Support Complete Libertarianism in Ireland?

Capt'n Midnight

RockinRolla wrote: »

Ridiculous summary.
...
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.

on welfare...

so if no one pays PRSI etc.. where do the welfare payments come from ?

blackbiro

philologos wrote: »

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.

This is one area where I'd lean a little in RockinRolla's direction. The problems of providing education and making it accessible don't have to be handled by the same body (ie the state). Privatising schools and colleges would give students more choice and with it institutions that'd be run for their benefit rather than that of teachers' unions. This would probably mean changes like a payscale that goes up in accordance with good teaching rather than things like seniority or living in the Gaeltacht. Ensuring access to education would likely need state involvment though, and this would mean the cardinal sin of redistribution of wealth, probably by providing education vouchers to low-income households. Many libertarians would see measures like this as something temporary to ease the transition to the free-market utopia, I'd see them as permament - if a kid has to go without an education to ensure a well-off person's "freedom" then tough, they'll have to pay some tax.

There are other areas where the state's influence could be considerably lessened and still more which it has no business being involved in in the first place - using public money to run a horse breeding stud or to fund an art practice is madness for instance. I'd be in favour of cutting out a lot of fat, but I'd stop well short of this freedom at all costs mentality of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

philologos

blackbiro: If the state has to dive in with a voucher system it seems best that the State do it for pretty much the same reason that the State do health. Businesses care about profit, that's what they do. As such if it is not profitable to have a school in an area they won't and then kids will have to commute further to get to school. The State can run things at a loss it uses tax funds in order to determine this and the State has no motive of profit.

smokedeels

You need a goverment to enforce a few basic laws that stop people hurting others, the rest of it is your own business.

So yes I would, to a degree, I still think education should be free, I've yet to be swayed from that opinion.

General Zod

There have been several private hospitals started in the last 10 years.

Libertarians, if the "government regulations" are preventing "hospitals for the poor" from springing up overnight, why have they not prevented the existing private hospitals from starting up also?

At the moment, the Charity industry is the closest thing to Libertarianism in practise in Ireland. huge administration fees, swolen salaries, minimal government regulation, and the smallest amount actually going to where it is most needed.

This is Libertarianism in practise. Fill your pockets with as much as you can get away with.

**** you, got mine.

blackbiro

philologos wrote: »

blackbiro: If the state has to dive in with a voucher system it seems best that the State do it for pretty much the same reason that the State do health. Businesses care about profit, that's what they do. As such if it is not profitable to have a school in an area they won't and then kids will have to commute further to get to school. The State can run things at a loss it uses tax funds in order to determine this and the State has no motive of profit.

That's true, the ability to choose along with the benefits that brings would be a lot more pronounced in cities. However this could still be handled by the state providing a grant to isolated schools, which they'd have to re-apply for every year. If parents aren't happy with how the school is performing, then another company with a good record would be free to bid for the grant.

It's true that businesses care about profit, but so do unions! With a well implemented private model, the best way for an education company to make a profit is to cater to the students' needs. What tends to work for unions though is threats, go-slows and strikes.

Eric Cartman

General Zod wrote: »

**** you, got mine.

theres nothing wrong with that, Ireland has a sickness, a population of people who leave free education only to go straight onto free welfare and live in free houses , these people can be observed outside the pub at 10am on a monday or down the bookies at 3 in the afternoon, a bunch of lazy workshy people that nobody working in this country should have to bail out , I accept social welfare is necessary for our poor , but its necessary for the disabled and the people whove fallen on hard times inbetween jobs , its for surviving , not living , its not supposed to be a tool to enable layabouts, drug addicts, scroungers , gamblers and alcoholics to piss away all our tax money and making their areas worse as a whole.

free market economies open the door to people starting businesses and progressing themselves further to support themselves , Irelands current motto to school leavers is "try college, try get a job, if you fail f*ck it theres a load of money for free" , it should be "get a job or make a job for yourself or else"

Ron paus beliefs align with my own , there are very few things that should be illegal , things like drugs being illegal just restrict freedom, if somebody wants to kill themselves snorting coke thats none of my business.

