Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
J'accuse le libertarians
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
whatstherush wrote: »Were you not arguing a few pages back that a monopoly delivers lower costs and innovation
No, I was arguing that a monopoly would be achieved by lowering costs and innovating at levels their competitors couldn't match.As long as the dominate player doesn't use anti competitive behavior to stifle your business which you also endorsed, sighting points 1 and 3 as perfectly acceptable.
They are perfectly acceptable. What is wrong with negotiating lower rates with railway companies? As for lowering costs to put competitors out of business, this process can only be repeated so many time before the business goes bankrupt.invinciblePRSTV wrote: »Why are you cheerleading for the USA when it has in place vast publicly funded health and medical programmes?
The hospitals and drug companies are still privately owned.In the 19th Century, indeed right into the mid-20th century here in Ireland, it was quite common for children to leave school by the age of 12 years old before the existence of state funded education. How you don't know or realise this I'm not sure...
That was because Ireland was still very poor and anti-free trade until Lemass came to power.Whatiffery but let's roll with it....Governments don't have a monopoly on building roads and railways, but they're the only ones who'll either build them in the first instance or pay a subvention to keep them operational.
It's not easy to compete with the government when they pay for their services through taxes instead of through a service charge. At that there is plenty of private roads in the US.You do realise that public transport in particular across the world requires state subvention in order to operate?
There is still plenty of public transport able to run without subsidies. The reason other companies can't run a profit is because there is no demand because there is better forms of transport available.Perhaps instead you think that brave entreprenuers will build all these shiny new railways, just like they did across Europe and America in the 19th Century. Of course the problem is when these entreprenuers built all their lines to different specifications and inevitably went bankrupt, who was it that stepped in and saved/created the national networks we know noq?
Why the big bad state of course.
You neglect to mention that one of the reasons lots of companies faceds bankruptcy was due to increased regulation during the late 19th century. Another reason for the disappearance of railway companies was due to the rise of trucking as a viable alternative.The state provided these services because their was no money in it for private interests to do so. Again a cursory knowledge of public health and how it has improved massively in the west over the past century would show you just how far along we've come since the idealised times of the late 19th Century.
Depends what country you're talking about. At the very least state provided healthcare provides a basic level of service to all people far in excess of what was available to people in the libertarian idealised version of 19th century life.
The improvements of course have nothing to do with people becoming richer, increased living standards and new medical innovations. In Ireland we have public healthcare yet people still choose to be treated in private hospitals. By all you of course those that can't wait any longer for treatment. For everyone else it's a waiting list.I'm going to speculate here and suggest the level of overcrowding & danger in 21st century public housing is far less then what was present in the filthy slums of the 19th century.
The filthy slums were obviously going to exist when you had huge amounts of poor people coming from the countryside to the cities to live in work. These living standards improved of course when people became richer and the cities were able to adapt to increased populations.Perhaps you can clarify for me, in a Libertarian state, what laws with regards tenants rights and landlords responsibilities would exist? compare and contrast with existing Irish laws please...
The tenants would be protected by the contract signed with their landlord.Are these are the same market forces which created the kind of slum conditions across the developed world in the 19th century some of your number seem to fondly reminisce for?
Dealt with above I think.They're cheap and reliable because sellers need to make sure they can pass the NCT.
"The best built cars in the world"-Toyota
Many companies proudly advertise that their cars achieve 5 star NCAP ratings.
Do these companies sound like they're trying to barely scrape the mark or satisfy their customers demands for safer and more reliable cars?Fuel would be too expensive to people living in poverty, which was what was asked. Remember the world i described where people have no job security, low wages and poor health?
As expensive as fuel is now, many people in poverty can still afford it. They would still be able to afford it if became cheaper due to removal of taxes.So you do think the state should involved itself in the provision of public works and transport? it's quite the contradiction from what you said above.
I said the state should provide roads in towns and cities. This is because the constricted amount of space wouldn't allow for competition.I have no doubt the kind of grisly two-tier Orwellian type society which you dream of would have strong respect for the rights of property and the law.
Orwellian? Next you'll be calling us Communists.Minimum wage? surely the first thing to go once Libertarians assume power.
