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

Questions about libertarianism

245

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,942 ✭✭✭20Cent


    How could anyone compare Freedom with Communism?

    All ideologies claim to be offering freedom. Just because they say so doesn't make it right. Libertarianism in reality would be an awful society for the average person to live in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    20Cent wrote: »
    All ideologies claim to be offering freedom. Just because they say so doesn't make it right. Libertarianism in reality would be an awful society for the average person to live in.

    Wrong.

    All other ideologies offer "their way". Libertarianism offers you any way you see fit - that's real freedom. In a Communist society, you have communism and nothing else; Libertarianism is the only philosophy that gives every individual, even communists, the freedom to live in a communist world. Take today for an example, if myself and several other Libertarians wanted to live in a Libertarian world, how could we do that? In a Libertarian world, if thousands of socialists wanted to get together and create a community where they share and distribute wealth, they are more than free to do just that because no Libertarian society would be initiating coercion against them.

    I figure you don't understand true freedom at all. Libertarianism is the only one true ideology where everyone can practice their own ideology away from the eyes of government involvement.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Don't let this become a head-butting competition.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,942 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Wrong.

    Take today for an example, if myself and several other Libertarians wanted to live in a Libertarian world, how could we do that?

    Run some libertarian candidates in an election, when you win there you go. Also there is an oil rig type thing somewhere for libertarians to live in, otherwise Somalia.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    20Cent wrote: »
    Run some libertarian candidates in an election, when you win there you go. Also there is an oil rig type thing somewhere for libertarians to live in, otherwise Somalia.

    Wrong again.

    Somalia is not governed by the rule of law. If there are no laws, then where is the freedom? Do I have freedom if I can be killed with no consequence to the murderer? That's chaos, not libertarianism. Somalia is not even anarchism, it's simply a war between tribal factions. So let's take Somalia out of the equation as it is in no way shape or form comparative with a libertarian society.

    Principality of Sealand is the "oil rig" I assume you're speaking of. Where is the land to create industry? Libertarianism is growing fast. The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the U.S and with Ron Paul breaking into the mainstream for the upcoming Presidential election, he is identified as the only candidate that can decimate Obama's campaign. Libertarianism is huge across the world on college campuses. It is the preference of the youth, meaning, it's not going anywhere. Seeing as Ireland follows more so than lead, if Ron Paul wins the 2012 Presidency, don't you worry, the world will look a very different place in 2020.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,942 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Wrong again.

    Somalia is not governed by the rule of law. If there are no laws, then where is the freedom? Do I have freedom if I can be killed with no consequence to the murderer? That's chaos, not libertarianism. Somalia is not even anarchism, it's simply a war between tribal factions. So let's take Somalia out of the equation as it is in no way shape or form comparative with a libertarian society.

    Principality of Sealand is the "oil rig" I assume you're speaking of. Where is the land to create industry? Libertarianism is growing fast. The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the U.S and with Ron Paul breaking into the mainstream for the upcoming Presidential election, he is identified as the only candidate that can decimate Obama's campaign. Libertarianism is huge across the world on college campuses. It is the preference of the youth, meaning, it's not going anywhere. Seeing as Ireland follows more so than lead, if Ron Paul wins the 2012 Presidency, don't you worry, the world will look a very different place in 2020.

    You said you were an anarcho capitalist, thought no gov was your thing apologies if not. Don't see the Sealand thing working either.

    If libertarianism is so great then why is Ron Paul running as a republican?
    Also he has zero chance of even getting a nomination.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Enough with the Somalia thing. It really isn't a libertarian state, and continued use of it as an example of one is trolling. Same goes the other way round for North Korea.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the U.S

    A party with zero federal representation?

    In 2008, the Dems had ~42% of registered voters, the Republicans ~32%.
    The libertarians had 0.24%. Behind the Greens and Constitutional party.


    Sure sounds like a significant party to me.
    It is the preference of the youth, meaning, it's not going anywhere.
    Have you any evidence for this at all, given that the majority (not plurality) of young voters in 2008 voted for Obama?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    Wrong again.

    Somalia is not governed by the rule of law. If there are no laws, then where is the freedom? Do I have freedom if I can be killed with no consequence to the murderer? That's chaos, not libertarianism. Somalia is not even anarchism, it's simply a war between tribal factions. So let's take Somalia out of the equation as it is in no way shape or form comparative with a libertarian society.

    So can you give us an example of a time or place where what you propose has been put into practice? Bare in mind several Libs on here have in previous threads harked back to the USA in the 19th Century, cited Victorian era laws as an ideal and, most amusingly, cited the US State of New Mexico (but only between 1995 - 2003 mind) as examples of a Libertarian society.

    Of course it's quite easy for us non-believers to pick holes in these examples.
    Principality of Sealand is the "oil rig" I assume you're speaking of. Where is the land to create industry?