Capt'n Midnight

blackbiro wrote: »

This is one area where I'd lean a little in RockinRolla's direction. The problems of providing education and making it accessible don't have to be handled by the same body (ie the state).

In Ireland the State doesn't build or operate schools.

In Ireland you have to build the primary or secondary school yourself, then when it is up and running, and only then can you ask the state for money to pay the teachers and some other expenses.


This is why most schools in Ireland are run by religious groups, they had the money to build them.

blackbiro

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In Ireland the State doesn't build or operate schools.

In Ireland you have to build the primary or secondary school yourself, then when it is up and running, and only then can you ask the state for money to pay the teachers and some other expenses.


This is why most schools in Ireland are run by religious groups, they had the money to build them.

True, but the money to run the school goes directly from the state to the school rather than through parents, which would give them greater choice.

simplistic2

But in a libertarian society what would happen is a meteor hit destroying half of the private police companies? And then as they are rebuilding they discover the meteor contains hatched dragon eggs?

The worst part about being a libertarian is that people treat you like a government - they expect you to know every solution to every possible problem, then after they find one hole they say " HA, since people won't subscibe to dragon insurance we need a government."

The government hasn't a clue what it is doing...it just wakes every now and again, plunders more citizens and goes back to partying. The citizens are mostly no differnt so I don't think we will see change in the next 100 years. How many libertarian organisations are there in Ireland? Two I see...

www.freedomireland.com and www.irishlibertyforum.org

... I love the passion here Chuck keep it coming!

InTheTrees

Computer Sci wrote: »

I have two questions for libertarians,

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

They believe in de-regulating firearms so contract "enforcement" would presumably be by threat of violence.

mprgst78

Libertarianism is not the same as anarcho-capitalism. I, as a Libertarian, recognise the importance of government for defence, the law and police as well as a small number of other functions. I do not believe in private armies (although I respect your right to fund and keep one). I do not believe in different varieties of law. I believe in one consistent law applicable to everyone.

RockinRolla

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

on welfare...

so if no one pays PRSI etc.. where do the welfare payments come from ?

They don't.

There is no welfare system or nanny-state in a Libertarian society. The welfare system funds peoples lifestyles. The unemployed are free to gamble, to drink and to consume drugs at the taxpayers expense. Throughout history where there was no available welfare system, communities have got together to support one another and show huge human compassion - America, even with their relatively small welfare system compared to ours, are the biggest contributors to charitable organisations, whom are better able to take care of the disadvantaged than the State. Look no further than the VDP in Ireland. The VDP receives less funding from individuals because there is a safety net in the form of a welfare system - and a glamorous one at that.

If there was no welfare state, the VDP could provide the disadvantaged in our society with Tesco vouchers for example to obtain the basic necessities and not to blow taxpayers money on wants ot luxuries in the form of cigarettes and alcohol. If people want those items, they are given an economic incentive to work to pay for their vices.

But what about a Libertarian welfare system? Well, if you look at the Mormons, they have great principles. One of them is to never accept state welfare or handouts. To get around this issue, they employ fellow Mormons on other members property, to do jobs and to help each other out in financial hardship. This group would be a good example of private welfare set-ups within the Libertarian Ireland.

dienbienphu

im up for legalising prostitution, abortion, drugs and 24 hour off licences. individuals should judge what is moraly right and wrong. but the notion of abolishing the police force is just plain dumb who ever thought up the idea. wheres the sense in that?

simplistic2

Computer Sci wrote: »

I have two questions for libertarians,

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

This is my favorite one. Do you not see? not even in the slightest? that the State, itself is the biggest violator of all property contracts? more than all the criminals in our entire prison system?

The fundamental, glaring, embarrasingly obvious contradiction at the heart of the state is that it violates everyones property in order to what? Protect everyones property? :D:D

The question of who will protect your property is irrelavent. First, you must allow people to protect their property! This is not even close to happening...when that happens individuals can get together and design systems that do the job.