Yes it would but as I pointed out, it is very rare for two adults to earn such a low wage and that in a Libertarian society even the poorest could afford their own home.maybe, maybe not. The most likely scenario in your Libertarian world will be the Lumpen proletariat having to pick lumps of coal off the road. or resort to crime to pay for the basics.
We shall have to agree to disagree on that point so.Because they can. Employment and wage legislation exist for a very good reason. Any society without either will revert back to the kind of unscrupulous practices I described being common place.
Yes they do exist for a good reason, so that unions could keep cheap, unskilled competing labour out of the market.
Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries work conditions were improving, work weeks getting shorter and wages increasing without unions or governments lending a helping hand.Lol "probably", "cheaper", charity! there's some spectacular whatiffery in this paragraph.
You have engaged in more than your fair share of whatiffery throughout this thread.Nice, people should live in poverty if they have too many kids seems to be what you're really saying here. A revealing insight into the Libertarians true mindset if ever there were onw.....
What I was saying was that people shouldn't have children if they will not be able to afford to care for them.Just like they did in the 19th century eh? oh wait................
Throughout the 20th century before governments funded colleges, this was commonplace.No it was still very much in place in the late 19th century. Besides you don't really seem to think there's a need for employment legislation, what business is it of yours if I, in a Libertarian society, wishes to hire a child to clean my chimney? I'm paying him a fair rate and the child wants to work so what's the problem?
But it was declining. No I don't have a problem with that because it isn't my child. I would think that the parents wouldn't allow the child to do such work and the child would also see no point in doing the work when they can just get money for doing chores around the house.Not many of them.
Yet with the states involvement the number of poor people going to third level has stagnated.Most people who don't come from privilege would either just die in absolute poverty once they can't work or become an enormous burden on their families. That's what happens if you eliminate the state pension because that's why it was introduced!.
The reason people were dying in poverty was because they had not previously expected to live so long and had not saved for later life. They also had lower wages which made saving difficult. The fact that we now have much higher wages and we expect to live longer lives would combat those problems.
As well as that, we now have an aging population and in a few decades we will not have a working people to fund state pensions. The state pension has to be gotten rid of one way or the other.Given what you and some of your cohort have outlined, i really doubt it.
Wages would be higher and increase faster so I'm going to have to disagree with you.Sure they would, without pesky state involvement I'm quite sure employers will gladly pay their staff a decent wage. Just like they did in the 19th Century.
The employers would have no choice but to pay decent wages due to market forces.Both quite easy to do when wage costs can be slashed with impunity.
Or they will be easier to do when productivity increases.Most definitely not. From just reading this thread it's actually quite a terrifying prospect to have people harking back to the ideal times of the late 19th century. It's the second time i've used this analogy but this really is forest of Arden stuff.
We are just making the case that system was better not necessarily the living conditions.College would be difficult unless one gets a scholarship or another charity to help them. Otherwise take out a loan and start working life with a big debt.
Or they could get a part time/summer job to pay for tuition.Guns and drugs are legal so I'd imagine crime would be very high. Lots of junkies wandering around armed. The rich could live in gated communities with private security everyone else will have to fend for themselves.
Do you have any statistics to show that gun ownership increases crime?
The Netherlands legalised cannabis and they have some of the lowest usage rates in the world. When Portugal decriminalised drug possession, drug usage went down as did violent crime rates.
The rich can and do live in gated communities with private security as things stand. Many people have already explained that the government would still provide law enforcement. I don't see why you continue to partake in this discussion if your just going to repeat previously refuted points.Banks and insurance companies can do whatever they want. If either go bust tough there goes your savings.
If banks act in a careless manner why would people trust their savings with them? People losing a portion of their savings is preferable to the taxpayer bailing out bad banks.I was talking about a charity school not a private one. Not suggesting the current method is great but in libertarianland it would be like catholic schools on speed. Who would be controlling or regulating them if not "big gov"? Will Moodys be giving AAA rating out!
The parents would be regulating the schools.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
You don't have to go to college straight away (or at all)... you could work for a while and save up first? Or take the loans/part time work
Or, as is more likely given the examples and policies cited by Lib's, probably never finish second level education at all in the first place and never go to college.0 -
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement