Support Complete Libertarianism in Ireland?

meditraitor

RockinRolla wrote: »

It think you grossly misunderstand the argument. With regards to your 3 "Great Minds", to what point did Lennin agree with everything Marx contributed, or even Stalin by taking steps further? By requiring an answer to a question of such broadness would be to deny the existence of independent thought. Rothbard, Friedman, Von Mises and Hayek didn't agree on everything but they contributed a lot to the philosophy of liberty in which they agreed was the only moral and economical way to prosperity - i.e separating everything, some more so than others, from the state.

I don't agree with everything Friedman said, but he certainly was a giant and contributed a lot throughout his life. To disregard a philosophy as being "science-fiction" is to shoot yourself in the foot. A Libertarian would never push aside a person claiming to be a Socialist - instead, we prefer to engage them in discussions. In fact, I don't even believe you're a Socialist - because such a person would have been courteous enough to inform us of the benefits of his ideology. Instead, I think you're just a troll. Either that, or a Corporatist and one that doesn't even know it.

You cant argue a single point about libertarianism with dragging in lefty analogies and you call me a troll,

I said it before and I will say it again, Libertarianism is the scientology of political philosophy.......

If you want to debate why I say this stop trying to push the argument into socialism v libertarianism, my ma could argue this point for and against and she would be more mills and boons than Mill and bernstein


Answer these points or get back in your box

Does Libertarianism exist as a working political system
Has Libertarianism ever worked as a political system

How would libertarianism ever exist as political system

Take your time on the last as this is the one I will debunk

General Zod

I understood perfectly but I suspect it is you that misunderstood

There you have it folks, Libertarians in a nutshell. They cannot be wrong.

An Ghaeilge cac

RockinRolla wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

You sound like some crackpot Dub off your head on heroin in some bedsit in Finglas.:rolleyes:

philologos

RockinRolla wrote: »

Welcome to the slippery-slope into the authoritarian police state, a creation of big government which you're defending. Glad to see you haven't lost all of your marbles.

Not at all. I'm defending the social responsibility of our Government and of our people to help the weak, the poor and the marginalised in our society. I'm not supporting the curbing of general liberty, but I'm supporting a fairer economic landscape. This is why I suggested separating economic libertarianism from social libertarianism a few posts ago.

You've still not answered any of my questions adequately.

dsmythy

An Ghaeilge cac wrote: »

You sound like some crackpot Dub off your head on heroin in some bedsit in Finglas.:rolleyes:

Great contribution.

Capt'n Midnight

meditraitor wrote: »

As for my knowledge of libertarianism it mainly stems from a love of science fiction, which is essentailly were we got libertarianism.

Libertarians don't understand that TANSTAAFL

The hidden financial costs of the social costs far outweigh the benefits even to the majority that would appear to benefit.

DubTony

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Libertarians don't understand that TANSTAAFL

The hidden financial costs of the social costs far outweigh the benefits even to the majority that would appear to benefit.

FREE LUNCH? Are you serious? Libertarians don't want a free lunch. They want to look after themselves and be left alone.

And clarification, or some elaboration, of your second statement would be useful.

philologos

DubTony wrote: »

FREE LUNCH? Are you serious? Libertarians don't want a free lunch. They want to look after themselves and be left alone.

Which is precisely why they don't care about others?

DubTony

meditraitor wrote: »

thats old chestnut, anything bad is usually claimed as "the antithesis of libertarianism" by the libertarian.

I have yet to see a decent argument or example of libertarianism that doesnt use smoke and mirrors to hide the fact it is a weak political philosophy.

I see it as the scientology of the political philosophy world, some crazy sophist's arguing for the sake of arguing with nothing tangiable but language,,,,, it has never and will never work.

It seems we may have one of the serial debaters on board. Good. It'll be interesting to see if anything is actually contributed to the debate, or if it will be the usual, "my opinion is better than yours, so I'm right" B.S. that these guys generally bring.

DubTony

philologos wrote: »

Which is precisely why they don't care about others?

philologos, you've consistently, through this thread, ignored my, and others, suggestions as to how a libertarian society can work. I've mentioned charities on several occasions. The notion that libertarians don't care about anyone but themselves is crap, and I suspect that you know this.