Eric Cartman

dienbienphu wrote: »

im up for legalising prostitution, abortion, drugs and 24 hour off licences. individuals should judge what is moraly right and wrong. but the notion of abolishing the police force is just plain dumb who ever thought up the idea. wheres the sense in that?

most people here are not supporting that, primary education , the police, ambulance and fire brigade and the goverment could be funded by a lower tax rate easily. The money saved in paying tax could be used by the private individual to fund health insurance and secondary schools etc..

at the moment the goverment pays for things with your tax money because it doesnt trust people to spend their money correctly (set aside some for healthcare etc...) but nannying people doesnt solve anything

dienbienphu

Eric Cartman wrote: »

most people here are not supporting that, primary education , the police, ambulance and fire brigade and the goverment could be funded by a lower tax rate easily. The money saved in paying tax could be used by the private individual to fund health insurance and secondary schools etc..

at the moment the goverment pays for things with your tax money because it doesnt trust people to spend their money correctly (set aside some for healthcare etc...) but nannying people doesnt solve anything

but theres people advocating taking away social welfare. what good will that do? all a political party would have to do to get elected is promise to bring it back and bang there in. not to mention the political follow if it were taken away. people would be allowed starve without it. i dont buy this nannying concept. i think the systems we have in place are fine, of course they could do with updating like the welfare but we are all co dependent on one another one way or the other.

InTheTrees

simplistic2 wrote: »

This is my favorite one. Do you not see? not even in the slightest? that the State, itself is the biggest violator of all property contracts? more than all the criminals in our entire prison system?

The question of who will protect your property is irrelavent. First, you must allow people to protect their property! This is not even close to happening...when that happens individuals can get together and design systems that do the job.

This is the glaring weakness in libertarianism as far as I can see.

None of you people can answer a straight fcuking question.

philologos

Perhaps we need to differentiate between economic libertarianism (entirely free market which IMO is insane) and social libertarianism?

Eric Cartman

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps we need to differentiate between economic libertarianism (entirely free market which IMO is insane) and social libertarianism?

please explain why an entirely free market is insane ?

dienbienphu wrote:

but theres people advocating taking away social welfare. what good will that do? all a political party would have to do to get elected is promise to bring it back and bang there in. not to mention the political follow if it were taken away. people would be allowed starve without it. i dont buy this nannying concept. i think the systems we have in place are fine, of course they could do with updating like the welfare but we are all co dependent on one another one way or the other.

i think the people advocating taking away social welfare would be happier to advocate food stamps / Lasercard system , there is no reason for anyone on social welfare to have cash , with cash you can buy drugs, there is also no reason for anyone on social welfare to buy cars, go on holidays, smoke, drink, have sky tv or be down the pub , on social welfare you should spend your whole day trying to get off social welfare, if our welfare system was trimmed down just to keep the poor alive and not a way to get free money and piss about all day , im sure nobody would object to it

RockinRolla

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps we need to differentiate between economic libertarianism (entirely free market which IMO is insane) and social libertarianism?

Perhaps first, we can understand where we all are if you would describe why exactly you feel the Free Market as "insane".

blackbiro

RockinRolla wrote: »

If there was no welfare state, the VDP could provide the disadvantaged in our society with Tesco vouchers for example to obtain the basic necessities and not to blow taxpayers money on wants ot luxuries in the form of cigarettes and alcohol. If people want those items, they are given an economic incentive to work to pay for their vices.

In the Irish Libertarian State not only would you avoid paying for their vices, you'd get the added benefit of watching them starve. The VDP spent 66.6 million on its services in 2009. That'd work out at a very generous €157 per person on the Live Register that year.

DubTony

philologos wrote: »

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:

Regarding the banking problem. The current issue with the banks isn't that there was a lack of regulation. The banks went mad borrowing money on the overnight markets to give out in the form of 30 year loans. What kind of business model is that. They gave too much to individual borrowers in order to buy land and property and ignored the fact that their loan books were jammed with property loans to the point that they were relying on the sector to ensure profits. This is bad banking practice. That's just a couple of the mistakes.

The real issue is that our government gave the banks a blanket guarantee that covered every single mistake they'd made in the past. Any loan they still had outstanding was suddenly guaranteed by you and me. This took the banks debts and put it onto the people of the country.

