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
Questions about libertarianism
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
invinciblePRSTV wrote: »I don't disagree with him based on his class, it's just the general impression i got of him as a person from his epic whinge 'the road to Serfdom'.
That's fair enough I suppose. I haven't yet read it so I can't offer an opinion.I didn't say libertarianism didn't have much influence on US politics since the 1970s, what I am talking about is how Libertarians jumped into bed with the rest of the extremist US right as it migrated to the Republican party and how the language of libertarianism - small/no government, low/no taxes - swept into the US political mainstream.
I'm aware you weren't stating that, I was making the point that, in my opinion Libertarian ideas didn't have much of an affect. Obviously Free market oriented policies played a large roll but one doesn't have to be a Libertarian to espouse those ideas.Admit it, ye US libertarians share an ideological space with some pretty nasty elements over there on the far right.
You can leave out the ye, I'm not from the US
. Care to give an example of who they mix with?Oh that's a tough one that is, what to pick....hmmm.....tricky...... oh yeah, let's talk about the deregulation of the financial industry which was an ongoing process since the 1980s and cheerleaded by you and your ideological bedfellows. That's worked out well for everyone hasn't it?
What makes you think that the financial crisis was caused by deregulation? What about low interest rates? What about tax breaks to buy houses? What about banks knowing they would get bailed out if it all went haywire?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
RussellTuring wrote:An anarchist congressman? Do you have sources for this?RussellTuring wrote:My assumptions come from you saying you would sacrifice your life for an ideology which you are convinced would make the world a better place but which you admit has never existed in the world thus far. And I hope you don't specifically mean the faith I put in God. That would be a very mistaken assumption.
No, not your god.
I don't have faith in it like a religious person would have faith in a god. I do trust though, that it would relieve a great amount of human suffering that the State unnecessarily puts on people. I said that I would sacrifice my life for a Libertarian world as in I would defend my life, my family and my property from a State that showed aggression towards my liberty. We can speak of immigration, deregulation etc. with regards to improving the condition of the poor.RussellTuring wrote:I'm specifically interested in how change would be brought about rather than what things would be like afterwards. For example, whether it would be reformist or revolutionary and so on.
That depends on the individual...
Radicals don't vote because it is in violation of their ideology. That is, through the ballot box, one group wins and the other loses i.e - one policy is implemented at the expense of the other. For radicals, it is revolutionary and in some ways it is fundamentally different than the way we govern society. On the other hand, Ron Paul for example prefers a gradual change over a long period of time (constitutionalism-libertarianism-minarchism- anarcho capitalism) for society to adjust. It's more subtle and realistic than a sudden transformation and most Libertarians recognise this. It could take decades but the ultimate goal would be personal freedom.RussellTuring wrote:Would this mean more power to local government or would the immediate aim be a reduction in the power of all levels of government?
Again, depends on where along the spectrum of libertarianism you are...
For example, Thomas Jefferson wanted the U.S States to have a greater hand in governing than the Federal centralised government. Libertarianism would be local government; AnCap's advocate self-government. So to answer your question and to bring it closer to home, Dublin would not rule Ireland, the individual communities would across the country would organise what would be in their best interests as a separate people. Remember, we're trying to reduce the number of people between us and the legislators here. And that's what it's all about.RussellTuring wrote:What would happen with this sudden wealth of which the state is in possession? Do you think that people would continue to demand fewer and fewer services from the government despite there being more possibility to provide them (for the short-term)? Would there be any limits on which resources are available to whom or would they just be sold to the highest bidders?
I'm flipping from libertarianism to AnCap's here in a bid to answer your questions in the most relevant way I can. For this question, we must accept the pre-existing condition for an AnCap society would be that there is no State. So, in our minds Ireland is nothing more than a piece of landmass in the Irish sea. People find this the hardest part to envision - we can talk about preserving the country i.e - the tree's, the land, the people, without talking about preserving the State. We must remove "Ireland: The State" from our minds and start thinking "Ireland".
The system would encourage individuals to find alternatives to the previous government services. For example, take CIE. The government hold a monopoly over the bus routes. If they deregulated the bus routes, private businesses would run routes of their own. Over time, government service demand would reduce while simultaneously private services would increase. Remember, we're in a Free Market here - there is no Corp Tax or anything like it and there are no barriers to entry. Foreign competition would flock to these shores in their droves looking to get in on the new action.RussellTuring wrote:If that's true, why does only one of them make a profit?