    What happens to pre-existing industry in your Libertarian utopia? Such as your oil companies, electricity companies etc?
    Libertarianism is growing fast. The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the U.S and with Ron Paul breaking into the mainstream for the upcoming Presidential election, he is identified as the only candidate that can decimate Obama's campaign.

    Sorry to burst your bubble but Ron Paul will not become the Republican candidate, and if he runs as an independent, or gets nominations off all those wacky parties which make up the extreme American right, then he'll be lucky to get a couple of % of the popular vote.

    He's a non-entity in otherwords, sorry to burst your bubble.
    Libertarianism is huge across the world on college campuses. It is the preference of the youth, meaning, it's not going anywhere..

    Not in my experience, perhaps in the USA shure, but not likely. I'd wager on US college campuses, registered Democrats and Republican dwarf the numbers of Libertarians.
    Seeing as Ireland follows more so than lead, if Ron Paul wins the 2012 Presidency, don't you worry, the world will look a very different place in 2020.


    I think we can safely say neither of what you propose will happen thankfully.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    These definitions are spot of for your information. I'm a Libertarian myself through and through. Actually, scrap that..I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist and damn proud of it. You know, the one that comes after Libertarianism..the more radical, extreme ideology which involves the complete dismantling of the State and everything it stands for, as opposed to just having a "small government" that Libertarians advocate and I would gladly sacrifice my life for a Libertarian world because I truly understand the amount of human suffering it would genuinely relieve on this god-forsaken corrupt cesspit planet. I can recite all viewpoints of Ludwig von Mises and rehearse every publication from Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Thomas Woods so I do believe you're speaking with the right person.

    Now, taking history into context, my comments are correct. Using the U.S as a starting point, as that is where Libertarianism is most prominent, I have used the examples of the Liberals and Conservatives. As for Ireland turning Libertarian tomorrow - difficult to imagine. Libertarianism is not just a political viewpoint, it's a completely different system to live under; a different way society organises itself. Capitalism has never existed in this world - if it did, we're talking in terms of economic growth along the lines of steroids on steroids. What special interest would want such a thing? Where would be the protectionism? What Tom, Dick and Harry would vote to end their free dole money at societies expense even if it meant freedom of the mind and body? What we have is corporate fascism, and every E.U referendum that gets a 'Yes' vote brings us further and further away from a Libertarian world and into totalitarian handcuffs.

    No, your definitions are in fact way off. It's also clear that you don't just see Right-libertarianism as a political aspiration but more like a matter of faith. Are you at all willing to accept the possibility that you could be wrong or do you think the rest of us who don't agree with you are blind to the truth?

    In an effort to keep the thread on-track, I'd like to ask how you think the dismantling of the State could be achieved or if this is something that isn't necessary to plan.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    In fact, identifying pollution sources can be a very expensive and difficult job, and sources need not be local at all. Pollution in karst terrain, for example, can travel very long distances undiluted through very intricate conduit networks - and you'd be amazed by just how much of Ireland is underlain by old karst. Point sources close together can also be difficult to distinguish, and that's without considering non-point sources.

    Damage from pollution can be both insidious and long-term, and also difficult to ascribe more than statistically. A half-decent lawyer can create enough doubt to draw cases out over long periods.

    I guess your right there.
    That's not a necessary feature of the state at all - the state could equally assign and enforce a compensation scheme.

    I don't necessarily have a problem with the state enforcing the compensation scheme. My problem is the state abusing the system. Take the carbon tax for instance, where is that revenue going? Ideally the revenue would go towards planting trees in order to absorb the CO2 or even donating the money to research groups so they can find ways to tackle the problems of CO2 emissions. I'm fairly in favour of a state providing a mechanism like this so long as rates are at a level that reflects the through cost of pollution and also that there is transparency when it comes to where the revenue goes.
    Ring-fencing is always a superficially attractive option, but the costs of cleanup tend in fact to be too large, while companies can avoid post-mining rehabilitation by declaring bankruptcy.

    We could choose the route that is used with nuclear power stations and decommissioning. The mining company would have to set aside a certain amount of revenue every year to deal with the mine rehabilitation when the time comes.
    And how does one correctly price pollution? By the immediate impact on someone else's business? Or health? Over how many years? Where do the effects of pollution stop, exactly?

    I think you may be thinking of pollution in relatively simplistic terms (no offence meant - if you haven't studied/practised environmental science, you're likely to), where plaintiff A identifies defendant B as the source of the pollution affecting his property. But in a few years time, the pollution may have spread to other properties (and which ones exactly may depend on random events) - and on a timescale of decades, may be part of a 'background' level of pollution at some far distant property, or have worked its way up through the ecosystem to affect other livelihoods. Tracing pollution isn't a simple business, and assigning costs based on individual perception of impact is likely to lead to non-optimal outcomes.