Under a libertarian system, the banks wouldn't even have bothered making the phone call that night, or trudging up to Leinster House cap in hand because they would have known that even the porter would have laughed at them. They'd have gone to the wall, the receiver would have been called in, and banks all over the world would have lined up to buy their assets and loan books at knock down prices. The banks they'd owed money to would have suffered the loss piscking up (probably) 10% to 20% on the euro and that would have been that. Within a few days, foreign banks would have identified the gap in the market and opened up here and carried on.

philologos wrote: »

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.

Rich people already pay more for better schools. The problem we have here is that while the rich people pay for their kids to attend the school [building], you and I pay the wages of the teachers in those schools. In my ideology it wouldn't cost you a penny to end some other guys kid to school.

As for reasonably priced? Where there's a need the market will fill it. In an un regulated system where everybody paid, there'd be cheap schools and expensive schools. And people who couldn't afford to send their kids to any school would either teach their kids themselves, avail of the services of one of those charities I spoke of, or most likely, set up small local schools themselves with their friends and families and neighbours, hire a part-time teacher to develop a curriculum and teach the kids and do the rest of the work at home.

conscious

It's either complete libertarianism or unlimited paternalism! Ron Paul has it spot on when he says we don't need the government interfering in our lives.

Ron Paul in 2012, end the 'war on terror' and bring the troops home!

philologos

Indeed DubTony, I'm suggesting that our education should be good enough for all rather than just the wealthy. We have a lot of work to do clearly. Economic libertarianism isn't the right approach.

Suryavarman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDV0YII6lk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhgy0ymD-NI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64mr-cjxZfU

This series of videos gives a pretty good understanding of Libertarianism for anyone interested.

mprgst78

conscious wrote: »

It's either complete libertarianism or unlimited paternalism! Ron Paul has it spot on when he says we don't need the government interfering in our lives.

Ron Paul in 2012, end the 'war on terror' and bring the troops home!

Revolution 2012!

philologos

Eric Cartman wrote: »

please explain why an entirely free market is insane ?

The poor are condemned to remain poor, while the rich remain rich. It is only with a good public education system and with a robust enough social welfare system that we can ensure that people can at least afford to have a house, to feed their families, and to bring their children to school rather than starving in the streets.

Ultimately, the richer are going to get the jobs unless we level out the playing field somewhat.

There is no reason why anyone in 21st century Ireland should be living on the streets, and there is no reason why people of all backgrounds should be left behind where they can excel.

Economic libertarianism will make this much worse. A social democracy will make this better. (N.B by social democracy I do not mean socialist / communist state, I support business in a regulated market. I'm thinking something along the lines of Sweden which has the lowest income inequality in the world).

Buceph

Libertarianism is a load of bollocks. Its supporters are usually people who refuse to acknowledge their successes came from the very system they oppose. The only difference between anarchists and libertarianists is that the anarchists don't seem to be as selfish. Libertarians idea of freedom is simplistic at best. The "freedom to die" phrase is quite apt when it comes to them.

conscious

Buceph wrote: »

Libertarianism is a load of bollocks. Its supporters are usually people who refuse to acknowledge their successes came from the very system they oppose. The only difference between anarchists and libertarianists is that the anarchists don't seem to be as selfish. Libertarians idea of freedom is simplistic at best. The "freedom to die" phrase is quite apt when it comes to them.

I don't see exactly what's wrong with being able to independently make your own decisions without being limited in choice set by the government! Anyone who argues against this must be a child or mentally disabled person who needs government to nanny them!

Eric Cartman

Suryavarman wrote: »

This series of videos gives a pretty good understanding of Libertarianism for anyone interested.

Milton friedman is a genius, theres a great video where he puts a hippy kid to shame in an interview

philologos wrote: »

The poor are condemned to remain poor, while the rich remain rich. It is only with a good public education system and with a robust enough social welfare system that we can ensure that people can at least afford to have a house, to feed their families, and to bring their children to school rather than starving in the streets.

Ultimately, the richer are going to get the jobs unless we level out the playing field somewhat.

There is no reason why anyone in 21st century Ireland should be living on the streets, and there is no reason why people of all backgrounds should be left behind where they can excel.