No, both parties make a profit; if not, the transaction would have never taken place. If John has an apple and Sam has an orange and begin to negotiate, it is because John values the orange more so than Sam and Sam values the apple more so than John. If they didn't, the exchange would not happen. Praxeology is the study of human action; we never act if we do not intend to be in a better position from our actions. In this case, John and Sam do not need a third party (the government) who owns neither the apple or the orange to tell John and Sam at what conditions this trade would be acceptable or to benefit financially from John and Sam's exchange in the form of taxation.RussellTuring wrote:So is rape not a crime?
Absolutely - to be specific, a crime is when anyone shows aggression against another individual.RussellTuring wrote:I would. Most of what you described is policies and constitutional changes executed by an elected government. At what point does this become anarchistic?
Rothbard said that Libertarians/AnCap's are not Anarchists. However, the term is acceptable when describing the market as in Free Market Anarchism.
These replies are a bit vague. I had huge paragraphs wrote out that went into great detail but when I finished I had to log back in and resend it. When I pushed the "Back Button" it wasn't there so I had to start again.0 -
Suryavarman wrote: »That's fair enough I suppose. I haven't yet read it so I can't offer an opinion.
I'm being presumptous again but i would have thought Hayek, being someone who is a key ideologue in Libertarianism, and as such you would be quite au fait with his work?Suryavarman wrote: »I'm aware you weren't stating that, I was making the point that, in my opinion Libertarian ideas didn't have much of an affect. Obviously Free market oriented policies played a large roll but one doesn't have to be a Libertarian to espouse those ideas.
True, but surely you acknowledge that in the USA there is a tremendous degree of overlap between the Republican party and Libertarianism. Whilst I acknowledge this is reasonably common in a two party system like the USA, and both mainstream parties have fringe ideological elements to them, it certainly seems like using Libertarian rhetoric is de rigeur for any aspirant politician in that party.Suryavarman wrote: »You can leave out the ye, I'm not from the US. Care to give an example of who they mix with?
Mea Culpa! Off the top of my head I can't give an example, i'm just recalling literature and books I've read over the years which would mention how in Republican primaries at state and local level in particular you'd effectively have a collection of candidates representing ideological strands within the party whereby one's a Libertarian, one's a bigot or a Nazi, one's a mainstream middle of the road Republican, one's a social conservative and so on.Suryavarman wrote: »What makes you think that the financial crisis was caused by deregulation? What about low interest rates? What about tax breaks to buy houses? What about banks knowing they would get bailed out if it all went haywire?
I think what you mention are certainly all factors, especially in the Irish example. but for me the key element underpinning the crisis was in the USA with the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the resultant increase in banks using new and innovative, and ultimately dangerous, financial products which as we know led to the financial system going into meltdown internationally.
In a Libertarian society, I would presume these kind of financial products, along with any other kind of risky practices carried out by private institutions like banks would be allowed without the fear of civic minded regulation to keep institutions on the straight and narrow.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
UsernameInUse wrote: »Read my post again.
I have and as I have said - in a European context, the definitions of Liberal & Conservative are wrong. Hence, trying to make out that political parties that favour free-market economics and greater individual freedom (of want of a better way of putting it) are a new innovation - in a European context - is akin to rediscovering the wheel!
In a US context, though, no doubt due to historical reasons there, there seems to be a huge reluctance for people to reclaim the phrase "Liberal" and use it in its original political meaning.0 -
Advertisement
-
Suryavarman wrote: »When woodlands are privatised and the trees are cut down, the land won't be left barren. It will always be profitable to replant the trees, as we will always need the products that can be made from timber. There is also the case where it would harm wildlife and wouldn't be used for nature walks. Then I suppose one could make the case for the Government retaining the lands but placing a private company in charge of it. As far as I know this is how New Yorks Central Park works. You could also make the case that a private company could run a woodland area at a profit by charging people to hunt on the grounds.
It seems to me that it comes down to how you feel about the idea of property. I don't see how anyone can legitimately claim to own something such as a forest.I personally think it is illogical to try and privatise waterways (although enclosed lakes probably could) as water and fish can freely move between waterways. This means that pollution can travel from one area to another or that the fish could leave one area of water and move to another. The only way you could privatise waterways is by the same person/company owning all interconnected water areas, which is highly unlikely to happen.
I had in mind lakes and canals rather than rivers for the reasons you mentioned but I didn't make that clear. I would imagine these would be easier to privatise but I wouldn't be an expert on this.I'm in agreement with that we can't bring it entirely back to local levels, I outlined a strategy for dealing with large scale issues such as pollution earlier in the thread. It was obviously very lacking in detail but it is a complicated area to get into.
Indeed it is. And thanks to Scofflaw, I now have images of Roman courts trying to figure out the future costs of the empire's metallurgical projects.I wouldn't see any reason why something that didn't affect someones property or cause harm would be illegal. If you have examples of when that principle is found lacking I'd love to discuss them.
