As A Young Adult, Do You Feel Your Views Are Represented In Ireland?

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course our economy would have suffered had our banks failed? But the debt would have remained in the private hands of those who's riskless behaviour brought about it's destruction. But foreign banks would have come in and taken over and our economy would be in a much better state now.

So you have just pointed out how the economy would have been destroyed anyway, contradicting your previous post:

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's funny. I could have sworn the socialisation of private debt destroyed the economy.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Your argument that Libertarians "trick" people into going against their best interests kind of falls apart when you realise there is no collective "upper class" mind. Also the staunchest supporters of Libertarianism tends to be University academics and intellectuals. The very sort of people you claim would suffer under privatisation of the third level system.

I don't think it takes a genius to realise smaller government = less opportunity for the government to interfere in your life.

Libertarians don't successfully 'trick' anyone other than themselves largely, which is why they are a point of ridicule on the Internet; they succeed more in muddying debate than convincing anybody (which is damaging enough).

You don't need any upper class either, just people willing to try and get ahead through fraud, and who don't care about harming society in the process.

The academics/intellectual founders and leaders of Libertarian views are almost universally part of the right-wing network of opaque think-tanks, where enormous amounts of money in the form of corporate and other 'charitable' tax-deducted donations, slosh around to fund support for these propagandists. No doubt, there are some 'true believers' out there, but it takes very little digging to start rooting up connections to opaquely-funded think-tanks, for most influential proponents.

It's nothing to do with 'freedom' from government at all. It's about getting rid of government, in order to grant greater private control over society/politics, through economic firepower. Any monopolistic/oligopolistic control over an important resource, shows economic power in private hands, can be a far greater danger to politics and society, than a properly run democratic government.
Massive financial fraud can, as we see to day, destroy entire countries and can drag down the entire world economy; it is used as a weapon against entire countries, with enormous economic (and thus political) power, in private hands.


Libertarianism is all about removing attention from any and every instance of excessive privately wielded political/economic/social power, and trying to redirect all attention/blame onto government instead (where reduction of government, is promoted in ways that just-so-happens to bolster unaccountable/excessive concentration of power in private hands).

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

So you have just pointed out how the economy would have been destroyed anyway, contradicting your previous post:

No contradiction. Yes we would have been in a bad position but we probably would have recovered by now. Socialisation of private debt has held back our recovery.

Libertarians don't successfully 'trick' anyone other than themselves largely, which is why they are a point of ridicule on the Internet; they succeed more in muddying debate than convincing anybody (which is damaging enough).

You make a lot of generalisations and off the tangent remarks in this post and this is one of them. I agree Libertarians don't "trick" anyone. They convince because their arguments make sense and people recognise this.

You don't need any upper class either, just people willing to try and get ahead through fraud, and who don't care about harming society in the process.

That's not true at all. Libertarianism benefits society. It empowers small businesses through cut backs in regulation and gives them greater leverage to benefit their community. For example a group of parents in a community who want to come together and set up their own school to teach their own ethos and instil in their children values that are important to them may do so free of government interference.

Another example is by cutting the minimum wage and making it easier to fire people companies will be more willing to take on lesser skilled workers. Another benefit to society.

The academics/intellectual founders and leaders of Libertarian views are almost universally part of the right-wing network of opaque think-tanks, where enormous amounts of money in the form of corporate and other 'charitable' tax-deducted donations, slosh around to fund support for these propagandists. No doubt, there are some 'true believers' out there, but it takes very little digging to start rooting up connections to opaquely-funded think-tanks, for most influential proponents.

Another generalised claim that you can't possibly back up.

It's nothing to do with 'freedom' from government at all. It's about getting rid of government, in order to grant greater private control over society/politics, through economic firepower. Any monopolistic/oligopolistic control over an important resource, shows economic power in private hands, can be a far greater danger to politics and society, than a properly run democratic government.

That's not true. Anarcho-capitalism is a subsect of libertarianism but not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalist. Also under a libertarian economic system monopolistic/oligopolistic markets are practically impossible to carry off. The only way these markets can survive is through government interference. You also mention democracy but libertarianism returns democracy to were it is most important. People's wallets.

Massive financial fraud can, as we see to day, destroy entire countries and can drag down the entire world economy; it is used as a weapon against entire countries, with enormous economic (and thus political) power, in private hands.

The Libertarian system is merciless in dealing with white collar crime.

Jimoslimos

V4Voluntary wrote: »

I've no problem saying I've libertarian leanings....what about it?

Well given the argument for vastly decreased government interference, libertarianism can never be truly socially liberal, rather socially passive. Which is fine if you live in a progressive utopia free from the overburdening influence of the Church and other such organisations - which we don't.

The so-called "socially liberal" aspect is used as a sell to promote the actual aim - removal of any regulation to free market economics. Now if lax regulation was partly to blame for the current mess we find ourselves in what would zero regulation result in?

Jimoslimos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Couldn't agree more the Unions should never have been given the power social partnership entitles them to. Some anti union law to break up the conglomerates like ICTU and SITU would go a long way.

So in a similar vein, do you reckon we should have anti-monopoly laws?

CuriousG

No.

My views tend to differ from the usual views of 'young people' though, I've learned (and confirmed by OP), so that says something.

I am 20.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No contradiction. Yes we would have been in a bad position but we probably would have recovered by now. Socialisation of private debt has held back our recovery.


You make a lot of generalisations and off the tangent remarks in this post and this is one of them. I agree Libertarians don't "trick" anyone. They convince because their arguments make sense and people recognise this.


That's not true at all. Libertarianism benefits society. It empowers small businesses through cut backs in regulation and gives them greater leverage to benefit their community. For example a group of parents in a community who want to come together and set up their own school to teach their own ethos and instil in their children values that are important to them may do so free of government interference.

Another example is by cutting the minimum wage and making it easier to fire people companies will be more willing to take on lesser skilled workers. Another benefit to society.


Another generalised claim that you can't possibly back up.


That's not true. Anarcho-capitalism is a subsect of libertarianism but not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalist. Also under a libertarian economic system monopolistic/oligopolistic markets are practically impossible to carry off. The only way these markets can survive is through government interference. You also mention democracy but libertarianism returns democracy to were it is most important. People's wallets.


The Libertarian system is merciless in dealing with white collar crime.

Very few people outside of the existing believers take in any of that spiel. None of it is anything other than unbacked assertion, countered by the visible reality that the entire Libertarian movement just happens to be funded by a huge network of opaque think-tanks, with a history of 'intellectual' backers (particularly the founders) in the pocket of some of the most corrupt corporations/industries in existence.