Economic libertarianism will make this much worse. A social democracy will make this better. (N.B by social democracy I do not mean socialist / communist state, I support business in a regulated market. I'm thinking something along the lines of Sweden which has the lowest income inequality in the world).

Thats not what would happen, if you reduced social welfare to the bare minimum to survive, youd soon find more people first of all being financially responsible in how many children they have , secondly youd have people working a lot harder to stay off welfare, a libretarian system encourages education as a way up and for people to take that necessity, the socialist welfare system offers education as an option for the few who arent happy with the soft landing cradle of the dole. If you took away the cushy drink all day and take drugs level of welfare youd soon find a bunch of people doing training, teaching themselves in libraries, work shadowing and getting jobs to develop skills and get a better life , primary education should still be free and secondary education should have options like it does now , the playing field might not be level but you can achieve anythign if you really want to , and if just surviving on welfare is the only other option people would try a lot harder

philologos

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thats not what would happen, if you reduced social welfare to the bare minimum to survive, youd soon find more people first of all being financially responsible in how many children they have , secondly youd have people working a lot harder to stay off welfare, a libretarian system encourages education as a way up and for people to take that necessity, the socialist welfare system offers education as an option for the few who arent happy with the soft landing cradle of the dole. If you took away the cushy drink all day and take drugs level of welfare youd soon find a bunch of people doing training, teaching themselves in libraries, work shadowing and getting jobs to develop skills and get a better life , primary education should still be free and secondary education should have options like it does now , the playing field might not be level but you can achieve anythign if you really want to , and if just surviving on welfare is the only other option people would try a lot harder

By what I am saying with social welfare, I mean enough so that one doesn't have to live on the streets, but little enough so that people would aspire to work. Ensuring that there is a line that nobody can fall below.

A libertarian society (economically) says that people must pay for their education. Those who can pay excel, those who can't are condemned to poverty. That's wrong and it should be challenged.

As for privatising all hospitals, that's just plain idiotic.

Buceph

conscious wrote: »

I don't see exactly what's wrong with being able to independently make your own decisions without being limited in choice set by the government! Anyone who argues against this must be a child or mentally disabled person who needs government to nanny them!

You see it as other people forcing you to do things. I call it a society. Something we have agreed is for the good of us all, and not something purely selfish. Libertarians are selfish, nothing more and nothing less.

DubTony

Computer Sci wrote: »

I have two questions for libertarians,

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

Courts - in a libertarian system as opposed to RockinRollas anarcho-capitalist system thee is still a government which funds the courts.

(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.

Again, most libertarians don't take the ideal as far as RockinRolla does. And property rights are one of the bedrocks.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

on welfare...

so if no one pays PRSI etc.. where do the welfare payments come from ?

I've seen RockinRollas reply to this. And I agree. But there's also the option of insurance. Pay Related Private Insurance would be offered by insurance companies. I touched on tis in an earlier post.

philologos wrote: »

blackbiro: If the state has to dive in with a voucher system it seems best that the State do it for pretty much the same reason that the State do health. Businesses care about profit, that's what they do. As such if it is not profitable to have a school in an area they won't and then kids will have to commute further to get to school. The State can run things at a loss it uses tax funds in order to determine this and the State has no motive of profit.

The problems that we face today are because the state runs everything at a loss and borrows indefinitely to keep spending plans going.

General Zod wrote: »

There have been several private hospitals started in the last 10 years.

Libertarians, if the "government regulations" are preventing "hospitals for the poor" from springing up overnight, why have they not prevented the existing private hospitals from starting up also?

At the moment, the Charity industry is the closest thing to Libertarianism in practise in Ireland. huge administration fees, swolen salaries, minimal government regulation, and the smallest amount actually going to where it is most needed.

This is Libertarianism in practise. Fill your pockets with as much as you can get away with.

**** you, got mine.

IN the ideal world, charities would be seen for what they are. Good charities and bad charities. The bad charities (the ones that lined their own pockets would be exposed and ignored y the public. No more money and they're gone. Remember that without the protection of the state, the thinking of the citizens would be a lot different. People wouldn't take tv ads at face value (Biffidus nonsense anyone?) (serious BBC link here). They'd be more inclined to cast an objective eye on things on a daily basis instead of the spoon feeding of crap we witness today.