    The problem with pricing of course is how deep do we dig to find negative effects of pollution. I propose that we start with the most easily identifiable consequences first. Take for instance sulphur emissions which lead to acid rain, we could estimate the amount of damage done by acid rain annually and price sulphur emissions accordingly. This is obviously over-simplistic and pretty unscientific but it's a start. Then at the opposite end of the scale we have the more hidden effects. As an example say I were to contract lung disease at some point in my life, pollution would probably have contributed to that somewhat. Although having contributed, the size of the contribution would probably be negligible and therefore it would be a bit extreme of me to seek compensation.

    These cases are obviously from the extreme ends of the spectrum and don't really offer much insight as to were to draw the line. Where to draw the line would be an entirely subjective matter and also require some in depth analysis from people who know a lot more than I do.
    If you are the plaintiff in a libertarian pollution case, you are likely to seek a level of compensation that reflects the balance of costs in pursuing the case against the damage you attribute to the pollution. You're unlikely to pursue compensation that would adequately cover all future users of the property, or any more distant properties potentially affected at some future time. The outcomes of 'contractual' pricing of compensation are never going to reflect the true costs of the damage, because aside from anything else the true costs of the damage may not be known for a century - and if you don't believe that, I suggest a trip to the Lancashire dales to look at the after-effects of Victorian industry. The after-effects of Roman industry in southern Jordan are still visible.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    As I'm sure you've noticed already I've backed down from my previous position on an entirely market based solution.

    I haven't looked into the Lancashire case too much. One instance I have seen is the pollution of the River Irwell. As I mentioned in another post, rivers can't be privatised so you can't have a pure market solution. One way to avoid these problems in future is before the factory is built is decide what can and can't be pumped into the river.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    20Cent wrote: »
    You said you were an anarcho capitalist, thought no gov was your thing apologies if not. Don't see the Sealand thing working either.

    I am an AnCap.
    If libertarianism is so great then why is Ron Paul running as a republican?
    Also he has zero chance of even getting a nomination.

    Ron Paul is an AnCap, running on the Republican ticket. This has been debated to death and well known. To curb any emotional aspect, he runs under the banner of the Republicans as they were founded by Libertarian qualities. He ran as a Libertarian in the 1980's also and uses the Constitution to his advantage to bring forth a Libertarian society.
    Lockstep wrote: »
    A party with zero federal representation?

    In 2008, the Dems had ~42% of registered voters, the Republicans ~32%.
    The libertarians had 0.24%. Behind the Greens and Constitutional party.


    Sure sounds like a significant party to me.


    Have you any evidence for this at all, given that the majority (not plurality) of young voters in 2008 voted for Obama?

    Worryingly you have overlooked the charade of having a two-party system, which in my book, is the real question here.
    No, your definitions are in fact way off. It's also clear that you don't just see Right-libertarianism as a political aspiration but more like a matter of faith. Are you at all willing to accept the possibility that you could be wrong or do you think the rest of us who don't agree with you are blind to the truth?

    In an effort to keep the thread on-track, I'd like to ask how you think the dismantling of the State could be achieved or if this is something that isn't necessary to plan.


    Don't know where you're getting your assumptions from. I in no way demanded you to accept my ideology. Libertarianism is the opposite of Authoritarianism, simple as that. You can be a libertarian socialist like Emma Goldman and Spooner. As for right-libertarianism, I don't look at it as a faith much like the faith you put in a god. I view it as a system of self-governance where the individual is free from coercion and I believe that is the best system for a peaceful and prosperous society.

    As for dismantling the state, videos I can place here would give you a far better insight than words ever could. If you like I can place several here if you have the interest to look at them. They show how a stateless society would function and provide law and order, national defense etc. which is the main concerns of people that can understand the concepts of everything else being private as we have examples of them today i.e - health and education.

    In any event, say a Libertarian government was elected to Dail Eireann tomorrow and all other things being equal, it would need to announce a referendum for changes to the Irish Constitution. These changes would include a reduction in the powers the central government had over the people e.g - not having the power to guarantee any banks at the Irish peoples expense. There would need to be a referendum on the withdrawal from the European Union and the power it holds over Irish law to reclaim our sovereignty. Next, all state owned land would be sold off and given to private individuals. A change in the Constitution would cement that no government can withdraw money via income tax etc. All state owned companies and services would be sold off and the sectors deregulated to encourage private competition. There would be no protectionism of domestic companies and Ireland would give the green light to Capitalism (a system that has never existed in all it's glory). Capitalism's definition is that you can't have capitalism without a free market. This means, a buyer and a seller enter negotiations because it benefits them. No one is telling them to sell at a price and buy at a certain price. Negotiating and bargaining comes back along with a national currency backed by 100% Gold Standard. Fiat currencies are in operation and competing too, not just between countries, but within them. Crime is reduced to murders and theft as no other definitions of crime exist leading to no more "business killings" i.e- drug lords. No more innocent by-standards, anyone that participates in an activity such as taking drugs are the sole victims and no one else.