A state in which libertarian values hold true would see huge amounts of philanthropy, not just from the millionaires and billionaires, but from ordinary people as well. Here's an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. This form of giving would be a mainstay of peoples thinking in a completely free society.

As a race we have an inherent tendency to help others when and where we can. In a situation where government didn't do it, there'd be a natural inclination to ensure that others who were genuinely disadvantaged wouldn't suffer unnecessarily. Perfect examples of this are Haiti and many African countries.

Capt'n Midnight

DubTony wrote: »

A state in which libertarian values hold true would see huge amounts of philanthropy, not just from the millionaires and billionaires, but from ordinary people as well. Here's an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. This form of giving would be a mainstay of peoples thinking in a completely free society.

LOL

Here in Ireland not that long ago we used to have the tithe a 10% tax on everything paid to the Church of Ireland. We still have "voluntary" collections by churches and schools and social groups where there is peer pressure to donate. Same in Africa. Muslims have something similar to the tithe in that you are expected to contribute. A lot of it is social pressure rather than generosity. Remove the rules and structures empower people to what they want with their money and how many will still give as much ?

Charities use chuggers because even with the high overheads they generate more money. Proof if it was needed that people don't donate without some pressure. If Libertarianism means more chuggers then you will have another race to the bottom where margins get tighter and people suffering chugger fatigue and charities getting a bad name for wasting money.

In parts of India there are huge numbers of disabled beggers who depend on handouts from the public to survive. How will they fare in a culture where people don't feel compelled to donate ?

Capt'n Midnight

DubTony wrote: »

FREE LUNCH? Are you serious? Libertarians don't want a free lunch. They want to look after themselves and be left alone.

And devil take the hindmost

What of people who can't look after themselves as efficiently ?

If you are proposing families support each other eventually you end up with a vey large family called a "country"

And clarification, or some elaboration, of your second statement would be useful.

When the gap between rich and poor grows you get walled compounds, people drive rather than walk on the streets with the plebs. It's cheaper for the rich individual to do things that way than provide effective policing. Look at any third world country to see this in action. Look at places like Palm Springs where the riff raff are kept out. Look at all the private security firms used for stuff other than watching un occupied premesis.

The social cost is that rich people can't go for a walk in the street, the lack of policing means that crime is worse and eventually the rich person is more likely to be a victim of that crime. Look at the whole "white flight" thing. The value of their assets dropped a lot.



In a lot of post-apolyptic sci-fi you macho heros with absoulte freedom to do what they want in a depopulated area full of resources battling against lesser mortals. "I am legend" being a classic example. This is what I imagine Libertarinaism to be. Yet it's portrayed as the villagers in the "Magnificant Seven" hiring Gunslingers to fight the powar. This doesn't happen in real life because Mercanearies value their skins and there are plenty of examples in history of Mercanaries being killed by jealous troops from their own side for not delivering enough for the price paid. Actually it doesn't even happen in the movies. In the "Seven Samuri" the villagers give armour to the samuri, but they samuri know the villagers got it by using long bamboo spears to way lay individual samuri when they go the chance.

The othere view of Libertarianism is the romantic notion of the old west, where you could kill injuns and sheep farmers because it was your land. Ok it wasn't all your land , actually you only owned the well but by controlling the well you controlled all the land around it so no one cold compete with you and if they did you just used your freedom to hire gunslingers...


Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the other ones we've tried. In a truly libertarian paradise why shouldn't someone be allowed to sell their vote ? Especially if the alternative is starvation ?

Capt'n Midnight

If you go to Zanzibar you'll probably see a sign that says "Please don't make beggers of our children"

Under libertarianism

DubTony

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL

Here in Ireland not that long ago we used to have the tithe a 10% tax on everything paid to the Church of Ireland. We still have "voluntary" collections by churches and schools and social groups where there is peer pressure to donate. Same in Africa. Muslims have something similar to the tithe in that you are expected to contribute. A lot of it is social pressure rather than generosity. Remove the rules and structures empower people to what they want with their money and how many will still give as much ?

Charities use chuggers because even with the high overheads they generate more money. Proof if it was needed that people don't donate without some pressure. If Libertarianism means more chuggers then you will have another race to the bottom where margins get tighter and people suffering chugger fatigue and charities getting a bad name for wasting money.