Very few are going to believe any of that nonsense grounded in free market fundamentalism (the insane failed idea that markets can be trusted to regulate themselves), when it takes only the slightest exercise in critical thought to see that most of the policies advocated to achieve that aim, are expressly designed to empower those who are already wealthy, the corporations they control, and to empower fraud in finance/business, for even more upward-concentration of wealth.

The only counter offered against that, are really weak assurances that (despite everything pointing to the opposite) 'the markets' would not engage in massive fraud if left alone, that free unregulated (meaning getting rid of laws, by definition) markets 'will behave themselves, we promise', and that every instance of private fraud you've ever seen is really governments fault.

It's an ideology entirely built up on deliberately false assertions at best (repeated as often as possible without any backing, to lend weight through repetition - it's almost entirely wind, dressed up as argument), and (when you get to the more sociopathic supporters) total lies aimed at crippling democracy at worst.


You say I can't back up the claim that huge swathes of Libertarian intellectuals are in the pocket of corrupt think tanks? Do a brief Google search on any of the big names, and start plugging the institutes and people into www.sourcewatch.org for one; you barely need to do any digging at all, to start rooting out widespread connections to corrupt individuals/institutes, with mostly opaque funding.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Very few people outside of the existing believers take in any of that spiel. None of it is anything other than unbacked assertion, countered by the visible reality that the entire Libertarian movement just happens to be funded by a huge network of opaque think-tanks, with a history of 'intellectual' backers (particularly the founders) in the pocket of some of the most corrupt corporations/industries in existence.

You have absolutely no proof for any of this. It's just random spewing. To say that an entire political movement is being funded by large corporations is ridiculous. Particularly as those large corporations would bt the first ones to suffer under a libertarian economic system.

Very few are going to believe any of that nonsense grounded in free market fundamentalism (the insane failed idea that markets can be trusted to regulate themselves), when it takes only the slightest exercise in critical thought to see that most of the policies advocated to achieve that aim, are expressly designed to empower those who are already wealthy, the corporations they control, and to empower fraud in finance/business, for even more upward-concentration of wealth.

When you deregulate the market you increase competition, make monopolies impossible to maintain and shorten the supply lines from producer to customer giving each citizen a grater economic and democratic control over the market place. Libertarianism is about taking power away from the large corporations and empowering small to medium business to pick up the place and provide higher wages and employment through increased competition for jobs. The state maintains oligarchs. The market destroys them.

The only counter offered against that, are really weak assurances that (despite everything pointing to the opposite) 'the markets' would not engage in massive fraud if left alone, that free unregulated (meaning getting rid of laws, by definition) markets 'will behave themselves, we promise', and that every instance of private fraud you've ever seen is really governments fault.

I've never said the market won't engage in fraud. Of course it will be attempted. Humans are by their nature greedy and these motives are found in all economic systems but a truly democratic libertarian society would be merciless in putting down white collar crime. This is one of the few areas a government would still be needed.

It's an ideology entirely built up on deliberately false assertions at best (repeated as often as possible without any backing, to lend weight through repetition - it's almost entirely wind, dressed up as argument), and (when you get to the more sociopathic supporters) total lies aimed at crippling democracy at worst.

Socialism isn't that bad, they're just misguided.

You say I can't back up the claim that huge swathes of Libertarian intellectuals are in the pocket of corrupt think tanks? Do a brief Google search on any of the big names, and start plugging the institutes and people into www.sourcewatch.org for one; you barely need to do any digging at all, to start rooting out widespread connections to corrupt individuals/institutes, with mostly opaque funding.

From the page of Ron Paul:

"Libertarian Party spokesman George Getz said that thousands of libertarians across the United States donate money to Ron Paul's campaign funds. Campaign disclosures reveal that 71.4% of contributions to Paul's coffers come from outside his home state of Texas. Unlike many political candidates, Paul receives the overwhelming majority of his campaign contributions (92.5% in 2004), from individuals."

92.5% from individuals. Lies and generalisations are the only contribution you have made to this debate.

Just thought I'd throw this in.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You have absolutely no proof for any of this. It's just random spewing. To say that an entire political movement is being funded by large corporations is ridiculous. Particularly as those large corporations would bt the first ones to suffer under a libertarian economic system.

Seriously, start searching up your favoured Libertarian institutions/spokespeople, and find how many are not neck-deep in corrupt corporate lobbyist connections; Ludwig von Mises institute, Cato, Murray Rothbard, Hayek, to pick a handful of more prominent names; all have a history of corrupt (sometimes even anti-science) lobbyist connections, at best.

I mean, just picking through this list for one, and searching around (something I actually took the time to do way back), shows a ton of such connections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizations

Libertarianism is built around hypocritical hyperskepticism towards government, and zero skepticism towards private industry, and especially little skepticism about the movements own murky history.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

When you deregulate the market you increase competition, make monopolies impossible to maintain and shorten the supply lines from producer to customer giving each citizen a grater economic and democratic control over the market place. Libertarianism is about taking power away from the large corporations and empowering small to medium business to pick up the place and provide higher wages and employment through increased competition for jobs. The state maintains oligarchs. The market destroys them.


I've never said the market won't engage in fraud. Of course it will be attempted. Humans are by their nature greedy and these motives are found in all economic systems but a truly democratic libertarian society would be merciless in putting down white collar crime. This is one of the few areas a government would still be needed.


Socialism isn't that bad, they're just misguided.

This is more of the usual spiel that is all assertion and soundbites, and has no backing in reality. Repeating the same free market fundamentalist nonsense once again, doesn't make it any more true when it's already failed catastrophically; 'deregulation', and removal of 'government interference', is just another way of saying laws will be repealed, in a way that makes fraud much easier to conduct and get away with (usually by making it incredibly easy to hide - so not even 'the markets' can do anything about it).

Again, we're supposed to believe the massive failures of deregulation, generating all sorts of monopolistic/oligopolistic effects in multiple industries (particularly with greater amounts of 'too big to fail' institutions in various industries, that have ridiculous economic power), is again 'all the fault of government', not the blindingly obvious result of excessive deregulation.

It's just the usual nonsense of "try to pin the blame for all private corruption/fraud on government".

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

From the page of Ron Paul:

"Libertarian Party spokesman George Getz said that thousands of libertarians across the United States donate money to Ron Paul's campaign funds. Campaign disclosures reveal that 71.4% of contributions to Paul's coffers come from outside his home state of Texas. Unlike many political candidates, Paul receives the overwhelming majority of his campaign contributions (92.5% in 2004), from individuals."