    That example is very vague, I'd like to get further into it if you have a genuine interest.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    20Cent wrote: »
    You said you were an anarcho capitalist, thought no gov was your thing apologies if not. Don't see the Sealand thing working either.

    If libertarianism is so great then why is Ron Paul running as a republican?
    Also he has zero chance of even getting a nomination.

    Oh come on, Sealand? Sealand? That's a miniscule island.

    The bookmakers disagree on Ron Paul having zero chance of getting a nomination too. I trust them more than some guy on the internet. He runs as a republican because he wants to get elected.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    matthew8 wrote: »

    The bookmakers disagree on Ron Paul having zero chance of getting a nomination too. I trust them more than some guy on the internet. He runs as a republican because he wants to get elected.

    He's a rank outsider to win the nomination according to oddschecker.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/republican-candidate

    Why not put your money where your mouth is and make a bet? show us how strong you believe in our boy Ron.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    He's a rank outsider to win the nomination according to oddschecker.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/republican-candidate

    Why not put your money where your mouth is and make a bet? show us how strong you believe in our boy Ron.

    What are you talking about? Of course he's an outsider, but he's not a no-hoper, contrary to what 20Cent says.

    He's the underdog, we all know that. But he has a chance.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    He ran as a Libertarian in the 1980's also and uses the Constitution to his advantage to bring forth a Libertarian society.

    How does he do this then?


    Worryingly you have overlooked the charade of having a two-party system, which in my book, is the real question here.

    Hang on, you made proud claims in your previous post that the Libertarian party were the 3rd party in US politics, were on an upward trajectory 'worldwide' thanks to the youth. Then once your factual error was pointed out to you you change tack and start saying how unfair it all is?

    Can you say flip flop?

    Don't know where you're getting your assumptions from. I in no way demanded you to accept my ideology. Libertarianism is the opposite of Authoritarianism, simple as that. You can be a libertarian socialist like Emma Goldman and Spooner. As for right-libertarianism, I don't look at it as a faith much like the faith you put in a god. I view it as a system of self-governance where the individual is free from coercion and I believe that is the best system for a peaceful and prosperous society.

    So going back to my previous post, I'd like for you to outline how existing corporations are going to operate in your utopia.
    . which is the main concerns of people that can understand the concepts of everything else being private as we have examples of them today i.e - health and education.

    Can you point to me an example of a society where the state has no involvement with education or health provision?
    There would need to be a referendum on the withdrawal from the European Union and the power it holds over Irish law to reclaim our sovereignty. Next, all state owned land would be sold off and given to private individuals. A change in the Constitution would cement that no government can withdraw money via income tax etc.

    Out of this paragraph the only realistic proposal which would pass a referendum would be leaving the EU.
    All state owned companies and services would be sold off and the sectors deregulated to encourage private competition.

    What happens if no one wants to buy the state owned asset, or the new private owners of said asset prove wholly incompetent?
    This means, a buyer and a seller enter negotiations because it benefits them. No one is telling them to sell at a price and buy at a certain price. Negotiating and bargaining comes back along with a national currency backed by 100% Gold Standard. Fiat currencies are in operation and competing too, not just between countries, but within them.

    A practical example of where this has been implemented please.
    Crime is reduced to murders and theft as no other definitions of crime exist leading to no more "business killings" i.e- drug lords. No more innocent by-standards, anyone that participates in an activity such as taking drugs are the sole victims and no one else.

    :eek:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    matthew8 wrote: »
    What are you talking about?

    I'm talking about what you said just a few moments ago:
    The bookmakers disagree on Ron Paul having zero chance of getting a nomination too
    If you peruse the link i provided, you'll see the bookies don't give him a chance, otherwise they wouldn't be laying huge odds on him.
    matthew8 wrote: »
    Of course he's an outsider, but he's not a no-hoper, contrary to what 20Cent says.

    He's the underdog, we all know that. But he has a chance.


    He is a no-hoper, sorry to burst your bubble, but there's more chance of my cat winning the Republican nomination then Big Ron.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    I'm talking about what you said just a few moments ago:

    If you peruse the link i provided, you'll see the bookies don't give him a chance, otherwise they wouldn't be laying huge odds on him.




    He is a no-hoper, sorry to burst your bubble, there's more chance of my cat winning the Republican nomination then Big Ron.

    Here are the intrade rankings which is generally agreed to accurately show the chance of each candidate winning:
    Perry 35.9
    Romney 31.5
    Huntsman 7.0
    Palin 5.5
    Bachmann 5.4
    Paul 3.0
    Christie 2.1
    Giuliani 2.0
    Pataki 2.0
    Gingrich 1.0
    Ryan 0.6
    Bolton 0.5
    Cain 0.5
    Rubio 0.5
    Johnson 0.4

    Looking at the numbers, his number isn't 0, therefore he has a chance. Infact, has has a better chance than many other declared candidates.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    Hang on, you made proud claims in your previous post that the Libertarian party were the 3rd party in US politics, were on an upward trajectory 'worldwide' thanks to the youth. Then once your factual error was pointed out to you you change tack and start saying how unfair it all is?