In parts of India there are huge numbers of disabled beggers who depend on handouts from the public to survive. How will they fare in a culture where people don't feel compelled to donate ?

I'll assume the "LOL" isn't a jibe at me.

Consider what I've said in the post you refer to and then consider this.

In most socialist countries around the world, people expect that "the government will look after it". You might be surprised to learn that I don't make this stuff up.

http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/WorldGivingIndex28092010Print.pdf

The link is to the Charities Aid Foundation report of 2010 (with info taken from the Gallup Worldview Poll) that shows which countries are the most generous in terms of giving money, volunteering time and helping a stranger.

Here are links to 2 pages from the report showing how charitable various countries are. Even allowing for cultural differences, I think it backs up my argument.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y279/dubtony/CAF1.png
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y279/dubtony/CAF2.png

There's nobody forcing these people to donate or give their time. Your suggestion that people who aren't forced to donate won't give - holds no water.

As for chuggers, (and I hate them too) they'd be practically unheard of in the completely free society. Remember, libertarianism wouldn't just bring self sufficiency in finances, it would also bring self sufficiency in thought (and we know we could do with some of that around this thread). People, as opposed to government, would decide what behaviours are acceptable. And while there wouldn't be any law against chuggers, they'd die out pretty quickly after pissed off members of the public made the right decision to tell them to go away. Freedom sorts it out. The problem in todays socialist "oh the government will look out for me" society, is that too much independent thought is lost as people are spoon-fed everything from how much they're supposed to earn to what they're supposed to think.

DubTony

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In a truly libertarian paradise why shouldn't someone be allowed to sell their vote ? Especially if the alternative is starvation ?

I'm not going to address the stuff you posted about movies.

And as to the other one. What's so wrong with democracy? If you want to be represented by somebody in government, surely the answer is to vote? Or do you have a different issue with democracy? Maybe it's corruption or too much corporate involvement? Both of which would be unlikely in a libertarian society.

You couldn't sell your vote because it would be seen as a fraudulent exercise. RockinRolla has touched on fraud earlier.

If you go to Zanzibar you'll probably see a sign that says "Please don't make beggers of our children"

Probably directed toward the IMF or something. What's that got to do with the thread?

RockinRolla

It's pathetic that, after 18 pages of in-dept discussion, including real world examples and some genuinely knowledgeable and informative replies to the concerns of the few, we have in all essence come full circle, in that, we've arrived back at the original questions that where asked during the first couple of pages.

There are many Socialists in here. That is quite acceptable - the two ideologies are polar opposite and we understand how they cannot accept Libertarianism just as much as they understand us. But for the others - the one's that have never bothered themselves to get a grasp on either ideology but are quite prepared to contribute to the thread in a dogmatic and even ignorant way, does little more than show off their own intolerance to intellectual debate.

I have, along with others, enjoyed writing and informing those of Libertarianism. Some will take notice, some won't. But I hope to continue at a later date when our political and economical scenario has moved on quite a bit. Thank you, and goodnight.

DubTony

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing myself. *sigh*

meditraitor

DubTony wrote: »

It seems we may have one of the serial debaters on board. Good. It'll be interesting to see if anything is actually contributed to the debate, or if it will be the usual, "my opinion is better than yours, so I'm right" B.S. that these guys generally bring.

And we avoid the relevent questions again, the reason so many people like to call out libertarians/sophists is because they dont answer question unless it suits them.

Answer the questions I set out and I will debate, the amateur hour socialism v libertarianism argument doesnt hold water here.

me 2 days ago wrote:

Does Libertarianism exist as a working political system

Has Libertarianism ever worked as a political system

How would libertarianism ever exist as political system

rockinrolla wrote:

But for the others - the one's that have never bothered themselves to get a grasp on either ideology but are quite prepared to contribute to the thread in a dogmatic and even ignorant way, does little more than show off their own intolerance to intellectual debate.

This is a prime example of a libertarian argument, get a question you dont want to or cant answer and question the motives and intellect of the questioner, if you took your libertarian rosey glasses of you would see what 99% of people see in the libertarian arguments.......

The system has never and will never work as it is not based on any other premise than greed and selfishness........

DubTony

OK, based on the act that you've replied to my post I'll give you the benefit of a reply. After this I'm done here. It's going round in circles.

