the real value of their wages had been slashed by two-thirds since 1940. Quite simply, although Bengal had enough rice and other grains to feed itself, millions of people were suddenly too poor to buy it.

Stuff like Libertarianism lead to 100,000,000 women not born / dying young
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Missing_women_of_Asia

Sen originally estimated that more than a 100 million women were "missing" (in the sense that their potential existence had been eliminated either through sex selective abortion, infanticide or inadequate nutrition during infancy).
...
According to Das Gupta's research done in Punjab in the 1980s, girls were not receiving inferior treatment if a girl was born as a first child in a given family, when the parents still had high hopes for obtaining a son later. Subsequent births of girls were however unwelcome, because each such birth diminished a chance of the family having a son. The more affluent and educated women would have fewer offspring, and therefore were under more acute pressure to produce a son as early as possible. As ultrasound imaging and other techniques increasingly allow early prediction of the child's sex, the more affluent families opt for an abortion, or if a girl is born, decrease her chance of survival by, for example, not providing sufficient medical care.

One reason for parents, even mothers, to avoid daughters is the traditional patriarchal culture in the countries where the elimination of females takes place. As parents grow older they can expect much more help and support from their independent sons, than from daughters, who after getting married become in a sense property of their husbands' families, and, even if educated and generating significant income, have limited ability to interact with their natal families. Women are also often practically unable to inherit real estate, so a mother-widow will lose her family's (in reality her late husband's) plot of land and become indigent if she had had only daughters. Poor rural families have meager resources to distribute among their children, which reduces the opportunity to discriminate against girls.

HavingCrack

philologos wrote: »

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.

I think the title is wrong or at the least misguided. What you're describing would be anarchism. As far as I know no 'true' libertarian advocates the complete dismantling of the state. If they do, they are anarchists of various shades, whether they self identify as such or not.

Now, classical anarchist theory holds that you can do whatever you like as long as it does not affect someone else (who has not consented to being affected) negatively. As such, murder, rape, assault etc, all harm others apart from oneself which makes having 'complete' freedom an oxymoron.

Certainly, a person has the power to do whatever they want in an anarchist society but by interfering with other people they are not anarchists.

Some "libertarians" (really anarchists) do indeed support the complete removal of the state but referring to themselves as libertarians in the modern era is a bit disingenous. Anarcho-Syndicalists and Anarcho-Capitalists (for examples) have referred to themselves as libertarians but it's really just muddying the waters.

I hope this makes sense .

philologos

"complete libertarianism" is anarchism effectively. Of course it makes sense

ascanbe

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.

In practice, it would mean that those who came to control the wealth and could fund their own private army/police-force could and would do whatever they want.
People who want a dose of true libertarianism could try living somewhere controlled by tribal-warlords and see how they get on.

DubTony

There's one problem with debating a libertarian society. We don't live in one. So imagine this scenario.

We live in a fully libertarian society. No interference in our lives from government. The role of police is simply to investigate crimes against people and property and to bring the suspects to the courts. The role of the courts is to try suspected criminals and to arbitrate contractual disagreements. There's likely an army to defend the country from invasion. And that's pretty much all government does. It could possibly be managed by a few hundred people in total.

So one day, some guy decides to run in the next national election and here's his platform.

I will give you free healthcare.
I will pay a benefit for every child in the country.
I will take responsibility for educating your children.
I will make it illegal to use mind altering drugs.

I could go on all day, but I'm sure you get the picture.

Until now, everybody has looked after themselves. They provided their own healthcare by buying insurance or paying for it as they use it. They educated their own children in a fee paying school or at home. Most people didn't feel the need to abuse mind altering drugs as they'd been educated enough to know that the long term effects could be harmful. Those who did use them were aware of the dangers so, in the main, stuck to the "light" stuff like booze and dope. Anyone who lost their job did their utmost to get a new one, lived off savings for a while and if the money ran out they turned to friends and family and any of the numerous charities that were created over time to help people in just that situation. People in general have taken personally responsibility for their lives because they've had to. There hasn't been a big all-caring government to look out for them.

So this guy comes along and offers everybody all this free stuff. What's your reaction? Seriously. You've lived in a society where you've looked out for yourself, more than likely been brought up to have a social conscience of some sort and so make donations to charities you feel are worthwhile. But most of all, almost every penny you earn is yours to do with as you please.

Does anyone see where I'm going here? How's this super-duper free for everyone politician going to do all this stuff and give us all this stuff for nothing.

"Well, I'm going to take some of your wages every week and month and give it away to people who I think deserve it more"

Does anyone really think this fellah would get elected?

philologos

DubTony - Wouldn't the police investigating crime not be considered state-interference? That's the logical conclusion of this "complete libertarianism"? The same is true for the courts.

ascanbe

DubTony, you have a point regarding the merit of debating certain tenets of libertarianism within the context of our current system.
However, your hypothetical scenario also presumes that this ideal true libertarian 'state', if made reality, would bear some resemblance to the state we live in today.
In my opinion, the way this scenario would play-out is that the fella who started talking about changing the 'system' would simply be shut-up/got rid of on the orders of whomever controlled the wealth and their own private army/police-force.
Same as what might happen under any other totalitarian regime.

PeakOutput

philologos wrote: »

DubTony - Wouldn't the police investigating crime not be considered state-interference? That's the logical conclusion of this "complete libertarianism"? The same is true for the courts.

no libertarianism does not mean do whatever the **** you want

PeakOutput

DubTony wrote: »

Does anyone see where I'm going here? How's this super-duper free for everyone politician going to do all this stuff and give us all this stuff for nothing.

"Well, I'm going to take some of your wages every week and month and give it away to people who I think deserve it more"

Does anyone really think this fellah would get elected?

Thats why I was saying you have to have these ideals written into the constitution and for that constitution to be upheld

philologos

PeakOutput wrote: »

no libertarianism does not mean do whatever the **** you want

Does the title say libertarianism or complete libertarianism? Is there a difference? I think so, read my previous posts to find out why.

DubTony

philologos wrote: »

DubTony - Wouldn't the police investigating crime not be considered state-interference? That's the logical conclusion of this "complete libertarianism"? The same is true for the courts.

philologos, I feel you don't have a real grasp of what libertarianism actually is. It's not about no state. It's about minimum action by the state. The government is there simply to provide the absolute necessities. Most libertarians are quite happy with a state provided police force and army, as long as the jobs of those entities are clearly defined. Army defends the country. Police investigate crime and bring suspects to court. Court tries suspects and arbitrates contractual disputes.

The "complete libertarianism" you speak of seems like something else to me. I think others here have called it anarchism. I know nothing about anarchism so really can't comment. But the generally accepted complete form of libertarianism is pretty much how I've described it.

ascanbe wrote: »

DubTony, you have a point regarding the merit of debating certain tenets of libertarianism within the context of our current system.
However, your hypothetical scenario also presumes that this ideal true libertarian 'state', if made reality, would bear some resemblance to the state we live in today.
In my opinion, the way this scenario would play-out is that the fella who started talking about changing the 'system' would simply be shut-up/got rid of on the orders of whomever controlled the wealth and their own private army/police-force.
Same as what might happen under any other totalitarian regime.

But the libertarian "regime" is the exact opposite of the totalitarian one. A totalitarian regime governs with the threat of force hanging over every citizen. It's authoritarian.

Personally I don't believe that a state like ours could ever be transformed into a libertarian one. If it were to happen it would take an immense amount of gradual very small changes in the way people think over several decades.

As for the guy with the his own police force? Well, that's a security company. They could liaise with police to bring suspects to court but the power would lie in the hands of the police.

And the fellah being "taken out"? That'd be murder and would be investigated by the police.

philologos

DubTony - Is there a difference between complete libertarianism and libertarianism?

If not why did the OP use the word complete? I didn't use complete first, read the actual thread title!

HavingCrack

philologos wrote: »

DubTony - Is there a difference between complete libertarianism and libertarianism?

If not why did the OP use the word complete? I didn't use complete first, read the actual thread title!

To be honest philologos I think you're reading too much into the thread title. When the OP refers to libertatarianism I think he means the commonly accepted definition of right wing libertarianism with property rights, a police force, judiciary and defence forces. I am a left-libertarian myself so I actually disagree with this being presented as the 'correct' or 'standard' form of libertarianism but for the sake of this thread I'll roll with it.

As I posted previously, what you're trying to describe is simply an anarchist society of sorts. However I think you're simply reading too much into the thread title. I doubt the OP was referring to anarchy. I imagine my definition is closer to what the OP meant.

philologos

Libertarianism is pretty difficult to define then. There are still limits its just that we have to determine what the limits should be to allow for the most liberty where it is rational to do so. Different people put the lines in different places in relation to family, family structures, sexual boundaries, substance abuse etc. So libertarianism actually is really subjective.

RockinRolla

philologos wrote: »

DubTony - Is there a difference between complete libertarianism and libertarianism?

If not why did the OP use the word complete? I didn't use complete first, read the actual thread title!

No, nobody can say they are half libertarian and half something else. Libertarianism is Libertarianism. The OP used the word loosely. Some parties may favour relaxed social policy but take a firm grip on the economy - Liberals. The others, may regard loose economics and strong social traditions as beneficial - Conservatives. But again, it depends what country you're in. Libertarianism comes from Liberal - the old liberals or classic liberals were in effect, Libertarians, but somewhere in the last 200 years, many Liberals have opted for State intervention.

Now, there are many kinds of Libertarians as a sub-group; as in left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, libertarian socialists (although I don't know how they came up with that one). And yet, "Complete Libertarianism" does not explain too much of the OP's values or principles so I would disregard it altogether and focus on the topic at hand. I'm an anarcho-capitalist - which means I've just gone one step further in dismantling the State.

ascanbe

My contention, DubTony, is that pure libertarianism in practice would result in a defacto totalitarian regime; or, at best, a 'state' controlled by a number of competing 'tribal-warlords'.

RockinRolla

ascanbe wrote: »

My contention, DubTony, is that pure libertarianism in practice would result in a defacto totalitarian regime; or, at best, a 'state' controlled by a number of competing 'tribal-warlords'.

What is the difference between that situation and now?

A 'state' controlled by a number of competing 'tribal-warlords' is the perfect definition of the world we live in right now. When people concentrate too much power in government hands, what you're really saying is "Here is all our weapons, now you promise you won't use it?"... It's ridiculous. Why give it to them in the first place.

If a scuffle or a fire fight broke out between competing police agencies in a society, what would be the outcome? They would be arrested and brought to justice. How can we, no matter how persistent one might be, justify the creation of WMD and Nuclear bombs that has the power to wipe our species from the face of the earth? And for what? "Our benefit"? They're not benefiting us. How can one honestly put forth a rigorous debate in defense of a gun vs. a nuclear bomb? Absurdity.

elefant

I've recently been thinking quite a lot about what I understand to be libertarianism. Prior to this I don't think I really had any sort of political stance as such because I just didn't have enough knowledge on the subject of politics. In studying recently for exams in law, however, I read a little bit of philosophy on liberal theory (Kant and Rawls mostly) and the small pieces I read really struck a chord with me. My grasp of libertarianism is not even in the same realm as some of the posters here it seems, but I've found this thread very interesting, and I'd like to study it in depth in the future if I get the chance.

Social liberalness, at my basic level, is appealing because I don't think the state should have any say in what I decide to do as long as I don't adversely affect others. As long as someone has reached an age where they are capable of taking a mature decision they should be allowed drink whenever they want, smoke whatever they like, marry whomever they choose etc. Criminalising or policing issues that don't infringe on anybody's basic rights just seems like an enormous waste of money to me.

I'll be keeping an eye on this thread in the hopes of expanding and/or refining my opinions!

Capt'n Midnight

DubTony wrote: »

Until now, everybody has looked after themselves. They provided their own healthcare by buying insurance or paying for it as they use it.

Have a look at statistics for health cover in Ireland there is a huge chunk of the population that have neither Medical card nor Private Health Cover, - what happens to them if they develop a long term ilness ??

Or the old Michael Moore quote that the most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is for medical bills for people who have health cover , but they just didn't have enough.