92.5% from individuals. Lies and generalisations are the only contribution you have made to this debate.

I'll give Ron Paul credit for appearing to cleanly stick by his principles, and he comes out with a lot of stuff I can agree with strongly (on primarily non-economic issues); does little to change the corrupt history of US Libertarianism's intellectual and funding history mind, with a vast number of the core founding people and institutions being affected by this.

This is something Libertarian supporters seem to not give a toss about at all, even though it exhibits an extreme lack of skepticism and critical thinking, towards corruption riddling their own political movement.

V4Voluntary

KyussBishop wrote: »

Seriously, start searching up your favoured Libertarian institutions/spokespeople, and find how many are not neck-deep in corrupt corporate lobbyist connections; Ludwig von Mises institute, Cato, Murray Rothbard, Hayek, to pick a handful of more prominent names; all have a history of corrupt (sometimes even anti-science) lobbyist connections, at best.

I mean, just picking through this list for one, and searching around (something I actually took the time to do way back), shows a ton of such connections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizations

Libertarianism is built around hypocritical hyperskepticism towards government, and zero skepticism towards private industry, and especially little skepticism about the movements own murky history.

This argument is typical of a total retreat from the question. You haven't answered the question put to you and now you seem to think that you have justified your claim by completely reiterating the exact same point you made several pages back. Let me ask you another question.

If corporations favour and support Libertarians, then why the hell don't they financially back them in campaigns? It's your puppet candidates like the Obamas, the Romneys, the Camerons, the Kennys of this world that received corporate donations. That's where the corporate money goes, not to libertarian candidates. Have you ever asked yourself why that is? If not, why?

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Seriously, start searching up your favoured Libertarian institutions/spokespeople, and find how many are not neck-deep in corrupt corporate lobbyist connections; Ludwig von Mises institute, Cato, Murray Rothbard, Hayek, to pick a handful of more prominent names; all have a history of corrupt (sometimes even anti-science) lobbyist connections, at best.

I mean, just picking through this list for one, and searching around (something I actually took the time to do way back), shows a ton of such connections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizations

All that proves is that some members of the Libertarian movement have been corrupt, well of course. All movements have their bad eggs and Libertarianism is no different. I understand that. What you don't understand, or at least don't seem to accept is under a true theoretical libertarian system white collar crime is punished mercilessly by the judiciary system. Something we're missing in our current version of corny capitalism were bankers who swindled away the wealth of the nation walk free.

Libertarianism is built around hypocritical hyperskepticism towards government, and zero skepticism towards private industry, and especially little skepticism about the movements own murky history.

That's not true. Libertarianism is built on hypersketicism towards both. Under a Libertarian system neither government or companies can be allowed monopolistic power over any part of people's lives.

This is more of the usual spiel that is all assertion and soundbites, and has no backing in reality. Repeating the same free market fundamentalist nonsense once again, doesn't make it any more true when it's already failed catastrophically; 'deregulation', and removal of 'government interference', is just another way of saying laws will be repealed, in a way that makes fraud much easier to conduct and get away with (usually by making it incredibly easy to hide - so not even 'the markets' can do anything about it).

And here you are repeating the exact same thing you said in your last post, go figure.

Again, we're supposed to believe the massive failures of deregulation, generating all sorts of monopolistic/oligopolistic effects in multiple industries (particularly with greater amounts of 'too big to fail' institutions in various industries, that have ridiculous economic power), is again 'all the fault of government', not the blindingly obvious result of excessive deregulation.

Ever ask yourself why big companies don't want a libertarian system to come into effect? No? Well here's why, because monopolies/oligopolies are not a natural creation of the market. That's right they're formed by government restrictions of entry. Take away this regulation and monopolies are impossible to maintain.

I'll give Ron Paul credit for appearing to cleanly stick by his principles, and he comes out with a lot of stuff I can agree with strongly (on primarily non-economic issues); does little to change the corrupt history of US Libertarianism's intellectual and funding history mind, with a vast number of the core founding people and institutions being affected by this.

This is something Libertarian supporters seem to not give a toss about at all, even though it exhibits an extreme lack of skepticism and critical thinking, towards corruption riddling their own political movement.

Well there you go they aren't all that bad after all are they?

KyussBishop

V4Voluntary wrote: »

This argument is typical of a total retreat from the question. You haven't answered the question put to you and now you seem to think that you have justified your claim by completely reiterating the exact same point you made several pages back. Let me ask you another question.

If corporations favour and support Libertarians, then why the hell don't they financially back them in campaigns? It's your puppet candidates like the Obamas, the Romneys, the Camerons, the Kennys of this world that received corporate donations. That's where the corporate money goes, not to libertarian candidates. Have you ever asked yourself why that is? If not, why?

You don't even contest my claims, you just demand further validation of them; do your own research. Take Cato - funded by the Koch Brothers (very uncontroversial point - you won't even bother denying this, because you know it's correct, you just demand further validation for rhetorical effect), Ludwig Von Mises is tied to the Mont Pelerin Society think tank, which is also tied to the Koch's and a whole bunch of other lobbyists/propagandists; Rothbard has ties to many early Libertarian think-tanks, including those involved in the early history of the Mont Pelerin Society; Hayek has ties to Cato and reams of other corrupt think tanks.

Combined, these think-tanks have a very wide variety of oil industry lobbyists (not least the Koch's), tobacco industry lobbyists, among many other industries lobbyists.

Their goal is not to lobby politicans direct, but to create an entire set of academic and political narrative/ideology, to create faux-legitimacy for ultra-conservative economic views (which if implemented, just-so-happen to massively benefit finance/business and often corrupt industry lobbyists, to the detriment of the rest of society), that tend to be extremely anti-science in many instances, to try and control and muddy political debate.


You're not going to bother actually contesting any of my very easily researched claims though, because you don't give a toss about the truth of it, just about rhetoric to back the views you support, and to remain eternally 'unconvinced' of every possible point that contests them.

I'm not posting to convince you, I don't care about that; I'm posting to point out largely to other posters, the massive hypocrisy and corrupt nature of the political ideology you support, which anyone here can verify with a little searching/reading.