    Can you say flip flop?

    Before we begin, may I ask what way you lean politically so that we are both on the same page. It seems wholly absurd for you to bash libertarianism when we are unaware of your preferences. In addition, no flip flop here. The fundamental error those who bash the ideology is that none of them are willing to actually understand what it is all about. How could I bash socialism when I didn't know what it would entail?

    The LP are the third largest party in the U.S. There is a political system at work where third party candidates are not thrown in your face like the Democrats or the Reps. No secret here - the system is bolloxed.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Rosalie Wailing Poltergeist


    Before we begin, may I ask what way you lean politically so that we are both on the same page. It seems wholly absurd for you to bash libertarianism when we are unaware of your preferences..

    No it doesn't. If it makes sense it will stand on its own merits regardless of his bias


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    Ron Paul is an AnCap.

    An anarchist congressman? Do you have sources for this?
    Don't know where you're getting your assumptions from. I in no way demanded you to accept my ideology. Libertarianism is the opposite of Authoritarianism, simple as that. You can be a libertarian socialist like Emma Goldman and Spooner. As for right-libertarianism, I don't look at it as a faith much like the faith you put in a god. I view it as a system of self-governance where the individual is free from coercion and I believe that is the best system for a peaceful and prosperous society.

    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.
    As for dismantling the state, videos I can place here would give you a far better insight than words ever could. If you like I can place several here if you have the interest to look at them. They show how a stateless society would function and provide law and order, national defense etc. which is the main concerns of people that can understand the concepts of everything else being private as we have examples of them today i.e - health and education.

    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.
    In any event, say a Libertarian government was elected to Dail Eireann tomorrow and all other things being equal, it would need to announce a referendum for changes to the Irish Constitution. These changes would include a reduction in the powers the central government had over the people e.g - not having the power to guarantee any banks at the Irish peoples expense. There would need to be a referendum on the withdrawal from the European Union and the power it holds over Irish law to reclaim our sovereignty.

    Would this mean more power to local government or would the immediate aim be a reduction in the power of all levels of government?
    Next, all state owned land would be sold off and given to private individuals. A change in the Constitution would cement that no government can withdraw money via income tax etc. All state owned companies and services would be sold off and the sectors deregulated to encourage private competition. There would be no protectionism of domestic companies and Ireland would give the green light to Capitalism (a system that has never existed in all it's glory).

    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?
    Capitalism's definition is that you can't have capitalism without a free market. This means, a buyer and a seller enter negotiations because it benefits them. No one is telling them to sell at a price and buy at a certain price.

    If that's true, why does only one of them make a profit?
    Negotiating and bargaining comes back along with a national currency backed by 100% Gold Standard. Fiat currencies are in operation and competing too, not just between countries, but within them. Crime is reduced to murders and theft as no other definitions of crime exist leading to no more "business killings" i.e- drug lords. No more innocent by-standards, anyone that participates in an activity such as taking drugs are the sole victims and no one else.
    So is rape not a crime?
    That example is very vague, I'd like to get further into it if you have a genuine interest.

    I would. Most of what you described is policies and constitutional changes executed by an elected government. At what point does this become anarchistic?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    matthew8 wrote: »
    Here are the intrade rankings which is generally agreed to accurately show the chance of each candidate winning:
    Perry 35.9
    Romney 31.5
    Huntsman 7.0
    Palin 5.5
    Bachmann 5.4
    Paul 3.0
    Christie 2.1
    Giuliani 2.0
    Pataki 2.0
    Gingrich 1.0
    Ryan 0.6
    Bolton 0.5
    Cain 0.5
    Rubio 0.5
    Johnson 0.4

    Looking at the numbers, his number isn't 0, therefore he has a chance. Infact, has has a better chance than many other declared candidates.

    He's trailing behind certified loopers Palin & Bachmann ffs! if you want to be pedantic then yes, he has a chance. But if i ring up a few bookies and start putting money on my cat to win the REP nomination, then he'll show up there too eventually.

    You gotta remember just because people are putting money on it doesn't mean he's in with a snowballs chance of being elected, it only means people are laying stupid bets.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    He's trailing behind certified loopers Palin & Bachmann ffs! if you want to be pedantic then yes, he has a chance. But if i ring up a few bookies and start putting money on my cat to win the REP nomination, then he'll show up there too eventually.

    You gotta remember just because people are putting money on it doesn't mean he's in with a snowballs chance of being elected, it only means people are laying stupid bets.

    Your cat won't show up there, because they know your cat isn't really running. How can someone be 3rd in some polls and have no chance? I think that if it snows, and I mean really snows in Iowa on the day of the caucus Paul has that caucus because his supporters will bother showing up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    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.