DubTony

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Have a look at statistics for health cover in Ireland there is a huge chunk of the population that have neither Medical card nor Private Health Cover, - what happens to them if they develop a long term ilness ??

Or the old Michael Moore quote that the most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is for medical bills for people who have health cover , but they just didn't have enough.

The scenario I pointed out obviously doesn't exist. The reason people here today don't have health cover is because they don't need it. As far as they're concerned, if they get sick the state will look after them That is, after all, the system we live in. So comparing this country today with what it would be like if we were Libertyland isn't comparing like with like. If we lived in a completely free society where the states only "job" was as I outlined above, almost everybody would have some sort of health insurance. Those who couldn't afford it would go to the numerous charities set up by benevolent people who saw that there was a need.

In a completely free society charities would set up their own hospitals, the myriad of insurance companies would bring extra benefits and competition in the market would push prices down while extending additional cover.

I'm inclined to take a lot of what Michael Moore says with a pinch of salt. (Are you surprised?;))

One of the issues America has with health care is the attitude of people. There's an element of "Well I'm paying for it, so I'll get what I can". Add to that the fear of litigation and some doctors won't let patients leave until they've had every possible test. All of this adds to the cost.

I recently watched a report (I can't find it online) that showed how one company had reduced health care costs massively with the help of employees. The employees shopped around for the best price they could get because they weren't insured by an insurance company. Their employer paid a percentage toward their healthcare and all the money was put in a fund. The employer insured employees for emergency hospital care and care for serious illness, but the basic stuff was looked after by the employees themselves. They had an incentive to get the best price as they were actually spending their own money.

Safeways have introduced a way to keep healthcare costs down by rewarding good behavioural choices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb3CelO_CNM

There are lots of answers. I think that a little out of the box thinking is all that's required.

RockinRolla

DubTony wrote: »

In a completely free society charities would set up their own hospitals, the myriad of insurance companies would bring extra benefits and competition in the market would push prices down while extending additional cover.

That's the fundamental problem opponents to the Free Market fail to grasp.

They only see the system we currently live under - that is to say, if there was no universal healthcare, who would provide for the poor? The answer is simple - independent private enterprise and charities. The latter is self explanatory but the former requires quite a bit of explanation. In a Libertarian society, no government issued licences would exist nor be required to practice medicine i.e - that is, support and care would come from those who understood the human anatomy and would flourish and those that didn't would be out of business in days.

Obviously, certificates for those that studied medicine and passed at a particular university would be more sought after and more expensive. Those that didn't would be cheap and affordable but the main issue here is that if a particular complaint was registered by a 'non university educated provider', the cure or specific treatment would be prescribed the same. This would drive down costs of medicine - the government interference keeps medicine high. Medicine is only affordable under capitalism and with the Free Market, everyone would have the opportunity to receive medical care. If you or I studied medicine but did not have the government issued licences, our business, even if for the poor would be driven down upon like a tonne of bricks by the government.

K-9

DubTony wrote: »

The scenario I pointed out obviously doesn't exist. The reason people here today don't have health cover is because they don't need it. As far as they're concerned, if they get sick the state will look after them That is, after all, the system we live in. So comparing this country today with what it would be like if we were Libertyland isn't comparing like with like. If we lived in a completely free society where the states only "job" was as I outlined above, almost everybody would have some sort of health insurance. Those who couldn't afford it would go to the numerous charities set up by benevolent people who saw that there was a need.

In a completely free society charities would set up their own hospitals, the myriad of insurance companies would bring extra benefits and competition in the market would push prices down while extending additional cover.

Ah, the market always is right. The problem is the market will have to deliver profits to shareholders and one of the priorities will be to cut costs and wages.

Companies atm are free to move to whatever country offers the lowest tax and cheapest wages.

The market doesn't always get it right as dot com and property bubbles show, many people follow the crowd and as already pointed out, tulip mania ensues.

Capt'n Midnight

DubTony wrote: »

The scenario I pointed out obviously doesn't exist. The reason people here today don't have health cover is because they don't need it. As far as they're concerned, if they get sick the state will look after them That is, after all, the system we live in. So comparing this country today with what it would be like if we were Libertyland isn't comparing like with like. If we lived in a completely free society where the states only "job" was as I outlined above, almost everybody would have some sort of health insurance. Those who couldn't afford it would go to the numerous charities set up by benevolent people who saw that there was a need.

In a completely free society charities would set up their own hospitals, the myriad of insurance companies would bring extra benefits and competition in the market would push prices down while extending additional cover.

You mean places like the US - very little public health care

or perhaps like in poorer countries where the poor die of easily preventable stuff

which reminds me - under libertarianism we'd still have diseases that could be easily eradicated, they have wiped out measles in the Americas, but here ONE doctor who falsified results for personal gain means it still hasn't been eradicated here :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:


Libertarianism is good for the rich / those who have the time and energy to shop around. one of the problems of the celtic tigre is that the rich got richer faster than the less well off. A rising tide lifts all boats so they say, but when some rise faster than others there can be problems for social cohesion. Social Coehesion BTW is another reason we have laws.

RockinRolla

K-9 wrote: »

Ah, the market always is right. The problem is the market will have to deliver profits to shareholders and one of the priorities will be to cut costs and wages.

Why are you concerned with other peoples wages? In a Free Market, they would at least have the opportunity to do good for themselves and their families as opposed to being bound by government regulation. And, people do have the option of saying "no".

Companies atm are free to move to whatever country offers the lowest tax and cheapest wages.

As should always be the case.

The market doesn't always get it right as dot com and property bubbles show, many people follow the crowd and as already pointed out, tulip mania ensues.

I fail to see how property bubbles and dot com have to do with the Free Market? Don't compare what we have now with Austrian economics. They are apples and oranges.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You mean places like the US - very little public health care

No, the U.S is not a great example of the Free Market - they abandoned those principles long ago.

or perhaps like in poorer countries where the poor die of easily preventable stuff

Where are these countries? Do they happen to be ruled by an evil totalitarian, ruthless dictator?

which reminds me - under libertarianism we'd still have diseases that could be easily eradicated, they have wiped out measles in the Americas, but here ONE doctor who falsified results for personal gain means it still hasn't been eradicated here :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

The Free Market or at least the "free-est" of markets at any time in history where it was let loose improved the living conditions of all those who lived under it's system. Britain would never have had the industrial revolution without it, and medicine advanced tenfold under it.