As for the hospital question? Cross my palm with silver and you can put your hospital anywhere ... OR ... I need more votes - here take a chunk of land beside the hospital in a busy and as good as inaccessible part of the city and build your hospital there. Sure a little bit of corruption doesn't cost anyone anything. West Link Bridge FTW

philologos

^^ Because of a lack of regulation in the banking sector, but don't let that get in the way.

Eric Cartman

philologos wrote: »

By what I am saying with social welfare, I mean enough so that one doesn't have to live on the streets, but little enough so that people would aspire to work. Ensuring that there is a line that nobody can fall below.

A libertarian society (economically) says that people must pay for their education. Those who can pay excel, those who can't are condemned to poverty. That's wrong and it should be challenged.

As for privatising all hospitals, that's just plain idiotic.

I get what your saying, i wouldnt entirely agree with removing social welfare and there is a line nobody can go below, but that line is far below the current one we have in Ireland. Education should be free to a certain point , I think the state doling out money for teachers etc.. creates an air of laziness in schools, if for instance schools charged and the money was re-bated to parents when children passed into the next year you would create a system where schools are competing for students (better facilities and teachers win out) and both the school and the parents have a huge emphasis on having the child get a good education , there would still therefore be a facility that low income earners could send their children to school, but unlike now where the parents dont care, there would be a heavy emphasis on both sides for children from low income backgrounds to do well in schools (as the parents cant afford to lose the money) which works better for everyone

DubTony

Buceph wrote: »

Libertarianism is a load of bollocks. Its supporters are usually people who refuse to acknowledge their successes came from the very system they oppose. The only difference between anarchists and libertarianists is that the anarchists don't seem to be as selfish. Libertarians idea of freedom is simplistic at best. The "freedom to die" phrase is quite apt when it comes to them.

Why don't you try contribute something constructive? This may be in After Hours but the thread has gone way past the usual silliness that happens on the forum.

conscious

Buceph wrote: »

You see it as other people forcing you to do things. I call it a society. Something we have agreed is for the good of us all, and not something purely selfish. Libertarians are selfish, nothing more and nothing less.

I don't see it as people forcing me to do things, I see it as the government preventing me from doing things that would not harm anybody!

RockinRolla

philologos wrote: »

Indeed DubTony, I'm suggesting that our education should be good enough for all rather than just the wealthy. We have a lot of work to do clearly. Economic libertarianism isn't the right approach.

So you're advocating government interference in the economy? You think government are benevolent? Think again. Watch this video about the governments role in the economy and your life. I'm sure you'll be absolutely frothing at the mouth when you're finished. Governments are evil but they only exist so long as we obey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy4oEDHCTXs

And here is a video about the Free Market which you have described as insane. Look no further than Hong Kong - no building you see had any government hand in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqh0zXSd4vc

DubTony

philologos wrote: »

^^ Because of a lack of regulation in the banking sector, but don't let that get in the way.

How many times will this need to be said before you catch on? The absence of regulation was not the problem. You're falling into the trap of believing what you read in the paper and see on TV. Bankers know that if they gamble away all the money, they'll get propped up by their friends in government. That's what the problem is. They could take all the risks they wanted because they know they won't be allowed go out of business. AIB is a zombie. Bank of Ireland is hanging by the skin of it's teeth. And our taxes will be paying for them for years. If they'd been allowed collapse this country would have a public budget deficit and no more. We'd be well on the way to economic growth, if not already enjoying it.

blackbiro

Buceph wrote: »

You see it as other people forcing you to do things. I call it a society. Something we have agreed is for the good of us all, and not something purely selfish. Libertarians are selfish, nothing more and nothing less.

I think that's a little unfair. I wouldn't regard myself as a Libertarian, but a few I've talked to genuinely think society would benefit from a libertarian system, beyond their own interests. I'd disagree with them over how things would turn out, but not on their intent.

Also, 'society' currently expects me to cover the gambling debts of a few elite cronies well in with governments both here and abroad. I strongly object to this and regard it as coercion. Does this make me 'selfish'?

My name is URL

RockinRolla wrote: »

And here is a video about the Free Market which you have described as insane. Look no further than Hong Kong - no building you see had any government hand in it.

Up until 2008, Ireland was ranked 3rd in the world in terms of economic freedom, behind only Hong Kong & Singapore. It didn't exactly do us the world of good though, did it?

What happens when a 'libertarian' country needs a bailout? Do we still depend on the governments of other countries to provide that while we continue to oppose interference from our own government? Or does libertarianism have some magical power to evade economic instabilities?

Eric Cartman

My name is URL wrote: »

Up until 2008, Ireland was ranked 3rd in the world in terms of economic freedom, behind only Hong Kong & Singapore. It didn't exactly do us the world of good though, did it?

What happens when a 'libertarian' country needs a bailout? Do we still depend on the governments of other countries to provide that while we continue to oppose interference from our own government? Or does libertarianism have some magical power to evade economic instabilities?

they pretty much do , a big part of libretarianism is small goverments with tightly controlled spending , if we were a libretarian country when the recession hit, we would have let the banks fold and the goverment would have been in a far better position than we are in now

DubTony

A libertarian country wouldn't need a bailout. A small government with no borrowing would balance it's budget every year.

RockinRolla

My name is URL wrote: »

Up until 2008, Ireland was ranked 3rd in the world in terms of economic freedom, behind only Hong Kong & Singapore. It didn't exactly do us the world of good though, did it?

What happens when a 'libertarian' country needs a bailout? Do we still depend on the governments of other countries to provide that while we continue to oppose interference from our own government? Or does libertarianism have some magical power to evade economic instabilities?

I can't believe my eyes. How anyone could compare Ireland with Hong Kong and Singapore is absolutely beyond me.

First of all, Ireland is in the European Union. And with that, comes regulations, tariffs and red-tape. The E.U should have remained to what it once was, a simple trade agreement. Instead, we get further treaties such as Lisbon that cripples us more and places us in totalitarian handcuffs. The E.U traps people in an economic prison - along with the Euro currency. Hong Kong, by comparison (although the government does issue currency) bank issued private currency is the dominant medium of exchange and therefore, the economy does not live and die on the back of a single fiat money as in Irelands case. Hong Kong and Singapore didn't have bureaucrats in the E.U setting artificial interest rates that benefited them i.e- France and Germany when it was devastating to us and our prosperity.

Now, let's look at our second issue - the "yes-men". Progressive Democrat Charlie McCreevey slashed taxes but simultaneouly increased spending. A child in junior infants would see the nonsense and complete illogicality in this. While many would argue that the PD's helped along the Celtic Tiger with privatisation, they simply never nor could ever be compared to the non-coercive, non-interventionist governments of Hong Kong and Singapore. The Economic Freedom Index may have placed Ireland 3rd in the rankings prior to 2008 (we're 7th or 8th now), but what does this tell us exactly? What kind of huge leap was there between Ireland's third and Hong Kong's first?

As for a Libertarian country having to be bailed out - well, I'll leave that one up to you to figure out. God knows, I thought we had left this in the dust several pages back.

My name is URL

The reason I brought up bailouts is because we are part of a collectivist Europe, with a shared responsibility for how other countries manage their fiscal affairs.

RockinRolla, you are literally one of only a couple of people who I have come across who supports the libertarian ideal and at the same time seems highly critical of the EU in its current form. Most of the people I know who like to think of themselves as 'libertarian' are also staunchly pro-EU.. Have their cake and eat it too, types.

RockinRolla

My name is URL wrote: »

The reason I brought up bailouts is because we are part of a collectivist Europe, with a shared responsibility for how other countries manage their fiscal affairs.

RockinRolla, you are literally one of only a couple of people who I have come across who supports the libertarian ideal and at the same time seems highly critical of the EU in its current form. Most of the people I know who like to think of themselves as 'libertarian' are also staunchly pro-EU.. Have their cake and eat it too, types.