Well if I owned a dog would I be able to do with it as I pleased including torture, starvation and other things like that which most of us would consider cruel? I'm assuming that pets would be considered property and thus whatever I do with mine is acceptable as long as it doesn't affect another person.UsernameInUse wrote: »
Well that's me told. I thought becoming a politician would be a bit hypocritical for someone who was entirely opposed to the idea of a state.No, not your god.
I don't have faith in it like a religious person would have faith in a god. I do trust though, that it would relieve a great amount of human suffering that the State unnecessarily puts on people. I said that I would sacrifice my life for a Libertarian world as in I would defend my life, my family and my property from a State that showed aggression towards my liberty. We can speak of immigration, deregulation etc. with regards to improving the condition of the poor.
Defending yourself against aggression is a different matter to sacrificing your life for a libertarian world, as you said earlier. Your conviction doesn't make what you say objectively right as you seem to think. Do you accept that you may be wrong?That depends on the individual...
Radicals don't vote because it is in violation of their ideology. That is, through the ballot box, one group wins and the other loses i.e - one policy is implemented at the expense of the other. For radicals, it is revolutionary and in some ways it is fundamentally different than the way we govern society. On the other hand, Ron Paul for example prefers a gradual change over a long period of time (constitutionalism-libertarianism-minarchism- anarcho capitalism) for society to adjust. It's more subtle and realistic than a sudden transformation and most Libertarians recognise this. It could take decades but the ultimate goal would be personal freedom.
Ah. So there would be no particular day on which we could say a certain state had ceased to exist, for reformists at least?Again, depends on where along the spectrum of libertarianism you are...
For example, Thomas Jefferson wanted the U.S States to have a greater hand in governing than the Federal centralised government. Libertarianism would be local government; AnCap's advocate self-government. So to answer your question and to bring it closer to home, Dublin would not rule Ireland, the individual communities would across the country would organise what would be in their best interests as a separate people. Remember, we're trying to reduce the number of people between us and the legislators here. And that's what it's all about.
I thought we were talking about the transition to a stateless society so what I meant by my question was do you think it would be better for the new government to start selling off state assets and dismantling social welfare or transferring ownership and responsibility for the services to the local authorities so that they can decide what to do?I'm flipping from libertarianism to AnCap's here in a bid to answer your questions in the most relevant way I can. For this question, we must accept the pre-existing condition for an AnCap society would be that there is no State. So, in our minds Ireland is nothing more than a piece of landmass in the Irish sea. People find this the hardest part to envision - we can talk about preserving the country i.e - the tree's, the land, the people, without talking about preserving the State. We must remove "Ireland: The State" from our minds and start thinking "Ireland".
Why are you flipping? This is a line of questioning over the gradual move to your goal of a society without the state, not one on the various strands of libertarianism. I have no problem distinguishing between people with a view to ending the state gradually and minarchists but are you assuming the ruling libertarian party to initiate the events leading to it's own obsolescence?The system would encourage individuals to find alternatives to the previous government services. For example, take CIE. The government hold a monopoly over the bus routes. If they deregulated the bus routes, private businesses would run routes of their own. Over time, government service demand would reduce while simultaneously private services would increase. Remember, we're in a Free Market here - there is no Corp Tax or anything like it and there are no barriers to entry. Foreign competition would flock to these shores in their droves looking to get in on the new action.
And what about where no services exist because they are not profitable?No, both parties make a profit; if not, the transaction would have never taken place. If John has an apple and Sam has an orange and begin to negotiate, it is because John values the orange more so than Sam and Sam values the apple more so than John. If they didn't, the exchange would not happen. Praxeology is the study of human action; we never act if we do not intend to be in a better position from our actions. In this case, John and Sam do not need a third party (the government) who owns neither the apple or the orange to tell John and Sam at what conditions this trade would be acceptable or to benefit financially from John and Sam's exchange in the form of taxation.
I suppose you can't get much more simplistic than that. What about when John owns all of the apples available to Sam and so charges him a bit more than it costs to deliver it to him because he knows Sam will be willing to pay it? Does Sam still profit despite paying more than it was actually worth before John used his better position to increase the price? Taxation is a separate issue.Absolutely - to be specific, a crime is when anyone shows aggression against another individual.
You said murder and theft would be the only crimes.Rothbard said that Libertarians/AnCap's are not Anarchists. However, the term is acceptable when describing the market as in Free Market Anarchism.
These replies are a bit vague. I had huge paragraphs wrote out that went into great detail but when I finished I had to log back in and resend it. When I pushed the "Back Button" it wasn't there so I had to start again.
Well then I appreciate the extra effort.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs
Advertisement