1. Does Libertarianism exist as a working political system

2. Has Libertarianism ever worked as a political system

3. How would libertarianism ever exist as political system

1. Not currently. Most politicians would never give up the power or the purse-strings. Unfortunately we're stuck with the wasteful social programmes, economic stimuli and bloated public service sectors.
Turkeys and Christmas and all that stuff.

2. Of course. In a time before governments, as we know them. Earlier posts pointed out Brehon times as an example. Read back through the thread. Possibly there were civilizations that lived in complete freedom that we just don't know about. But it's hard to imagine that every civilization always had top down autocratic or socialist government. In a time before taxes, people would have lived free without interference from a "leader", as the "leader" would have had little reason to interfere.

3. If you go back through the last 270 posts, you'll find a lot of good answers in there. Plenty of food for thought.

Right, I'll let this go. There's only so much "debunking" a fellah can take. Good luck all!

RockinRolla

meditraitor wrote: »

And we avoid the relevent questions again, the reason so many people like to call out libertarians/sophists is because they dont answer question unless it suits them.

Answer the questions I set out and I will debate, the amateur hour socialism v libertarianism argument doesnt hold water here.






This is a prime example of a libertarian argument, get a question you dont want to or cant answer and question the motives and intellect of the questioner, if you took your libertarian rosey glasses of you would see what 99% of people see in the libertarian arguments.......

The system has never and will never work as it is not based on any other premise than greed and selfishness........

It is you, rather, that continues to shift through intellectual replies to your concerns with words along the lines of "typical", "usual" and "same old..". If you had bothered to read through the whole thread, you may have found those answers to your questions. We have already debated healthcare, education and welfare to death. We've demonstrated how the poor would have just the same opportunities as the wealthy. It is precisely why most of us are worn out typing the same things we examined in great detail ten pages ago.

You may not agree with those answers and that's quite alright as I have mentioned to other posters, but none of them have attacked the ideology as being "the Scientology of political philosophy" - instead, they have understood the concept and come to the conclusion that they could not support it based on their own individual beliefs. As far as Libertarianism is based on "greed and selfishness" - I assume you're not aware of natural human behaviour? It is the only ideology based on our nature. "If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization", Mises once wrote. In saying that, one persons success benefits society as a whole. One mans initiative to become successful benefits others by providing them with a product or service they need. You may not like it, but it doesn't disprove the argument, we are animals and Libertarianism comes from the study of what system best suits our evolutionary mindset to allow the greatest prosperity to our species.

You've gone to one extreme - allow me to go to the other. Socialism kills. Look no further than the Soviet Union or Fascist Germany. Central planning is idiotic in any sense. How can we plan for the future? How can government plan for the future? If the government where to build a city 100 years ago, they would have made the railway station too big and the airport too small. These are the same people who wish to provide the figures for the production of food in a society...what happened next? Millions died. Enter Capitalism. Throughout history, capitalism is the greatest cure for poverty known to human intelligence. Now, if capitalism works to the benefit of human behaviour as you put it "greed and selfishness", then why disregard capitalism when it works so well?

Free it up more - get rid of taxes, tariffs, government bailouts, subsidies to the wealthy, legislation and regulation, red-tape and licences, abolish barriers to entry, create competition and allow the market to work - this is the Free Market. And you can see it's work done throughout history in little batches. When government decided not to direct the economy, but instead to honour contracts, out grew the Hong Kong we see today. In Britain, the Libertarian ideology created the Industrial Revolution. There, in the 1700/1800's, we seen the greatest advances in medicine, technology and millions escaping poverty. For a Free Market system today - we can look at the black market, the greatest money making market around the globe. You believe Libertarianism is from another planet - far from the truth. All we wish is that the huge monstrous bureaucracy that has been allowed to form over the centuries, be rolled back to allow civilisation to succeed again. This is nothing new. We are not proposing a new system, nothing that has not already proved itself.

mprgst78

@RockinRolla

I've been reading Rothbard's manifesto as you suggested. So far so good. He really takes the libertarian principles to their logical conclusion. Could be one of those books!

dpe

RockinRolla wrote: »