Of course I'm Euro-skeptic, I'm a Libertarian. What self-respecting Libertarian would be pro-European Union when they cut the balls off the Free Market by putting in place regulations, taxes and tariffs, inflate money via a central bank, and infringe on the civil liberties of it's people. The European Union is a totalitarian entity in it's current form.

I'm not sure what "Libertarians" you have been speaking to but they sound more like Authoritarians.

DubTony

My name is URL wrote:

Up until 2008, Ireland was ranked 3rd in the world in terms of economic freedom, behind only Hong Kong & Singapore. It didn't exactly do us the world of good though, did it?

For those who aren't aware.
The information comes from the Index of Economic Freedoms at The Heritage Foundation and reports simply how easy or difficult it is to do business in a given country. The data is compiled from criteria listed below. In the main, these are all controlled by the government here and have little to do with Europe.

• Business Freedom
• Trade Freedom
• Fiscal Freedom
• Government Spending
• Monetary Freedom
• Financial Freedom
• Property Rights
• Investment Freedom
• Freedom from Corruption
• Labour Freedom

2 European countries are in the Top Ten Economically free countries. Ireland and Denmark. Denmark is, of course, not a Eurozone country. A further 6 appear in the top 20 Cyprus (18), Finland (17), UK (16), Netherlands (15), Estonia (14) and Luxembourg (13). Notably absent from that 20 are France (64) and Germany (23).

The list is simply about economic freedoms, which today isn't a good guide to personal liberties.

Ireland has dropped down the rankings primarily because of the bank bailout. Without this and the ridiculous increase in public spending we saw after Bertie took over in 1997, we'd be right up there. As for it not doing us any good, well, it didn't do us any harm. Bank Bailouts, government interference in the property sector, a bloated public service and government spending more than it took in did us the real harm.

Capt'n Midnight

blackbiro wrote: »

True, but the money to run the school goes directly from the state to the school rather than through parents, which would give them greater choice.

Unless you want to pay for private tution you will to send kids to a school.
http://www.educatetogether.ie/et-experience/main-publications/

Within the Irish National School System, responsibility for determining the ethos of a school rests with the “Patron”. The main legislation that governs education in Ireland (the Education Act 1998) confers significant powers on school patrons.

Amongst other powers, the Patron:-

* establishes a new school
* sets up its Board of Management
* selects the first Principal before the school opens
* directly appoints two members of the Board, approves the selection of other members and
* appoints the Chairperson
* approves the appointment of all teaching staff
* lays down the fundamental ethos base of the Board.

Under the Education Act, the Board of Management must undertake to run the school according to the ethos determined by the Patron.
...
in an Educate Together National School, the Patron is a company limited by guarantee whose activities are regulated by its Memo and Articles and the Companies Acts and whose decisions are made at General Meetings of its members. This has created a modern, transparent and accountable model of patronage that is defined in clear legal terms.
...

All Educate Together schools have been set up by volunteer groups of parents in a community.
...
A critical element of this lies in the involvement of parents and guardians in the educational process itself. This is achieved through the provision of support for the teacher inside and outside the classroom and in providing educational activities that are not available to the school in the normal way.

Examples of such support include:

* participation in classroom activities
* the organising of extra-curricular activities
* participation in educational support activities such as paired reading.
* help with the artistic, musical, dramatic, linguistic or science and technology programmes
* support in the delivery of the ethical curriculum
* support in the maintenance of the school building
* serving on Boards of Management and other school committees.

ascanbe

RockinRolla wrote: »

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.

I'd agree with your description of the 'world' here and agree with you that it is absurd; but i was describing what pure libertarianism would result in if made real within a 'state'.
Extrapolating this out to encompass our 'world', and the problems in the way our 'world' functions at the moment, only points out the very problem with libertarianism.
Our 'world' essentially 'functions' under libertarian principles at the moment, in that there is no overriding democratic, agreed framework/legislation binding it; so what you have is, essentially, lawlessness and warring factions/countries/tribes fighting for control/domination of wealth/resources.
So a 'state' functioning under this principle would simply mirror, in microcosm, the world as it is now, and create, within that 'state', the exact problems you see in the world at this moment and that you condemn as absurd.