If you (and other posters with similar views) have zero skepticism towards the intellectually/morally corrupt people and institutions responsible for constructing your favoured ideology, yet are ultra-skeptical of government (even in cases where it is blindingly obvious fault lies in private hands), it shows extreme hypocrisy (and in my view, probable knowledge that what you support is bunk), so I'm not going to waste my time further with that.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All that proves is that some members of the Libertarian movement have been corrupt, well of course. All movements have their bad eggs and Libertarianism is no different. I understand that. What you don't understand, or at least don't seem to accept is under a true theoretical libertarian system white collar crime is punished mercilessly by the judiciary system. Something we're missing in our current version of corny capitalism were bankers who swindled away the wealth of the nation walk free.

Straight away that is nonsense, and this is why Libertarians never talk about 'deregulation' in anything other than cheap anti-government soundbites.

Regulations are laws, Libertarians want to remove laws which define what is illegal (which define fraud itself), and which make it possible to investigate illegal activity/fraud. Libertarians promote reforms that would make much of private business so opaque, that it would be utterly impossible to even detect fraud, nevermind prevent any of it.
They also talk primarily of focusing on punishment of fraud, not prevention, which as we see now is completely insufficient, when failing to prevent fraud in the first place can bring down entire economies.

Out of one side of their mouth they claim to want 'freedom'/deregulation, and out of the other side of their mouth they will claim fraud won't happen (which requires regulations).

You'll never find a Libertarian capable of describing precisely how such a system will work, from the ground up (and I'm not talking about mere assertions that 'everything will be ok', or 'things will work like this, despite that being directly contrary to reality'), because their views require a form of doublespeak like above, where they inherently contradict themselves, but pretend it is all consistent and that it will work.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's not true. Libertarianism is built on hypersketicism towards both. Under a Libertarian system neither government or companies can be allowed monopolistic power over any part of people's lives.
..
Ever ask yourself why big companies don't want a libertarian system to come into effect? No? Well here's why, because monopolies/oligopolies are not a natural creation of the market. That's right they're formed by government restrictions of entry. Take away this regulation and monopolies are impossible to maintain.

These two points are mutually contradictory. You will have us trust that 'free markets', free from government interference, are going to magically not end up producing monopolies/oligopolies, and you pretend to be hyperskeptical towards private business?

That's nothing more than a cult-like belief in the mythical 'free market', which can never exist in reality, and which (yet again) tries the stupid trick of taking the blame for private faults (creating monopolies), and placing that on government.

Staff Infection

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm not posting to convince you, I don't care about that; I'm posting to point out largely to other posters, the massive hypocrisy and corrupt nature of the political ideology you support, which anyone here can verify with a little searching/reading.

Ok, I have a question so. I wouldn't label myself as anything really including libertarian. I do however, agree with views some would describe as liberal such as gay marriage, the legal regulated and taxed sale of most drugs, more focus on respecting personal privacy and I'm pro-choice. On an economic standpoint I'd be described as a wee bit conservative I'd try a 50-50 approach with taxes and cuts to reduce deficits, would be largely pro europe and agree with both banking and market regulations.

Based on the above apart from naive, foolish etc. is there any label such as crazy liberal that would kind of cover my beliefs?
Also which of our current parties if any do you think would be closest to my political stances? I know labor tick one or two but definitely not others.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Straight away that is nonsense, and this is why Libertarians never talk about 'deregulation' in anything other than cheap anti-government soundbites.

You should explain why something is nonsense instead of simply stating it as fact and expecting me to believe you.

Regulations are laws, Libertarians want to remove laws which define what is illegal (which define fraud itself), and which make it possible to investigate illegal activity/fraud.

That's not true at all. Libertarians want to cut back on regulation yes, and all regulations are indeed laws but not all laws are regulations and not all regulations are in place to investigate fraud.

To say that Libertarians wish to eradicate regulations so they can commit white collar crime is intellectually dishonest at best and a down right lie at worst.

Libertarians promote reforms that would make much of private business so opaque, that it would be utterly impossible to even detect fraud, nevermind prevent any of it.

That's simply not true. Again ignorance at best and a down right lie at worst.

http://business-ethics.com/2010/02/16/1035-who-detects-corporate-fraud-tip-its-not-usually-the-sec/

They also talk primarily of focusing on punishment of fraud, not prevention, which as we see now is completely insufficient, when failing to prevent fraud in the first place can bring down entire economies.

Talking about prevention of fraud is all well and good but what you would do put regulations on business that will stifle the economy to prevent fraud which may happen which may stifle the economy. Pretty much like nuking your garden to get rid of cockroaches.

Out of one side of their mouth they claim to want 'freedom'/deregulation, and out of the other side of their mouth they will claim fraud won't happen (which requires regulations).

Fraud will happen with regulations or without and you know that. You've displayed a lot of intellectual dishonesty in your previous couple of posts. Furthermore as I've pointed out earlier the most amount of corporate fraud in the US isn't caught by the SEC.

You'll never find a Libertarian capable of describing precisely how such a system will work, from the ground up (and I'm not talking about mere assertions that 'everything will be ok', or 'things will work like this, despite that being directly contrary to reality'), because their views require a form of doublespeak like above, where they inherently contradict themselves, but pretend it is all consistent and that it will work.

On the contrary there are many eloquent proponents of libertarianism who very elaborately detail how the system works. Of all the major "fringe" movements Libertarianism is the most expanded upon the and most workable.

These two points are mutually contradictory. You will have us trust that 'free markets', free from government interference, are going to magically not end up producing monopolies/oligopolies, and you pretend to be hyperskeptical towards private business?

Nothing contradictory about them. A monopoly can only survive under state controlled entrance laws. Take away the entrance laws and more companies will join the market until it is no longer competitive to do so. It would be impossible to hold monopoly or even oligopoly power in a libertarian society.

That's nothing more than a cult-like belief in the mythical 'free market', which can never exist in reality, and which (yet again) tries the stupid trick of taking the blame for private faults (creating monopolies), and placing that on government.

The free market is a theoretical concept. Of course it doesn't exist in real life. The world isn't that simple. But the closer you move towards the free market the more the real market begins to resemble it.

Karl Stein

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On the contrary there are many eloquent proponents of libertarianism who very elaborately detail how the system works.

They're talking bollocks then because there is no libertarian system in the first place.

Iwasfrozen

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

They're talking bollocks then because there is no libertarian system in the first place.

Now now, you shouldn't make snap judgements on political philosophies. Especially ones with so many followers.

Karl Stein

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Now now, you shouldn't make snap judgements on political philosophies. Especially ones with so many followers.

You just ignored what I wrote and went off on a soporific soliloquy. True to form.

I'll make it easier for you.

You said:

there are many eloquent proponents of libertarianism who very elaborately detail how the system works.

To which I replied:

They're talking bollocks then because there is no libertarian system in the first place.

How can 'eloquent proponents of libertarianism' 'elaborately detail how the system works' when there is no libertarian system at work?

Iwasfrozen

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

How can 'eloquent proponents of libertarianism' 'elaborately detail how the system works' when there is no libertarian system at work?

You understand the concept of theoretical models and how elaborations are performed by proponents (or critics) of these models to describe how they would (conditional tense) function if applied to the real world.

Karl Stein

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

models to describe how they would function if applied to the real world.

They describe how they believe a libertarian fantasy society will function in a fantasy future which brings us back to my original point:

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

They're talking bollocks

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

Iwasfrozen

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

They describe how they believe a libertarian fantasy society will function in a fantasy future which brings us back to my original point:

Incredible.

Well that's the entire concept of political and societal thought thrown out the window.

Karl Stein

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Incredible.

The fantasy libertarian society in a fantasy future is indeed incredible.

Here's another thing. If Libertarianism is a viable system then why hasn't it arisen in the, you know, real world rather than the fantasies of academics?

Iwasfrozen

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

The fantasy libertarian society in a fantasy future is indeed incredible.

Here's another thing. If Libertarianism is a viable system then why hasn't it arisen in the, you know, real world rather than the fantasies of academics?

It's incredible that one person is so utterly wrong. To truely believe that a concept developed by academics, business leaders, and ordinary people alike cannot possibly exist in the future just because it hasn't existed in the past? That's conservatism in the extreme.

EuropeanSon

No. But they certainly wouldn't be represented by you and your ilk.

laoch na mona

not enough poll options some of the oposition represents my views well enogh

Karl Stein

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

To truely believe that a concept developed by academics, business leaders, and ordinary people alike cannot possibly exist in the future just because it hasn't existed in the past? That's conservatism in the extreme.

I never said it wasn't possible, I'd say it's highly improbable - I'm just calling it out for what it is. An unproven, untested fantasy.

Libertarianism as it's being pushed at present is just a cynical ploy to push the centre further right and hand more power to corporations.

Iwasfrozen

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I never said it wasn't possible, I'd say it's highly improbable - I'm just calling it out for what it is. An unproven, untested fantasy.

Libertarianism as it's being pushed at present is just a cynical ploy to push the centre further right and hand more power to corporations.

A plot by who? Corporations? Even assuming there was a corporation hive mind they certainly wouldn't be supporting libertarianism.

Karl Stein

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A plot by who? Corporations? Even assuming there was a corporation hive mind they certainly wouldn't be supporting libertarianism.

Libertarianism is a wide spectrum. On the extreme ends you have anarcho-capitalists (who nobody takes seriously) and on the other you have right wing proto-fascists who pretend they hate government but actually love it.

I don't need to tell you which end of the spectrum has lots of money and influence.

KyussBishop

Staff Infection wrote: »

Ok, I have a question so. I wouldn't label myself as anything really including libertarian. I do however, agree with views some would describe as liberal such as gay marriage, the legal regulated and taxed sale of most drugs, more focus on respecting personal privacy and I'm pro-choice. On an economic standpoint I'd be described as a wee bit conservative I'd try a 50-50 approach with taxes and cuts to reduce deficits, would be largely pro europe and agree with both banking and market regulations.

Based on the above apart from naive, foolish etc. is there any label such as crazy liberal that would kind of cover my beliefs?
Also which of our current parties if any do you think would be closest to my political stances? I know labor tick one or two but definitely not others.

I wouldn't say there's anything in those views there, that approaches Libertarianism; the hallmark of Libertarians, is anti-everything-government (privatization, stripping almost all public services, deregulating everything - even when it ensures massive fraud), mixed with devout free-market-fundamentalism (even though 'true' free markets are unattainable and can't exist, and implementing half-measures just ensures perverse incentives and massive fraud), and many other economic policies that are just regressive and aimed at benefiting the wealthy (like flat taxes, so that the less well off pay a higher percentage of taxes, and the wealthy pay less than before - so they all pay the same percentage-wise, even though the wealthy earn far more beyond cost of living).

Libertarians are mostly identified by their economic views, more than anything else; usually they follow Austrian economics, but that doesn't mean every Austrian follower is a Libertarian (compared to mainstream/neoclassical economics, Austrian economics even has a lot of merit - but with Libertarians its turned far more into a political ideology, than just economics).

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

To say that Libertarians wish to eradicate regulations so they can commit white collar crime is intellectually dishonest at best and a down right lie at worst.

I didn't say Libertarians wish this, though I do think many of them are fooled into believing the ideology, and end up becoming 'useful idiots' for advocating this (though it is notable that so many Libertarians I encounter, seem to turn out to work in finance a lot of the time - the place where white collar crime has become more concentrated, than it ever has been before in any other industry).

A political ideology largely constructed by corrupt corporate-funded think-tanks, is designed to promote policies that corruptly benefit the people who fund the construction and dissemination of these political views.
Putting all that together is not exactly a huge leap in conclusions, given the well documented connections here; "wealthy private industries/individuals, in corrupt propaganda shocker!".

It's not like Libertarians aren't fully aware of this either, seeing as it happens all the time, particularly in the US; hell, even the defense earlier in this thread didn't even contest it! (just was a variation of 'other parties do this too' - the usual whataboutery, just not applied to government this time)

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's simply not true. Again ignorance at best and a down right lie at worst.

http://business-ethics.com/2010/02/16/1035-who-detects-corporate-fraud-tip-its-not-usually-the-sec/

Eh, your article (which by the way, is a study limited to a timeframe in one of the most deregulated financial periods in modern history), backs my point that deregulation makes business opaque, since the article describes relying almost entirely upon whistleblowers for information.

Luigi Zingales (who co-authored the paper) is also a member of several right-wing think tanks, including the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, which has all sorts of corrupt ties to the Tobacco industry and Bush Administration, and tons of other right-wing think tanks, as well as ties to borderline-racist authors like Charles Murray.

If you want good writing on fraud, William K. Black (Bill Black), a former regulator in the US who helped put thousands in jail during the Savings & Loans crisis, is one of the most prominent experts on fraud around.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Talking about prevention of fraud is all well and good but what you would do put regulations on business that will stifle the economy to prevent fraud which may happen which may stifle the economy. Pretty much like nuking your garden to get rid of cockroaches.

See there we go - bland assertions that it will 'stifle the economy' (I think the gigantic economic crisis resulting from widespread deregulation, has 'stifle[d] the economy' a bit). You don't favour adequate regulations at all, you just pay lip service to it.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Fraud will happen with regulations or without and you know that. You've displayed a lot of intellectual dishonesty in your previous couple of posts. Furthermore as I've pointed out earlier the most amount of corporate fraud in the US isn't caught by the SEC.

I haven't displayed any intellectual dishonesty here - you're the one claiming to support regulation for dealing with fraud, while in the same breath saying it would stifle the economy.

Now we're at 'but fraud will happen anyway', which is just nonsense because there's a huge difference between small-scale fraud failing to be detected and clamped down on even with strong regulations, and massive widescale economy-destroying fraud that was staring regulators in the face for most of a decade.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On the contrary there are many eloquent proponents of libertarianism who very elaborately detail how the system works. Of all the major "fringe" movements Libertarianism is the most expanded upon the and most workable.

Yet never a Libertarian poster who can do it. Only posters who reference others to multi-dozen page books as reference.

If you (or others posters) tried to describe/construct a complete Libertarian economic/political system (not even in huge detail, just general strokes), inconsistencies and faults would become apparent so fast, and in such great number, that you would not be able to answer challenges against them.

That's why these posters never attempt this, and why they rely primarily on anti-government bashing, instead of presenting actual solutions themselves ('solutions' which they know, cause far more damage than the overexaggerated problem they are supposed to solve)

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nothing contradictory about them. A monopoly can only survive under state controlled entrance laws. Take away the entrance laws and more companies will join the market until it is no longer competitive to do so. It would be impossible to hold monopoly or even oligopoly power in a libertarian society.

That's a ridiculous assertion; just look up natural monopolies and barriers to entry to see how completely wrong that is.

This is one of the big things Libertarians do their utmost to deny: The very possibility of monopolies/oligopolies in private industry (even though it is blindingly obvious to almost everyone that this happens and will happen).

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The free market is a theoretical concept. Of course it doesn't exist in real life. The world isn't that simple. But the closer you move towards the free market the more the real market begins to resemble it.

That's total nonsense. Another completely unbacked assertion, which is more like a religious belief than backed by anything based in reality. You say "The world isn't that simple", and in the next sentence make one of the most oversimplified semi-religious assertions that exists in economics today.

The 'free market' is not just a theoretical concept, it is an impossible concept; that's like a physicist saying "we have this model of a perpetual motion machine - we know it's theoretical and not possible in reality, but if we try to construct it, the closer the construction moves towards the model, the more it will begin to resemble a perpetual motion machine".

That's just ridiculous stuff - I'd say that's even one of the most insane and harmful ideas that exists in economics today, and there are plenty of authors (notably Steve Keen) who have ripped that idea to shreds.

SupaNova2

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

The fantasy libertarian society in a fantasy future is indeed incredible.

Here's another thing. If Libertarianism is a viable system then why hasn't it arisen in the, you know, real world rather than the fantasies of academics?

When mass slavery was the norm people said the same thing. "If a system without slaves is a viable system then why hasn't it arisen". Well after enough time it did arise.

Karl Stein

SupaNova2 wrote: »

When mass slavery was the norm people said the same thing.

Except all those people who were slaves and all those people who thought slavery was oppressive and immoral.

The places where the least slavery and forms of slavery are the norm are places where the power differential of vast wealth, and thus power, is mitigated by a robust social democratic state and government in places like Denmark, Sweden and Norway which highlights the 'government is the problem' for being the absolute libereligious gibberish that it is.

V4Voluntary

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Except all those people who were slaves and all those people who thought slavery was oppressive and immoral.

The places where the least slavery and forms of slavery are the norm are places where the power differential of vast wealth, and thus power, is mitigated by a robust social democratic state and government in places like Denmark, Sweden and Norway which highlights the 'government is the problem' for being the absolute libereligious gibberish that it is.

Sadly you're somehow under the wrong assumption that the countries you list is in someway the end goal or destination in which everyone walking planet earth is undertaking to imitate. They're not.

You say "except all those people who were slaves and all those people who thought slavery was oppressive and immoral". What about this? You think people today that view the State in a similar light don't exist? In any event, this is not the place to get into a topic such as this. I do however find your hypocrisy of interest particularly given the myth that is Scandinavian socialism and would refer you to look up the subject with regards to their more laissez faire approach to certain aspects.

Karl Stein

V4Voluntary wrote: »

Sadly you're somehow under the wrong assumption that the countries you list is in someway the end goal or destination in which everyone walking planet earth is undertaking to imitate. They're not.

They're the societies that consistently top lists that attempt to measure how happy people are with their lot. Unlike libertarian fantasists I prefer to be more rational and examine what works in the real world to see where people enjoy a good standard of living and comfortable life.

You think people today that view the State in a similar light don't exist?

How very embarrassing for you that you've swallowed so much libertarian propaganda that you equate distaste with living in a modern state to distaste with ownership of human beings by other human beings by threat of torture and murder. What a perverse persecution complex.

I do however find your hypocrisy of interest particularly given the myth that is Scandinavian socialism and would refer you to look up the subject with regards to their more laissez faire approach to certain aspects.

Ah yes, the libertarian strawman is rolled out. Let me set fire to it by reminding you that I didn't claim Scandinavian countries were socialist, rather, they're social democracies where the government and state play a strong role in mitigating the vagaries of capitalism.

SupaNova2

It seems there is a misconception here. Being in favour of freer markets does not mean being in favour of no regulation. A private business can set rules and regulations for its staff and customers on its premises. Take a private system of competing banking systems and currencies, the rules and regulations that govern are set to offer the customer the most attractive package. Back to banking today. This isn't a system of privately competing banks and currencies but a government monopoly where private institutions are given privilege to create credit. The government is perfectly entitled and should set rules for how this system operates, just as it does with roads. A free marketer could even help in offering regulations they feel would be healthy and would naturally emerge in a market system such as strict rules surrounding consumption loans.

William K. Black (Bill Black), a former regulator in the US who helped put thousands in jail during the Savings & Loans crisis, is one of the most prominent experts on fraud around.

Trust me, I would like to see the same happen today and so would many others who see themselves as libertarians. Sorry if I don't fit the simple cartoon character libertarian you have created.

KyussBishop

You've just described an entirely voluntary system of regulations. That amounts to just trusting business to behave, i.e. having a lawless system.

Regulations are laws (I would say that is a mandatory condition, for the term to be valid - otherwise it is engaging in semantic muddying of debate). 'Regulations' not backed in law are toothless and voluntary, and might as well not exist at all.


Bill Black there does a lot of writing on the 'Greshams dynamic' in economics; it applies to a very wide range of economics, from currencies ("bad money drives out good"), to consumer items ("lemons, i.e. items with concealed faults, drive out quality goods"), and business ("bad/fraudulent business, drives out good/honest business").

It's all about control of information. If you don't know about hidden fraud, lack of quality, debasement of currency or valuable items (such as clipping gold coins, or mixing in cheaper metals), you get conned and the person who conned you generates greater profits than his competitors who behave well.

If this information stays concealed, the fraudulent competitor has an advantage over the rest of the market, and drives out honest competitors, leaving only the fraudulent competitors.
This is why you need proper regulations, ones which are mandatory (not optional/voluntary), and which prevent fraud, not just react to it (which is often too late, with irrecoverable damage already having been done to competitors in the market, or even entire economies).


Trusting private industry to self-regulate, requires undue faith in impossible 'perfect markets', in 'perfect information sharing' (efficient markets hypothesis), and something close to 'perfect competition'; basically, trusting private industry like this requires trusting that the impossible 'free market' will spontaneously come about.

It is nothing more than a semi-religious belief, that everyone will 'behave' in such an economy, even though that belief is based on an impossibly perfect economic model, that proponents know can never exist in reality.

Christ the Redeemer

I hate the word liberal. It sounds like yank double speak.

Their "liberals" were all anti war until Obama came along. Where are they now?

Liberal means nothing.

Valmont

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I never said it wasn't possible, I'd say it's highly improbable - I'm just calling it out for what it is. An unproven, untested fantasy.

Could you point us towards any 'proven' or pre-tested societies in function already? Have you found a little civilisation in your fish tank like Lisa Simpson? Have you dropped in a copy of Das Kapital and then Atlas Shrugged and published your findings?

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Libertarianism as it's being pushed at present is just a cynical ploy to push the centre further right and hand more power to corporations.

Corporations are a creation of the state. But could you explain who are the principal players behind such a ploy? And what they might gain from such a decentralised system?

Karl Stein

Valmont wrote: »

Could you point us towards any 'proven' or pre-tested societies in function already?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'pre-tested' and 'proven' (proven at what?) we can't replicate societies in Lisa's fish tank to see how they might work you know. Now I know libertarians like to sell their fantasies as if they were on the other side of a wall that the gubmint has built but let's just stay with reality here shall we? Regardless, here are some systems that have arisen in more recent times with various levels of success and failure.

China's managed one party state capitalist model (hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty in a generation). Scandinavian/European social democracies. Anarcho syndicalism in Spain pre WW2. The Kibbutzim in Israel. State socialism in Eastern Europe.

Corporations are a creation of the state.

You don't say?

But could you explain who are the principal players behind such a ploy?

The Koch Brothers would be one of the principal players who profess to be libertarians but have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to right-wing 'causes'.

In 1977, Charles Koch founded the Cato Institute, an influential libertarian think tank, with the aim of injecting free-market ideas into the mainstream. The Kochs would go on to establish and fund a vast network of overlapping think tanks, institutes, foundations, media outlets, and lobby groups that would vilify centralized government and promote laissez-faire capitalism as the only route to economic prosperity.

exiledonline.com

If you read the rest of the article you'll see the perverse hypocrisy of people like the Kochs.

Let me guess? They're not real libertarians like you?

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

Could you point us towards any 'proven' or pre-tested societies in function already? Have you found a little civilisation in your fish tank like Lisa Simpson? Have you dropped in a copy of Das Kapital and then Atlas Shrugged and published your findings?

You don't need to test a society in a fish-tank or whatnot, when its theory is already at-odds with reality; it's not just going to magically start working. We already know markets (particularly heavily deregulated ones) with perfect competition/information-sharing are impossible in reality, and that the belief that moving towards that unattainable goal, will bring about the positive aspects of that impossible model, is about as rational/logical as believing that attempts to construct a perpetual motion machine, will bring about the positive aspects of perpetual motion, the closer you get to emulating it.

It's not going to happen. It's a mythical/semi-religious belief, bolstered only by assertion and mounds of rhetoric (which tries to distract away from the faults/impossibility of what is advocated, by rallying supporters around anti-government drum-banging), and which is contrary to observation of reality (with fraud being one of the best ways to see how you don't get anywhere near emulating perfect markets - you don't get adequate transparency without adequate preventative regulation - a necessity for 'perfect information' in free markets, the lack of which kills it because it is a boon for fraud).

DEFTLEFTHAND

Young people with conservative views are often ridiculed by their peers also of course. Obviously as we know many young folk are naive and idealistic but that doesn't give them a right to stifle others with more grounded views (beyond their years) from having a say.

Once they hit a certain age further down the road their opinions will merge anyway. Sometimes you have to live a while before you realise how this world works.

1ZRed

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Young people with conservative views are often ridiculed by their peers also of course. Obviously as we know many young folk are naive and idealistic but that doesn't give them a right to stifle others with more grounded views (beyond their years) from having a say.

Once they hit a certain age further down the road their opinions will merge anyway. Sometimes you have to live a while before you realise how this world works.

Why do you assume that young people with conservative views are more grounded while those with more liberal one are naive and idealistic?

DEFTLEFTHAND

1ZRed wrote: »

Why do you assume that young people with conservative views are more grounded while those with more liberal one are naive and idealistic?

You're not getting at what I'm saying, as time rolls on the majority of people get set in their ways. The Liberals of today are the Conservatives of tomorrow. A political example for instance would be that quite a few Liberal party members in the House Of Commons have switched over to the Tories in their later years.

Many of the Liberal youth become totally disillusioned with the world when they find out how things actually work, hence they opt out from trying to achieve change.

If you're grounded in reality from an early age you're better set to address life issues. You know the score and your expectations are low.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

We already know markets (particularly heavily deregulated ones) with perfect competition/information-sharing are impossible in reality

No one ever said markets offer perfect competition or are perfect, or that information is perfectly shared, I have never seen anyone anywhere say that, have you?

If your argument is capitalism and markets are not perfect, everyone will agree. If the argument is because they are not perfect, government can do it better many will disagree.

Staff Infection

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You're not getting at what I'm saying, as time rolls on the majority of people get set in their ways. The Liberals of today are the Conservatives of tomorrow. A political example for instance would be that quite a few Liberal party members in the House Of Commons have switched over to the Tories in their later years.

Many of the Liberal youth become totally disillusioned with the world when they find out how things actually work, hence they opt out from trying to achieve change.

If you're grounded in reality from an early age you're better set to address life issues. You know the score and your expectations are low.

Ok to be clear where you say "The Liberals of today are the Conservatives of tomorrow" do you mean that views currently considered liberal will in a decade or so be considered outdated and conservative or do you mean that over time liberal people become less and less liberal until they are considered to be conservative in the same way some people become more like their parents as they age?

I've taken on board what you said regarding some Liberal party members switching allegiance and joining the Tories. I'm just curious myself as I know a few people in their sixties who would have been hippies back in the day and are still left leaning on social issues today, they haven't really changed too much politically. They might be more mellow and able to see both sides on an argument but nine times out of ten they would still choose what some would call the more liberal option.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

No one ever said markets offer perfect competition or are perfect, or that information is perfectly shared, I have never seen anyone anywhere say that, have you?

If your argument is capitalism and markets are not perfect, everyone will agree. If the argument is because they are not perfect, government can do it better many will disagree.

You've just gone on and ignored everything I said there, and tried to reframe the discussion as a typical 'markets vs government' dichotomy (when the very existence of stable markets depends on some amount of government).

People are making the totally unbacked claim that moving towards these unattainable 'perfect' markets, will bring about the positive aspects of these impossibly-perfect markets, when that runs contrary to everything we see in reality, where heavily imperfect information sharing in markets, is worsened by deregulation and leads opaqueness and widespread opportunities for getting away with fraud.

Cody Pomeray

For me the idea loses some of its substance when people start deliberating ove the perfection of markets. Markets for what? Why have we arbitrarily chosen capital as the core medium through which humans and human societies ought to interact with one another?

We need to wake up to this soon. We are sitting on the brink of a technological revolution. Never before in the history of humankind has our race been capable of achieving so much through the mere application of our thinking, technology.

We possess the technology and the resources to feed the population of the world. We possess the technology to release people from exploitation and manual labour, and the destruction of human dignity at the expense of capital, which has deprived or outright denied people the ability to participate in society, undertake projects, and progress as individuals.

I would have been a capitalist in the medieval era. But capital has diminished in usefulness for us, now that it has enabled a new social structure which can step in to replace it. Surely, we have outgrown the concept of economic slavery... we ought to have had.

Maybe older generations are too immersed in the old system, and too keenly disregard the technological advancements which could have spared them a lifetime of drudgery and impotence. But it's not too late for young people do speak out for what they want for their future. If anything comes from this financial crisis, it might be a growing sense of dissatisfaction with the reliance on the current economic structures/ strictures that govern our society, and cause young people to reflect on what values the modern society ought aspire to.

Iwasfrozen

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

For me the idea loses some of its substance when people start deliberating ove the perfection of markets. Markets for what? Why have we arbitrarily chosen capital as the core medium through which humans and human societies ought to interact with one another?

We need to wake up to this soon. We are sitting on the brink of a technological revolution. Never before in the history of humankind has our race been capable of achieving so much through the mere application of our thinking, technology.

We possess the technology and the resources to feed the population of the world. We possess the technology to release people from exploitation and manual labour, and the destruction of human dignity at the expense of capital, which has deprived or outright denied people the ability to participate in society, undertake projects, and progress as individuals.

I would have been a capitalist in the medieval era. But capital has diminished in usefulness for us, now that it has enabled a new social structure which can step in to replace it. Surely, we have outgrown the concept of economic slavery... we ought to have had.

Maybe older generations are too immersed in the old system, and too keenly disregard the technological advancements which could have spared them a lifetime of drudgery and impotence. But it's not too late for young people do speak out for what they want for their future. If anything comes from this financial crisis, it might be a growing sense of dissatisfaction with the reliance on the current economic structures/ strictures that govern our society, and cause young people to reflect on what values the modern society ought aspire to.

I'm young and you're in cloud cuckoo land. There is no technological revolution, there is no way to free everyone from manual labour and most importantly there is no way to feed our rapidly growing third world populations without causing huge and irreversible environmental damage.

Socialism has failed in every country it's been tried in. Socialism is part of the problem, not the solution.

Cody Pomeray

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm young and you're in cloud cuckoo land. There is no technological revolution, there is no way to free everyone from manual labour and most importantly there is no way to feed our rapidly growing third world populations without causing huge and irreversible environmental damage.

I'm young and you're in cloud cuckoo land. See how that works?

If you're suggesting that the above is impossible under capitalism, then yes, it's impossible under capitalism. It's pretty obvious that I wasn't suggesting a new economic model based on capitalism... capitalism requires that human interactions are largely reliant on having resources. The technological changes that have occurred in the past 50 years reveal a vista that has not previously been encountered; i.e. the use of genetic technology, online resources, and other technologies like atomic energy that remove the need for a reliance on capital as a means to social order, or human progress.

Socialism has failed in every country it's been tried in. Socialism is part of the problem, not the solution.

What does this even mean? No ideology ever has a 100% success rate. Look at Christianity for God's sake. Look at capitalism. We don't expect a completely happy final chapter on any ideological belief system, why should socialism be different.

The difference with what I am saying is that these technologies were never available to socialist societies in the past.

Fr_Dougal

When is the iPhone 6 coming out?

Iwasfrozen

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm young and you're in cloud cuckoo land. See how that works?

If you're suggesting that the above is impossible under capitalism, then yes, it's impossible under capitalism. It's pretty obvious that I wasn't suggesting a new economic model based on capitalism... capitalism requires that human interactions are largely reliant on having resources. The technological changes that have occurred in the past 50 years reveal a vista that has not previously been encountered; i.e. the use of genetic technology, online resources, and other technologies like atomic energy that remove the need for a reliance on capital as a means to social order, or human progress.

All those technologies have come about as a result of capitalism. Companies compete against each other to develop a more attractive product and in doing so promote technological growth. Take away the competition and the state is simply incapable of pushing research as hard as private business does. Just look at the gap in technology that existed between the USA and USSR at the end on the cold war.

Also you'll have to define capital as your definition seems to be different from mine.

What does this even mean? No ideology ever has a 100% success rate. Look at Christianity for God's sake. Look at capitalism. We don't expect a completely happy final chapter on any ideological belief system, why should socialism be different.

How does a 100% failure rate look to you? You can't invest total power in any entity, including the state, and not expect that entity to become entirely corrupt. It's not human nature.

The difference with what I am saying is that these technologies were never available to socialist societies in the past.

No they weren't and the socialist societies of the past didn't create them. That tells me all we need to know about socialism and technological progression.