Libertarianism is good for the rich / those who have the time and energy to shop around. one of the problems of the celtic tigre is that the rich got richer faster than the less well off. A rising tide lifts all boats so they say, but when some rise faster than others there can be problems for social cohesion. Social Coehesion BTW is another reason we have laws.

Libertarianism is good for all - especially the disadvantaged. In the Free Market, there are no monopolies. Monopolies are maintained by governments. Licences and red tape restrict the poor from operating and earning a living not to mention the labour unions bringing in and lobbying for minimum wage laws that destroy the future prosperity of the poor.

See bold.

DubTony

I added this above, but I'll put it here as well, n case some of you missed it.

One of the issues America has with health care is the attitude of people. There's an element of "Well I'm paying for it, so I'll get what I can". Add to that the fear of litigation and some doctors won't let patients leave until they've had every possible test. All of this adds to the cost.

I recently watched a report (I can't find it online) that showed how one company had reduced health care costs massively with the help of employees. The employees shopped around for the best price they could get because they weren't insured by an insurance company. Their employer paid a percentage toward their healthcare and all the money was put in a fund. The employer insured employees for emergency hospital care and care for serious illness, but the basic stuff was looked after by the employees themselves. They had an incentive to get the best price as they were actually spending their own money.

Safeways have introduced a way to keep healthcare costs down by rewarding good behavioural choices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb3CelO_CNM

There are lots of answers. I think that a little out of the box thinking is all that's required.

DubTony

K-9 wrote: »

Ah, the market always is right. The problem is the market will have to deliver profits to shareholders and one of the priorities will be to cut costs and wages.

Companies atm are free to move to whatever country offers the lowest tax and cheapest wages.

The market doesn't always get it right as dot com and property bubbles show, many people follow the crowd and as already pointed out, tulip mania ensues.

K-9, the bubbles had little to do with free market economics. I can't speak about the dot com bubble but in general those types of booms and busts don't hit ordinary people as much as a housing bubble.

Our own madness was actually perpetrated by the government and reckless lenders. Section 23 here, section 27 there. Some people bought another investment property so that they could benefit from the tax break that was then applied to all their properties. If the ridiculous taxes hadn't been there in the first place, there's have been no need for tax breaks. The apartment block built over the Balally Luas station in Dundrum (2 minutes walk from the shopping centre) had a huge sign advertising for investors to take advantage of Section 23. This kept ordinary people out of the market. Why on earth did a location like that need a tax break to sell the units? IT DIDN'T !!!!

This is government interference at its worst.

HavingCrack

RockinRolla wrote: »

Libertarianism is good for all - especially the disadvantaged. In the Free Market, there are no monopolies. Monopolies are maintained by governments.

Mmmmm, I'm not too sure on this one. I simply find the right libertarian belief that no monopoly will form to be simply unbeliveable. Some markets are simply impossible for new firms to break into. Look at what happened to Go! when they started flying the Dublin to Edinburgh route. Ryanair (which until then didn't even fly the route) effectively bullied the company out of it by having lwoer prices. The moment Go! went under Ryanair jacked their prices to higher than what Go!'s had been in the first place.

I simply do not believe we wouldn't see this repeated on a much larger scale.

conscious

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??

Yes absolutely, libertianism is complete freedom! I don't do heroine or use prostitutes and I certainly don't need the government to tell me not to do these things!

K-9

DubTony wrote: »

K-9, the bubbles had little to do with free market economics. I can't speak about the dot com bubble but in general those types of booms and busts don't hit ordinary people as much as a housing bubble.

Our own madness was actually perpetrated by the government and reckless lenders. Section 23 here, section 27 there. Some people bought another investment property so that they could benefit from the tax break that was then applied to all their properties. If the ridiculous taxes hadn't been there in the first place, there's have been no need for tax breaks. The apartment block built over the Balally Luas station in Dundrum (2 minutes walk from the shopping centre) had a huge sign advertising for investors to take advantage of Section 23. This kept ordinary people out of the market. Why on earth did a location like that need a tax break to sell the units? IT DIDN'T !!!!

This is government interference at its worst.

Oh completely agree and I'd add Mortgage Interest relief for first time buyers, doubled in 06 when the market stagnated.

Maybe read up on the dot com bubble a bit more and see what you think of it. I don't think there were that many incentives from the Government side, just tulip mania.

Listen, you are a libertarian, it's an ideology, so I'm notgoing to waste my time spending hours debating with you in an "I'm right" debate. Any point I raise will be dismissed as that wasn't libertarianism, that wasn't the free market etc. etc.

As for the Industrial Revolution, yep. The problem is we are in an age of technological revolution that involves cutting jobs, costs and profit at all costs.

DubTony

HavingCrack wrote: »

Mmmmm, I'm not too sure on this one. I simply find the right libertarian belief that no monopoly will form to be simply unbeliveable. Some markets are simply impossible for new firms to break into. Look at what happened to Go! when they started flying the Dublin to Edinburgh route. Ryanair (which until then didn't even fly the route) effectively bullied the company out of it by having lwoer prices. The moment Go! went under Ryanair jacked their prices to higher than what Go!'s had been in the first place.

I simply do not believe we wouldn't see this repeated on a much larger scale.

A quick search on expedia shows that BMI, FLYBE and AER LINGUS all offer flights on that route. No monopoly there.

Most markets don't have huge barriers to entry. And history has shown that most monopolies get lazy and complacent, so there's always some up-start (eh ... start-up) ready to provide better service or price. But if a monopoly is doing a great job with good products and cheap prices, so what?

This video shows how freeing the market completely in Guatemala created a vibrant telecommunications business with little or no state interference.

http://reason.tv/video/show/the-guatemalan-telecommunicati

Someone mentioned in an earlier post (I think it was this thread) that the ESB used to be the 3rd cheapest electricity provider in Europe and that when the markets opened up they became the [not sure of the number] most expensive. Guess what? They weren't allowed reduce prices to ensure that the new entrants gained traction. More interference.

K-9 wrote:

Listen, you are a libertarian

:D:D It seems I am, but it looks like I'm not the completely selfish free market lunatic I thought I was.

Eric Cartman

Dean0088 wrote: »

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

Id fully agree with it and ron paul , the freedom to do whatever we want woth the wonderful economics of capitalism is perfect

blackbiro

If libertarians were pets...

General Zod

Dean0088 wrote: »

And how would libertarianism prevent that?

The core message is that you could do whatever you want so long as it's victimless.

Obviously, if it effected another it wouldn't be victimless and as such wouldn't be tolerated. To be honest, nothing sickens me more than new laws being passed that tell people what to do, how to act etc...

Take for example measures to tell people when and where they can drink. Or laws against loitering. Small little issues that have become big ones because pointless laws have intensified the problem.

Libertarianism can be summed up in 4 words "**** you, got mine".
It's main proponents are rich people who don't want to pay taxes and "freemen-on-the-land" reality avoiders who think that if the rich think libertarianism is a good thing then if they support it they'll be rich too.

It's nonsense and only wants to avoid having to pay thir share for social responsibility.

RockinRolla

General Zod wrote: »

Libertarianism can be summed up in 4 words "**** you, got mine".
It's main proponents are rich people who don't want to pay taxes and "freemen-on-the-land" reality avoiders who think that if the rich think libertarianism is a good thing then if they support it they'll be rich too.

It's nonsense and only wants to avoid having to pay thir share for social responsibility.

Ridiculous summary.

You know very little about the subject. You are happy to pay taxes to an entity that wastes money. It would be put to far greater use in the hands of the taxpayers to whom it actually belongs. And as for the poor, Libertarianism would benefit them more so than the wealthy. A poor man for example, comes up with the idea that he will buy a small 15 seat bus and charge each person 50 cent from O'Connell Street to their area of residence. Well, guess what will happen to him? He'd be put out of business by the government for not having a licence to complete this service. The government denies him a wage and denies us a cheap alternative to transport. They want us to use the CIE - government hate competition!

Or what about the minimum wage? A law that buries the poor. When the law says a business man cannot pay an employee below 7.65/hour, you're denying that employee to earn €106 extra a week than what he would be paid on welfare. No poor have lobbyed for minimum wage throughout history - only the bureaucratic labour unions who want to kill competition and keep their own wages high while isolating this entire category of people.

Look at taxi's in Dublin. Say it's €20 to go t the airport from O'Connell Street. Now, if a low income person decided to bring you to the airport for €10, they'd be brought to court for having no taxi licence. You're not up to date on the topic at all. Anyone, with a little research can understand that Libertarianism gives the disadvantaged the best opportunity to earn a living. It is completely anti-bureaucratic. But here's one final knock-out blow. The Free Market would allow the poor to eat fillet steak everyday.
How can this be? Well, it certainly wouldn't be Irish beef, but whats wrong with Brazilian beef? Nothing, I've tried it and it's delicious. But the European Union is a totalitarian establishment that dictates the movement of every tonne of beef. In a Free Market, there would be no tariffs, regulations, no bans on who we could trade with and for what prices.

Welcome to the bright side - I'd invite you to learn about Libertarianism before making such remarks. Who knows, maybe you too, can help fight the tyranny of government one day.

DubTony

@ RockinRolla Written with Passion. Your soap box awaits. I'm hearing rapturous applause coming from somewhere.

blackbiro

RockinRolla wrote: »

Or what about the minimum wage? A law that buries the poor. When the law says a business man cannot pay an employee below 7.65/hour, you're denying that employee to earn €106 extra a week than what he would be paid on welfare. No poor have lobbyed for minimum wage throughout history - only the bureaucratic labour unions who want to kill competition and keep their own wages high while isolating this entire category of people.

That may be true, but the absence of a minimum wage along with other libertarian policies may well bury them more. What happens when a low-skilled worker is faced with the choice of doing back-breaking labour for €2/hour or not being able to feed their family?

While lower tax and less regulation may nominally result in increased 'freedom', a situation could well develop where only those with resources and relevant skills at their disposal benefit from it. While government intervention is often inefficient and skewed by the desires of sectional interest groups such as unions, how would the free market do any better for people who have little to bargain with?

General Zod

RockinRolla wrote: »

Ridiculous summary.

You know very little about the subject.

not true.

You are happy to pay taxes to an entity that wastes money.

But I get a chance to vote on wether that entity continues to spend our, not my, money, or to elect someone else who promises to do something different.

It would be put to far greater use in the hands of the taxpayers to whom it actually belongs.

Taxes are the price of living in society. Health care, security, infrastructure, here's three areas that benefit from government involvement that benefit all of society that would suffer under libertarianism.

And as for the poor, Libertarianism would benefit them more so than the wealthy. A poor man for example, comes up with the idea that he will buy a small 15 seat bus and charge each person 50 cent from O'Connell Street to their area of residence.

Where will he get the money? what terms will he have to pay the money back under? Without government regulation what is to stop private institutions like banks from acting like loan sharks?

Well, guess what will happen to him? He'd be put out of business by the government for not having a licence to complete this service.
The government denies him a wage and denies us a cheap alternative to transport.
They want us to use the CIE - government hate competition!

So I'm imagining bus services like Aircoach or any of the private bus/coach services which operate in Ireland at the moment?

Public transport is massively subsidised by Government. This ensures a higher level of service to the population. If left entirely in private hands only profitable routes would survive and rural transport would be obliterated.

also, I'd rather have government regulation ensuring a high standard of safety from transport operators instead of any Joe Soap with a van in unregulated transport.

Or what about the minimum wage? A law that buries the poor. When the law says a business man cannot pay an employee below 7.65/hour, you're denying that employee to earn €106 extra a week than what he would be paid on welfare.

What's to stop private enterprise paying less than that if they could get away with it? They are hardley going to cut into their bottom line just becasue there is no minimum wage. People need jobs just that little bit more than businesses need staff, and without a minimum wage Private Enterprise would exploit that to it's fullest.