    Some Libertarians argue for revolution (Rothbard being an example) others for reform (David Friedman being an example). I myself am a reformist as I believe people and markets would need time to adjust.
    Would this mean more power to local government or would the immediate aim be a reduction in the power of all levels of government?

    It depends on what area of government we are talking about. The Esb for instance could be privatised immediately. Education on the other hand could put in the hands of parents before ending state involvement completely.
    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?

    The new wealth could be used to pay down some of our debt maybe. The money could also be used to pay pensions that the state is liable for.

    I wouldn't see any reason why resources shouldn't be sold to the highest bidder. The state might as well get as much money as possible.
    If that's true, why does only one of them make a profit?

    Both of them make a profit or the exchange wouldn't happen.
    So is rape not a crime?

    I presume he forgot to include violent crime. I'll leave it to him to clarify.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    No it's ok Bluewolf, I shall answer if it means we might get some concrete answers out of this chap.
    Before we begin, may I ask what way you lean politically so that we are both on the same page.

    I don't subscribe to any ideology, however i do support the concept of the Welfare State and reject the notion that minimal state interference in all aspects of society is the most desirable option in every circumstance. So, I presume, in Libertarian terms I am a "Leftist" and a "statist".
    It seems wholly absurd for you to bash libertarianism when we are unaware of your preferences. In addition, no flip flop here. The fundamental error those who bash the ideology is that none of them are willing to actually understand what it is all about. How could I bash socialism when I didn't know what it would entail?

    i've read Hayek and generally disagreed with him as I believe him to a pompous upper class fool pining for an idealized time pre the modern welfare state as we know it in the western world.

    Perhaps in time I'll get round to reading some more, but I rather examine the effects of Libertarian ideology on US mainstream politics in the late 20th century. In particular how it came to be that the US Republican party warped into a party dominated by it's extremist fringes such as Libertarians, social conservatives and militarists combined to advance the cause of small government, big military, minimal/no regulation of private industry and little or no taxation coming to the fore from the 1970s onwards and which in time cascaded into the political mainstream with generally disastrous results.
    The LP are the third largest party in the U.S. There is a political system at work where third party candidates are not thrown in your face like the Democrats or the Reps. No secret here - the system is bolloxed.

    Just admit you were incorrect and move on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    matthew8 wrote: »
    Your cat won't show up there, because they know your cat isn't really running.

    If my money is good then the bookie won't care and will put him on the list if enough people bet on my cat.
    matthew8 wrote: »
    How can someone be 3rd in some polls and have no chance?

    What polls? I know you're young but in time you'll learn that polls can be massively over/understated or just generally flawed through their design.

    In otherwords I wouldn't take these polls as gospel.
    matthew8 wrote: »
    I think that if it snows, and I mean really snows in Iowa on the day of the caucus Paul has that caucus because his supporters will bother showing up.

    You don't seem to have much faith in your boy winning if you're waiting for the snow!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    Some Libertarians argue for revolution (Rothbard being an example) others for reform (David Friedman being an example). I myself am a reformist as I believe people and markets would need time to adjust.

    I see. And at what point does the reform lead to the abolition of government? I mean, is there a referendum to decide whether or not to run any more elections or something along those lines?
    The new wealth could be used to pay down some of our debt maybe. The money could also be used to pay pensions that the state is liable for.

    Does this mean you are in favour of the state paying the debts guaranteed by the last government or were you referring only to the original sovereign debt?
    I wouldn't see any reason why resources shouldn't be sold to the highest bidder. The state might as well get as much money as possible.

    So would there be any consideration given to the intentions of the buyers or would that not be important?
    Both of them make a profit or the exchange wouldn't happen.

    That's up for debate but perhaps at some other time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    i've read Hayek and generally disagreed with him as I believe him to a pompous upper class fool pining for an idealized time pre the modern welfare state as we know it in the western world.

    Seen as you disagree with him based on class does that mean you disagree with his beliefs in social democracy as a young man?
    Perhaps in time I'll get round to reading some more, but I rather examine the effects of Libertarian ideology on US mainstream politics in the late 20th century. In particular how it came to be that the US Republican party warped into a party dominated by it's extremist fringes such as Libertarians, social conservatives and militarists combined to advance the cause of small government, big military, minimal/no regulation of private industry and little or no taxation coming to the fore from the 1970s onwards and which in time cascaded into the political mainstream with generally disastrous results.

    I can't see how you can examine the effects of the Libertarian ideology on US politics since the 1970's if it didn't really have much influence. Since the 1970's the US has started the war on drugs and begun too many wars to count, neither of those can be called Libertarian. Free market reforms might be a better term to use. If we look at the famous Reagan tax cuts which cut taxes by a huge amount without having much of an effect on tax revenues. Since the 1980's actually the rich now pick up a bigger burden of the tax take than before. The deregulation of airlines under Jimmy Carter have been hugely beneficial in getting the price of flights down.

    Would you like to provide us with examples of more free market oriented policies ending in disaster?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    I see. And at what point does the reform lead to the abolition of government? I mean, is there a referendum to decide whether or not to run any more elections or something along those lines?

    I don't advocate anarchy so you'll have to ask UsernameInUse.
    Does this mean you are in favour of the state paying the debts guaranteed by the last government or were you referring only to the original sovereign debt?

    I don't think the state has an obligation to pay the debts incurred to bailout the banks, so we could default on that debt. On debt incurred to run deficits, in principle I would advocate a default as I do not think states should be allowed to run up debt. In practice though such action would have serious repercussions with international relations, so we should pay back those debts.
    So would there be any consideration given to the intentions of the buyers or would that not be important?

    I'd imagine their intentions would be to make a profit. As far as I'm concerned they can do as they please with whatever they buy from the state.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    Seen as you disagree with him based on class does that mean you disagree with his beliefs in social democracy as a young man?

    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'.


    I can't see how you can examine the effects of the Libertarian ideology on US politics since the 1970's if it didn't really have much influence.

    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.

    Admit it, ye US libertarians share an ideological space with some pretty nasty elements over there on the far right.
    Would you like to provide us with examples of more free market oriented policies ending in disaster?

    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    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 :p. 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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    I don't advocate anarchy so you'll have to ask UsernameInUse.

    Oh right. I'll await UsernameInUse's response so.
    I don't think the state has an obligation to pay the debts incurred to bailout the banks, so we could default on that debt. On debt incurred to run deficits, in principle I would advocate a default as I do not think states should be allowed to run up debt. In practice though such action would have serious repercussions with international relations, so we should pay back those debts.

    Thanks for the clarification. That sounds entirely reasonable.
    I'd imagine their intentions would be to make a profit. As far as I'm concerned they can do as they please with whatever they buy from the state.

    Of course they want to make a profit. I thought it was obvious what I meant by "intentions", being in this case what would actually be done with the given asset rather than the reason for it being done. Anyway, does your view on this mean that anything done with property by the owner is automatically right, or just that "right" and "wrong" are irrelevant to property matters?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    If my money is good then the bookie won't care and will put him on the list if enough people bet on my cat.
    The bookie will put your cat at a million to one then.

    What polls? I know you're young but in time you'll learn that polls can be massively over/understated or just generally flawed through their design.

    In otherwords I wouldn't take these polls as gospel.
    Tied for third.
    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/11/gop2012poll.pdf
    And third.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-08-08-poll-gallup-election_n.htm
    You don't seem to have much faith in your boy winning if you're waiting for the snow!
    He's a long shot, we all know that, but he has a chance, and snow would greatly increase it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Of course they want to make a profit. I thought it was obvious what I meant by "intentions", being in this case what would actually be done with the given asset rather than the reason for it being done. Anyway, does your view on this mean that anything done with property by the owner is automatically right, or just that "right" and "wrong" are irrelevant to property matters?

    I understood you alright, I just did a bad job of answering. The way I see it if somebody owns a company, they should run it in whatever way they see fit in order to maximise profits. For example, say somebody bought Bus Eireann and ended unprofitable routes, I think they are fully entitled to do that. If I'm still barking up the wrong path here could you give an example?

    Whether what somebody does with their property is right or wrong depends on how it affects somebody else's property rights. I couldn't just decide to build an incinerator in my back garden because it would devalue my neighbours property, so I would have to compensate them for that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    I understood you alright, I just did a bad job of answering. The way I see it if somebody owns a company, they should run it in whatever way they see fit in order to maximise profits. For example, say somebody bought Bus Eireann and ended unprofitable routes, I think they are fully entitled to do that. If I'm still barking up the wrong path here could you give an example?

    No that articulated your view nicely. I understand your POV with things like bus companies, whether or not I agree, but I think there is a difference when it comes to things like natural resources, woodlands, waterways etc. These are not things that can come into and out of existence with a letter to the Companies Office. I fail to see how they will be best handled by an individual or a group of such with profit being their motivation.
    Whether what somebody does with their property is right or wrong depends on how it affects somebody else's property rights. I couldn't just decide to build an incinerator in my back garden because it would devalue my neighbours property, so I would have to compensate them for that.

    Of course, but I think it's disingenuous to bring everything back to the level of residential neighbours and their back gardens. Are things that do not have any effects on the property of other people and do not physically harm anybody therefore legal?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    No that articulated your view nicely. I understand your POV with things like bus companies, whether or not I agree, but I think there is a difference when it comes to things like natural resources, woodlands, waterways etc. These are not things that can come into and out of existence with a letter to the Companies Office. I fail to see how they will be best handled by an individual or a group of such with profit being their motivation.

    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.

    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.
    Of course, but I think it's disingenuous to bring everything back to the level of residential neighbours and their back gardens. Are things that do not have any effects on the property of other people and do not physically harm anybody therefore legal?

    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.

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    An anarchist congressman? Do you have sources for this?


    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    So is rape not a crime?