Free it up more - get rid of taxes, tariffs, government bailouts, subsidies to the wealthy, legislation and regulation, red-tape and licences, abolish barriers to entry, create competition and allow the market to work - this is the Free Market. And you can see it's work done throughout history in little batches. When government decided not to direct the economy, but instead to honour contracts, out grew the Hong Kong we see today. In Britain, the Libertarian ideology created the Industrial Revolution. There, in the 1700/1800's, we seen the greatest advances in medicine, technology and millions escaping poverty. For a Free Market system today - we can look at the black market, the greatest money making market around the globe. You believe Libertarianism is from another planet - far from the truth. All we wish is that the huge monstrous bureaucracy that has been allowed to form over the centuries, be rolled back to allow civilisation to succeed again. This is nothing new. We are not proposing a new system, nothing that has not already proved itself.

That's all well and good but you're being selective about the free market's benefits, while quietly ignoring the fact that it was the "free market", particularly in the form of laissez faire banking regulation and property speculation, that's got us in the mess we're in now. Capitalism is the "least worst" economic model, but don't present unfettered capitalism as a cure for all of mankind's ills, because it plainly isn't.

Capitalism also tends to fail the infrastructure test; take the example of transport. Europe generally has a better level of infrastructure than the US because governments subsidise for the common good; they don't always get it right, and they can be woefully inefficient in achieving their goals, but they eventually get done. In the US, the more market led approach struggles to develop national infrastructure except in the government-mandate of defence (which is why America has the Interstate network, it was built for military reasons). Libertarian economic models don't scale, and the "market" has difficulty coping with investments that don't pay back within 3-5 years.

Fact is extreme ends of the political and economic spectrum are all flawed; a mix of social planning and free market activity is the compromise that works the best for the most, with constant tuning to get the balance right.

Capt'n Midnight

RockinRolla wrote: »

When government decided not to direct the economy, but instead to honour contracts, out grew the Hong Kong we see today.

Would this be the same Hong Kong with a captive audiance of one billion chinese across the fence providing cheap labour, capital and markets
would this be the same Hong Kong with useless passports so people weren't free to move
would this be the same Hong Kong that benefitted from advantageous tax regulations compare to the rest of the region

Complete Libertarianism would mean the end of corporation tax and such. On a level playing field we'd be sunk as there would be no reason to pick Ireland ahead of any other country that practiced complete Libertarianism.


In Sub Saharan Africa only 10% of people pay income tax and most of those are in South Africa. This means that the vast majority don't have any say in how governments spend money, since they don't have a vested interest. It also means that most of them are in a Libertarian economy because there isn't much governmnet regulation.

In Kenya you can rent a minibus for €30 a day and away you go. If your bus is half empty and there are lots of people on the otherside of the road you can just throw out your passangers and give them back enough of the fare so they can continue their journey on the next bus. Then turn around and pick up the passangers on the other side of the road heading the other way.

Libertarians place a great trust in contracts despite the amount of litegation that goes on in well regulated systems today. Can you imagine how a company like Microsoft would behave if the only limits on it's behaviour were the contracts it signed. How do you police a company that reguliarly pays billion dollar fines out of petty cash ?

If any of ye saw that program on BBC2 last night, they made the point that the commune movement failed because peope who were supposedly equal grabbed power. I fail to see how in a completely open market without regulation how power can't be removed or abused.

Fromthetrees

Libertarianism seems to be more, more, more for me and f**k the sick and needy.

AhSureTisGrand

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Libertarianism seems to be more, more, more for me and f**k the sick and needy.

Yes as we know all charitable organizations are banned in libertarianland

Fukuyama

Jaysus is this thread still going?

AhSureTisGrand

Dean0088 wrote: »

Jaysus is this thread still going?

No but I'm not mature enough to ignore the necromancer

Fromthetrees

are charitable organisations banned anywhere?

Cathaoirleach

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Libertarianism seems to be more, more, more for me and f**k the sick and needy.

Innocent until proven Irish, said Maggie.

Capt'n Midnight

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Yes as we know all charitable organizations are banned in libertarianland

They won't be banned.

They will just have to replace the functions provided by HSE / Corporation & Council services / Social welfare etc. And do it without financial support from the goverment.

AhSureTisGrand

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

They won't be banned.

No feckin shìt

KeithAFC

No I wouldn't.