No poor have lobbyed for minimum wage throughout history - only the bureaucratic labour unions who want to kill competition and keep their own wages high while isolating this entire category of people.

Blatantly untrue, and quite frankly unprovable under your conditions. as soon as "the poor" get organised they become a labour union that you will dismiss.

Look at taxi's in Dublin. Say it's €20 to go t the airport from O'Connell Street. Now, if a low income person decided to bring you to the airport for €10, they'd be brought to court for having no taxi licence.

you keep making up these situations that are pretty ridiculous and only geared towards serving your point of view.

You're not up to date on the topic at all. Anyone, with a little research can understand that Libertarianism gives the disadvantaged the best opportunity to earn a living. It is completely anti-bureaucratic. But here's one final knock-out blow. The Free Market would allow the poor to eat fillet steak everyday.

And the local producers, as well as all who they currently employ would join the ranks of the poor and unemployed very quickly, or be forced to cut expenditure on things like wages for staff (making more poverty), feed for the animals (increasing likihood of cattle disease scares like BSE) or sanitation to compete with the brazilian beef importers.

But hey, when local industry is decimated for the benefit of the few, sure they can all buy busses and take turns driving each other around the town for 50c each.

Welcome to the bright side - I'd invite you to learn about Libertarianism before making such remarks. Who knows, maybe you too, can help fight the tyranny of government one day.

lol, tyranny of government.

I was right in my first assessment.

"**** you, got mine".

philologos

RockinRolla - What poor man can afford a bus? - What happens is that the poor are kept poor and the rich are kept rich. Opportunities are denied to people who can't even get themselves on to the ladder. No thanks. I'd prefer a social democracy alá Sweden with less income inequality and with more opportunity equality. Sometimes boundaries can help us run a fairer society for all.

RockinRolla

General Zod wrote: »

not true.

I'm afraid it is. Your uninformed replies to basic Libertarian principles is frighteningly ignorant to be passed, even by the most uneducated of opponents.

But I get a chance to vote on wether that entity continues to spend our, not my, money, or to elect someone else who promises to do something different.

You're even more delusional than I first thought. You have no choice - that's the sad fact of life. Everything is not all rosy in the garden. There is nothing more frustrating than having to go over the same basic ideas we understood to have been put to bed years ago. Where does your vote come from? The majority of the country with knowledge on economics were calling for the zombie banks to be put out of their own misery - yet this new government continues to prop them up with your money. How about you do us all a favour and go down to Dail Eireann, perhaps, if it's possible you could call Enda Kenny and arrange a meeting to make him aware that your personal viewpoint is not being met - I'm sure you won't get within ten miles of him or anyone else in power for that matter. As a citizen, your "choice" is an illusion. Yet, you continue to adhere to the fallacy that you have some kind of leash on government - wrong.

Government doesn't serve you, you serve them.
Your only choice is to pick a new master every 5 years.

Taxes are the price of living in society. Health care, security, infrastructure, here's three areas that benefit from government involvement that benefit all of society that would suffer under libertarianism.

Taxes are not a price of living in a society - that's completely ludicrous. The income tax was only brought in to fund wars. It was initiated as a temporary tax. Since the world wars, government have become so used to receiving it, they never repealed it, even in peace times. VAT and consumption tax are regressive taxes i.e - they hurt the poor more so than the rich. Who is likely to feel the pinch more from doing shopping at Tesco - a man that earns 200,000/year or the man that earns 50,000/year?

As far as healthcare is concerned, you must not have read through the thread as it was tackled several pages back. The HSE is a mess - and if you try to see past the institution, you'll find that healthcare would be far cheaper in a Free Market without government coercion. This is true because there would be no government issued licences to practice medicine and those that wanted to start hospitals for the poor e.g - charities or small private enterprise would be allowed to do so without government closing them down.

Security in the form of police, courts and army defense is supported by most Libertarians as a function of small government. I, an anarcho-capitalist believe that private police agencies, private courts i.e - ancient Ireland Brehon Law, and a hired military within the Free Market is a more beneficial option.

Infrastructure can be built and services ran better by private enterprise in the Free Market. Roads, Transport would be cheaper with better quality service to the consumer - there are plenty of private services available at the moment and almost everyone concedes that entrepreneurs can fill this. No government is needed whatsoever in infrastructure.

Where will he get the money? what terms will he have to pay the money back under? Without government regulation what is to stop private institutions like banks from acting like loan sharks?

If banks acted like loan sharks, they would be out of business in days. Every financial establishment has an economic incentive to deliver great service and at a cheaper price in order to defeat competitors. We are the benefactors, the consumers. In fact, what you're defending, the government, has brought us to our knees in the first place - they are the one's that secured and guaranteed the banks i.e - private firms at our expense. In a Libertarian society, the banks would have gone bust and new one's would have sprung up in their place. The banks, by extension have a motivation to remain within their limits and to act accordingly as they know government will never be there on hand to bail them out.

So I'm imagining bus services like Aircoach or any of the private bus/coach services which operate in Ireland at the moment?

Public transport is massively subsidised by Government. This ensures a higher level of service to the population. If left entirely in private hands only profitable routes would survive and rural transport would be obliterated.

also, I'd rather have government regulation ensuring a high standard of safety from transport operators instead of any Joe Soap with a van in unregulated transport.

Rural transport would not be obliterated. How did you come to this conclusion? If the big bus companies found no economic incentive to deliver services in rural Ireland, then others would be able to capitalise on this niche in the market - perhaps that Joe Soap who would provide a better quality service and a lower cost - earning himself a wage in the process. I also don't know where you got the idea that government provides a better quality of service - that's laughable - not even the government will debate that. But whats more is that your taxes is going into funding some service that you don't use nor never will use - is this equality? If so, then you've completely lost me and everyone else of independent thought.

What's to stop private enterprise paying less than that if they could get away with it? They are hardley going to cut into their bottom line just becasue there is no minimum wage. People need jobs just that little bit more than businesses need staff, and without a minimum wage Private Enterprise would exploit that to it's fullest.

How would private enterprise exploit the workers? People have the right to say "no", you're aware of that I suspect? Last year, the Competition Authority investigated a price fixing cartel involving a number of car dealers. Of course, price fixing is illegal in Ireland. Illegal, that is, unless the perpetrator of it is the State. For proof, look no further than the price of unskilled labour – the minimum wage rate. The end result of this law – a product of collusion between the Government and the Unions – is two-fold. Like any other collusive arrangement, the minimum wage leads to a long-term deterioration in the employment creation in the economy. Economists commonly link this to the deterioration in Irelands overall competitiveness. The fact that the minimum wage laws reduce overall country competitiveness in the sectors heavily reliant on unskilled and low-skilled labour is undeniable. Ireland no longer registers meaningful contributions to its economy from mobile low-wage sectors. Only those lower skills activities that are captive by their nature – such as local protection services – remain here.

In the long run, minimum wages also shifts resources within various sectors of economic activity. Data for Ireland clearly shows that since introduction of the minimum wage here, traditionally labour-intensive sectors have seen their labour share of productivity decline, while capital share of value added has expanded. In some, labour productivity actually fell in absolute terms. These are the sectors, including hotel and restaurant services, construction, traditional manufacturing sectors, retail services and real estate activities and other, where minimum wage covers a larger overall proportion of the workforce. In contrast, other labour-intensive sectors, where wage structure was not dependent on minimum wage constraints, such as modern manufacturing, financial and professional services and wholesale and logistics services, have registered an above-average increase in overall share of value added attributable to skills and labour inputs. This trend, present in the data since introduction of the minimum wage, was not there prior to 2000.

The minimum wage is a new law, and it is not a benevolent law to be frank. It's a bureaucratic evil sinister law that should be repealed.

you keep making up these situations that are pretty ridiculous and only geared towards serving your point of view.

These are everyday examples of situations for those that are unemployed. I'm sure you could come up with several other circumstances of your own where government laws, regulations and red-tape restrict people from earning a living. Come on, it's not that hard.

And the local producers, as well as all who they currently employ would join the ranks of the poor and unemployed very quickly, or be forced to cut expenditure on things like wages for staff (making more poverty), feed for the animals (increasing likihood of cattle disease scares like BSE) or sanitation to compete with the brazilian beef importers.

If the local producers cannot survive on their own, then they will go out of business just like any other business in a capitalist society. Are you a corporatist? Not even a socialist would provide such little information as to their argument. Government regulation is not needed to provide good services. In fact, the government regulate nothing - if the product is not up to the mark, then consumers will simply not purchase it and the business will go under. In other terms, the consumers, us, regulate the industries, not the government. If the Irish farmers provide a good product without subsidies, then their beef will be bought up and they'll succeed. If not and they continue to charge a high price, they'll go under and we will eat other beef from different countries that are willing to provide a good product at a great price.

Welcome to economics 101.

But hey, when local industry is decimated for the benefit of the few, sure they can all buy busses and take turns driving each other around the town for 50c each.

For the benefit of the few? It is the benefit of the few that we have these laws and regulations right now. You think we government are benefiting the masses? Try again. By subsidising farms to under produce to keep prices high or to over produce to keep prices low, you are benefiting the few. By having no subsidies, the crooks who decide to continue their extortion will be out of business in days. Either that or lower their prices to become competitive in the Free Market.

lol, tyranny of government.

I was right in my first assessment.

"**** you, got mine".

Quite the opposite - you're wrong in your assessment. I feel very passionate about the subject and have had enough interest to read literally hundreds of books about Libertarianism over the years. I always take great interest in having debates with others about the issue and I welcome having a discussion with you. I'm don't subscribe to any blind illusions, but I have studied the approaches to the problems we face in society today and all of them can be eradicated with simple solutions to our complex social and economical situations.

RockinRolla

philologos wrote: »

RockinRolla - What poor man can afford a bus? - What happens is that the poor are kept poor and the rich are kept rich. Opportunities are denied to people who can't even get themselves on to the ladder. No thanks. I'd prefer a social democracy alá Sweden with less income inequality and with more opportunity equality. Sometimes boundaries can help us run a fairer society for all.

And that's your ideology, philologos. Mine is quite different - I'm a believer in Freedom.

General Zod

you saying something doesn't make it true. And because I disagree with your nonsense doesn't make me unaware of basic libertarian policy.

Brehon law, private funded military, Private entities funding hospitals for the poor...... you really haven't a clue, do you?

philologos

RockinRolla wrote: »

And that's your ideology, philologos. Mine is quite different - I'm a believer in Freedom.

If my economic "freedom" is the result of chaining someone else to poverty it doesn't seem very free does it?

I'd rather the Government do the right thing and ensure a basic standard of living for all in which everyone at the very least had a home and was able to feed themselves and their families, and indeed the opportunity to be educated and to work.

Claiming that this is merely my "ideology" is a rather brash way of dealing with such an important subject.

RockinRolla

General Zod wrote: »

you saying something doesn't make it true. And because I disagree with your nonsense doesn't make me unaware of basic libertarian policy.

Brehon law, private funded military, Private entities funding hospitals for the poor...... you really haven't a clue, do you?

I have taken the time to reply to your comment and concerns. I would at least expect you do the same to provide evidence of your genuine interest in finding answers to those questions. The reply you have written, consisting of two sentences does not warrant a reply at all but I'll play along....

Myself - by saying something, of course, doesn't make it true. But that extends to everything you are fed from government too. Or is government exempt from such discourse? What about the church then? Is everything those that attend Sunday Service fed make that true as well? The world is full of gray area's. It's a matter of shifting through it to find solutions to our problems and I happened to be interested enough to research those issues and to the solutions to those problems. You have provided your opinion, and I have provided mine. The difference is, I know all about corporatism, socialism, communism, conservatism, liberalism or any other kind of -ism's you care to mention. I would expect you to learn about Libertarianism too as to provide some weight to your arguments. I am not saying I have the best solutions - but what I am doing is listing the clear and obvious facts of those problems. But don't take my word for it, do some research yourself and come to your own conclusions. If you're not bothered, then you really shouldn't be posting in this thread.

Your comment "You really haven't a clue, do you?" is distasteful and quite ignorant on your part - Particularly since Brehon Law was the system of justice in your own country. No government was involved whatsoever. Now, here is the time where I explain two distinct differences between my opinion and Libertarianism. As an anarcho-capitalist, I sincerely believe government need not be involved in the justice system or the law to maintain a peaceful society. However, Libertarians believe that the small government they advocate should provide public courts and police - either way, you're displaying your ignorance about the subject and even more tiring, you are completely oblivious to it.

Military, another Libertarian government function can be, I believe, provided within the Free Market, providing the pay is up to standard.

Lastly, private enterprise can treat the poor in an affordable way to them within the Free Market. If government stayed out of medicine, several charitable and cheap hospitals would spring up almost overnight. It's the regulation that's keeping them from growing.

Next question...

philologos

RockinRolla wrote: »

Lastly, private enterprise can treat the poor in an affordable way to them within the Free Market. If government stayed out of medicine, several charitable and cheap hospitals would spring up almost overnight. It's the regulation that's keeping them from growing.

This idea sickens me.

It was the lack of regulation in the banking sector that led to the economic crisis we're currently in.

Businesses care about profit. They do not for the most part care about people. If it is not profitable to provide a service in a certain area they will cut it even if people in that area desperately need that service.

It is for this reason why essential services such as schools and hospitals should be public, at least for the most part. They are too important to be treated as the tools of profit.

Meh, and people claim that I'm right wing on boards :pac:

RockinRolla

philologos wrote: »

If my economic "freedom" is the result of chaining someone else to poverty it doesn't seem very free does it?

I'd rather the Government do the right thing and ensure a basic standard of living for all in which everyone at the very least had a home and was able to feed themselves and their families, and indeed the opportunity to be educated and to work.

Claiming that this is merely my "ideology" is a rather brash way of dealing with such an important subject.

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure you understand the word 'ideology'. Whatever you believe government should do or how they should act to the benefit of society is called your ideology. An ideology is a viewpoint. And I'm not quite sure I find the connection with economic freedom and poverty? In fact, it is exactly the opposite.

Your ideology is in line with the system we are are closer to now. Mine is different. I believe we should change the system because I truly believe it would be to the benefit of all of us. However, yours is unsustainable, you should know. Look at us now. The last time anyone could be genuinely optimistic about this system was over a century ago. It wasn't always like this, Keynes and the New Deal has since expanded and brought a new level of government involvement and coercion to our lives. Before that, Libertarians, or as they were known back then, Liberals, brought about the Industrial Revolution in Britain and improved the working and living conditions of people. That was economic freedom. Now, the E.U puts handcuffs on all members.

Lastly, not sure what you mean by "opportunity to be educated and work". It is exactly my ideology that grants you that freedom to be educated and to earn a living. However, that education won't come from any government bureaucratic institutions. It will come from entrepreneurs and schools that communities have voluntarily set-up. Employment opportunities will be tenfold as there will be no red-tape or hurdles to jump.

philologos

It's quite simple RockinRolla. If people don't have the opportunity to be educated, they more than likely won't have the opportunity to work. If they are not of a good background they are more likely to fail in education. As such the poor remain poor, the rich remain rich, justice isn't done. There is no freedom until you can ensure equality of opportunity, and you can't do that if you don't have equality of education and a base standard (housing, food, etc.) from which people can't fall below. Your ideology would mean that parents would have more money to get their children education in some areas rather than in others. Your ideology would also mean that rich people get to hospital first.

blackbiro

RockinRolla wrote: »

How would private enterprise exploit the workers? People have the right to say "no", you're aware of that I suspect?

They could of course say no, and in the absence of any social safety net their family would go hungry. In practice, this 'right' would only be available to those who can afford it making it more like a privilege.

RockinRolla wrote: »

And that's your ideology, philologos. Mine is quite different - I'm a believer in Freedom.

Freedom for those who cough up. As broken as our present political system is, I'm not convinced that a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist one would be an improvement.

mprgst78

General Zod wrote: »

Libertarianism can be summed up in 4 words "**** you, got mine".
It's main proponents are rich people who don't want to pay taxes and "freemen-on-the-land" reality avoiders who think that if the rich think libertarianism is a good thing then if they support it they'll be rich too.

It's nonsense and only wants to avoid having to pay thir share for social responsibility.

That's one of the most ignorant comments I've read. What are you basing this on?

philologos

RockinRolla wrote: »

Lastly, not sure what you mean by "opportunity to be educated and work". It is exactly my ideology that grants you that freedom to be educated and to earn a living. However, that education won't come from any government bureaucratic institutions. It will come from entrepreneurs and schools that communities have voluntarily set-up. Employment opportunities will be tenfold as there will be no red-tape or hurdles to jump.

And you think that these private education providers are going to be reasonably priced so that poor people can attend?

Education is something that the State should fund precisely because children from all backgrounds should be able to receive it. Educational equality wouldn't be achieved with a private system. Richer people would be able to pay more for better schools.

Computer Sci

I have two questions for libertarians,

(a) Who or what ensures that property contracts are enforced and adhered to?

(b) If we were to abolish society and government let’s say, how would one go about defending their private property? If we abolished the courts and police forces across the world, and the protection of property were left to privately armed militias – which is what some of the further out libertarians have been suggesting – then does the fact that a stronger force, or better armed group can rob your land, and claim it for themselves, as there is no law or government to stop them, justify their actions? In other words, “who are you to be making such a claim [to private property] when you cannot even defend it?”.

One of the greatest ironies of all is that libertarians in their stalwartly defence of not only unfettered capitalism, but private property as well, seem to forget that it is only with the backing of governmental recognition of private property contracts, and the legal manpower to enforce their property rights – that they have any property in the first place.

In the jungle, the stronger force wins – and the concept of property rights is irrelevant, regardless of what one’s ideology is. The more powerful group gain the upper hand through the lack of a government, or civilised society to stop them.

Libertarianism sounds great and utopian in theory, but reality mandates that humans are competitive and will attack and harm other groups whether for economic, survival or ideological purposes – and that it is often only with the presence of a government that creates an incentive to behave.