    Absolutely - to be specific, a crime is when anyone shows aggression against another individual.
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    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?
    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.
    You can leave out the ye, I'm not from the US :p. 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.
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    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?

    I haven't had a chance to read your post in it's entirety, however you should read Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises, Block or Thomas Woods and leave the Hayek down for starters.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    I haven't had a chance to read your post in it's entirety, however you should read Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises, Block or Thomas Woods and leave the Hayek down for starters.

    I have actually attempted to read some Mises, or at the very least read the work of his followers on the Mises website as I wished to see for myself what the Austrian school was about a few years back. Again I didn't buy into it as I'm coming to it, like i came to Hayek, from a viewpoint fundamentally opposed to what they propose.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    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?

    I'm only a recent convert to Libertarianism and I haven't had the chance to get acquainted with too much of the literature outside of the works of Ayn Rand and daily visits to the Mises Institute.
    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.

    Indeed most Libertarians do end up in the Republican Party alright. Rhetoric doesn't necessarily equal action though and Republicans often favour big Government when it swings things in their favour.
    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.

    The open nature of American politics means anyone can run under the banner of any party of their choosing in primaries. If I was an American citizen I could easily run in a primary for the Communist Party despite having nothing in common with them. The undesirables probably ran for the Republican nomination as there would elements of bigotry in the Republican Party but that doesn't implicate the Libertarian candidates.
    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.

    To imply that regulations preventing banks from "doing wrong" being repealed caused the fiasco suggests that banks aim for self-destruction. Common sense would suggest that is an incorrect view to hold. The US, Ireland and Iceland weren't the only countries with low regulation banking systems either. Hong Kong and New Zealand also have very light touch regulation on banks and they didn't have a meltdown. In fact for a while from the 30's up until the 60's Hong Kong had free banking and didn't have a single banking failure. 2 of the biggest banking failures ever occurred in Germany and the UK during this crisis, I would imagine that they have heavily regulated banking sectors.

    Personally I believe all the evidence suggests that lack of regulation did not cause the crisis.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse



    Personally I believe all the evidence suggests that lack of regulation did not cause the crisis.

    Spot on.

    To suggest otherwise would be to provide evidence of your extreme gullibility regarding the mainstream media. What caused this crisis was government intervention. We live in a world of Keynesian economics (Hayeks arch nemesis and a bigoted kunt at that I might add). Our corporate fascist system doesn't resemble capitalism remotely. Central planning doesn't work for food production or housing; an example of this would be the USSR. So why do people believe central planning works for money? Do they even care? They should, it's what brought us into this mess. Now, instead of the government saying "hang on here, the more we do, the worse things get", they decide to guarantee private debt at the expense of innocent people. It's like a science-fiction movie it's so absurd.

    The banks were not operating under the system of capitalism, so why is there an agenda to bash capitalism with excuses of "light touch regulation" when they were not participating in capitalistic practices? Something far more sinister is at work..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    These definitions are spot of for your information.

    No, they are wrong in a European context.

    In a historical context, the one economic philosophy that Liberals are strongly associated with is laissez-faire capitalism. It was the Liberals who typically favoured dismantling protectionist measures, whereas it was the Conservatives who typically favoured maintaining them.

    Even today, the major European Liberal parties tend to be much more pro-privatisation and much less supportive of the Common Agricultural Policy (a subsidy and protectionist measure) than the major European Christian Democrat parties (who tend to be more "paternalistic" - for want of a better word - as this reflects their Christian Democrat (i.e. conservative religious) background).

    That is in contrast to your definition of:
    Liberals ..... want to have a huge hand in directing the economy. Conservatives ..... want a hands-off approach when it comes to economics.

    Those may apply in the US where the phrase "Liberal" seems to be have become a term of abuse. They don't apply here in Europe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    View wrote: »
    No, they are wrong in a European context.





    Those may apply in the US where the phrase "Liberal" seems to be have become a term of abuse. They don't apply here in Europe.

    Read my post again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    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.

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    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.

    Quite the opposite I'd imagine in a truly libertarian freed market.

    Risky practices come about in large part because people are allowed to form corporations. Corporations are government granted (non) entities which allow their owners to enjoy state protection through limited liability.

    Limited liability ensures that the owners of corporations i.e. it's shareholders only stand to lose what stock they have in the corporation and are insulated from responsibility of any debts it might have if it goes bankrupt.

    If people stood to lose their savings and homes then they'd be very careful about where they invested their money and how their business was run.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    Praxeology is the study of human action; we never act if we do not intend to be in a better position from our actions.
    Yet the opposite happens so often it has it's own word in the English language. How do you/Praxeology explain altruism.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Worryingly you have overlooked the charade of having a two-party system, which in my book, is the real question here.

    I don't deny that a two party system is pretty woeful, but your claims on the strength of the Libertarian Party are fairly misleading. I was merely pointing out the incredibly low support for this supposedly third place party.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement