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

Support Complete Libertarianism in Ireland?

Options
13567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    RockinRolla wrote: »
    Government intervention destroys economies - look at ours. Bank guarantees ect
    Hold on there a minute. It was the government not intervening that caused this mess in the first place by letting the banks go mad, flying in the face of proper regulation. Not just here but in the US. Regulatory capture it's called.
    RockinRolla wrote: »
    Governments are dangerous. A hazard to your life and your prosperity.
    There is this persistent idea among libertarians that governments are some kind of aliens from mars ruling the humans with an iron fist. They aren't, due to the wonders of democracy people voted them in. If you reckon your way of doing things is better, make your case and run for election. And look, then you have your very own government to do with what you will!

    Seriously I think both the libertarians and socialists need to grow up and stop acting like little children watching a cartoon, the world isn't black and white, you need a bit from all sides.


  • Options
    #63
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    RockinRolla wrote: »
    In fact, a hired military is very feasible if the proper amount of pay is available and offered.
    Oh hai, the rest of the world learned the lesson about not using mercenaries during the hundred years war many centuries ago. Keep up!


  • Options
    #64
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Hold on there a minute. It was the government not intervening that caused this mess in the first place by letting the banks go mad, flying in the face of proper regulation. Not just here but in the US. Regulatory capture it's called.


    .

    This belief is understandable but incorrect. Firstly, a bank is a private business. If a private business collapses, under the rules of capitalism it has failed and should be allowed to do so without outside intervention. the intervention of the government to keep afloat a failed business is inherently anti-capitalism and is state intervention.

    Now, one could argue that a business such as the banks that have such a large grasp on the economy de facto interfere with the lives of everybody whether we want them to or not, thereby violating the basic tenants of libertarianism. To be honest, I do not know if there is a solution to this.


  • Options
    #65
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    No horse, I wouldn't.

    Why?


    Because you will get wasters , who will ride the system up to the root in the hole.

    Because you will get idiots who think they can exist on their own , on a fucking windswept rock in the North Atlantic, but who in reality only want others to support their 'alternative' lifestyle.


    Recognise anyone in there buddy?:rolleyes:

    Is there really a need to resort to insulting me on a personal level?

    How am I an idiot?

    Because I created a fun little thread a while back?

    I honestly think you'd thrive and love a libertarian society. That way, you wouldn't have to look after dole spongers, people who are addicted to drugs and commit crimes, don't have a job and suck the life out of the health system. Or are you just happy being miserable?


  • Options
    #66
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Libertarianism doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. It is essentially an economic and social model built from the selfish gene. It has very little regard for the welfare of others. Libertarians oppose social welfare, and healthcare. In a Libertarian state, the most vulnerable in society would be eating out of soup kitchens or dumpsters and sleeping on the streets.

    Libertarians are hypocrites too. Any Government intervention that will benefit them, they are all for it. If it benefits anyone else however, the oppose it with contempt.

    Libertarians are greedy, and not the type of people I would want to call a friend.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    This belief is understandable but incorrect. Firstly, a bank is a private business.
    The belief that the government should have restrained the banks and failed to do so is not incorrect, and can be traced directly back to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in the US.
    HavingCrack wrote: »
    Now, one could argue that a business such as the banks that have such a large grasp on the economy de facto interfere with the lives of everybody whether we want them to or not, thereby violating the basic tenants of libertarianism. To be honest, I do not know if there is a solution to this.
    I agree that the banks have an inordinate amount of power over the lives of citizens without anyone ever having voted for them. Happily there is a practical alternative, two in fact, which are already in operation on a small scale, you can find them here. And I would strongly urge everyone who has a problem with the banks to read that thread top to bottom.


  • Options
    #68
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    This belief is understandable but incorrect. Firstly, a bank is a private business. If a private business collapses, under the rules of capitalism it has failed and should be allowed to do so without outside intervention. the intervention of the government to keep afloat a failed business is inherently anti-capitalism and is state intervention.


    this is true HOWEVER lack of proper regulation was the root cause of the problem that resulted in a bailout happening


  • Options
    #69
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Libertarianism doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. It is essentially an economic and social model built from the selfish gene. It has very little regard for the welfare of others. Libertarians oppose social welfare, and healthcare. In a Libertarian state, the most vulnerable in society would be eating out of soup kitchens or dumpsters and sleeping on the streets.

    Libertarians are hypocrites too. Any Government intervention that will benefit them, they are all for it. If it benefits anyone else however, the oppose it with contempt.

    Libertarians are greedy, and not the type of people I would want to call a friend.

    I really don't see this to be the case.

    Libertarianism still has minimal state aid and support. I just think that a regulated yet privatised education system across the board (not just expensive elitist schools like now) would offer more bang for you buck. Same goes for healthcare. Privatisation creates competition. Look at public healthcare now, old men and women lying on trollies for days on end in crowded corridors. Waiting lists the size of the N7. Could it get any worse? Also, welfare would be stricter but fairer. Not this lark of people being on the dole since 2002!

    I'm not selfish. I just don't like the 'Nanny State' way of things. Why is it that addicts, people who smoke themselves into a hospital bed and criminals are all looked after handsomely with my tax money? Meanwhile, I stand in the pissing rain waiting for a bus to work?


  • Options
    #70
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Dean0088 wrote: »
    I really don't see this to be the case.

    Libertarianism still has minimal state aid and support. I just think that a regulated yet privatised education system across the board (not just expensive elitist schools like now) would offer more bang for you buck. Same goes for healthcare. Privatisation creates competition. Look at public healthcare now, old men and women lying on trollies for days on end in crowded corridors. Waiting lists the size of the N7. Could it get any worse? Also, welfare would be stricter but fairer. Not this lark of people being on the dole since 2002!

    And what happens to those that cannot afford healthcare in your Libertarian utopia? Enlighten me.
    Dean0088 wrote: »
    I'm not selfish. I just don't like the 'Nanny State' way of things. Why is it that addicts, people who smoke themselves into a hospital bed and criminals are all looked after handsomely with my tax money? Meanwhile, I stand in the pissing rain waiting for a bus to work?

    Ah yes, painting the worst case scenario - a common Libertarian tactic. What about the thousands of genuine people who need free healthcare, because they simply cannot afford private healthcare?

    You either believe healthcare is a right, or you don't. But stop pussyfooting around and let us know what your stance is.


  • Options
    #71
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    dlofnep wrote: »
    And what happens to those that cannot afford healthcare in your Libertarian utopia? Enlighten me.

    AGAIN, libertarianism is not an economic philosophy it is a social one. The market and what is or isnt paid for by the goverment does not come into it


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    Aurum wrote: »
    I really wish people would stop calling for a new Constitution when they clearly haven't got a clue about the provisions of the current Constitution.

    Well clearly a chance in the political system would need a new constitution. I guess you could just edit the existing one extensively, but that'd be time wasting. I'd rather start afresh and get rid of all religion and sexual bias from the current one while we're at it.


  • Options
    #73
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,745 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    RockinRolla wrote: »
    However, I've been convinced that private enterprise in the Free market can provide all of these things at a better quality and cheaper price to the consumer.
    at one time the ESB were the third cheapest provider of electricity in the EU, before they were tweaked for privitisation.
    In fact, a hired military is very feasible if the proper amount of pay is available and offered. This can be done in the Free Market. The market will dictate the pay of these individuals. If the government does not pay them well, then there is no national defense - if the market dictates that these people will be paid €100/hour (purely example) then the army won't be able to handle the amount of applications.
    A few problems there.

    Mercenaries are not protected by the Geneva conventions.

    Ignoring what's going on in Libya , ignore the distat past, lets look at recent western mercenaries. The private security companies in Iraq have more or less been given a get out of jail card. In Yugoslavia some British mercaneries were firing on amblances of the other side to stir up things.

    Mercaneries have a vested interest in continued fighting, they have no incentive to behave in a civilised way being outside international law.


  • Options
    #74
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    AGAIN, libertarianism is not an economic philosophy it is a social one. The market and what is or isnt paid for by the goverment does not come into it

    Healthcare is a social issue. So I ask again, what happens to those that cannot afford healthcare in a Libertarian utopia?


  • Options
    #75
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    dlofnep wrote: »
    And what happens to those that cannot afford healthcare in your Libertarian utopia? Enlighten me.



    Ah yes, painting the worst case scenario - a common Libertarian tactic. What about the thousands of genuine people who need free healthcare, because they simply cannot afford private healthcare?

    You either believe healthcare is a right, or you don't. But stop pussyfooting around and let us know what your stance is.
    • Those who need healthcare will still have access to it. Pubic healthcare doesn't vanish under this system. It's not capitalism ffs.
    • My main issue isn't with healthcare etc.. anyway. They can remain corrupt and useless if needs be. I'll have to use them at some stage so will have to bear the brunt like the rest. My main quip is being told that doing something that harms nobody else is illegal. Such as brewing putín, smoking a J etc.. Tell me how that right?


  • Options
    #76
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Healthcare is a social issue. So I ask again, what happens to those that cannot afford healthcare in a Libertarian utopia?

    A medical card system. Like now.

    Healthcare would be a social issue in a libertarian society...or 'utopia' as you choose to put it. As it stands, healthcare is very much so an economic issue. It's all about numbers. Not the pensioners lying on hospital trollies in disease ridden corridors..


  • Options
    #77
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Dean0088 wrote: »
    • Those who need healthcare will still have access to it. Pubic healthcare doesn't vanish under this system. It's not capitalism ffs.

    Of course it vanishes, as you are required to pay tax to fund it. I've yet to meet a Libertarian that supports state-supported healthcare or welfare. So no, they will not have access to it. A common phrase is peddled 'Healthcare is not a right'.
    Dean0088 wrote: »
    • My main issue isn't with healthcare etc.. anyway. They can remain corrupt and useless if needs be. I'll have to use them at some stage so will have to bear the brunt like the rest. My main quip is being told that doing something that harms nobody else is illegal. Such as brewing putín, smoking a J etc.. Tell me how that right?

    While I agree with you that Hash and brewing your own poitín should be legal - I don't agree that heroin should be legal. In a Libertarian utopia, it would be legal. Heroin addicts harm the society in which they live by stealing to feed their habit, and mugging people - therefore I would not support it's legality. That is why I support Government restrictions on drugs.


  • Options
    #78
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Dean0088 wrote: »
    A medical card system. Like now.

    Well, you're the first Libertarian that I have spoken to that supports socialised medicine.


  • Options
    #79
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    dlofnep wrote: »


    While I agree with you that Hash and brewing your own poitín should be legal - I don't agree that heroin should be legal. In a Libertarian utopia, it would be legal. Heroin addicts harm the society in which they live by stealing to feed their habit, and mugging people - therefore I would not support it's legality. That is why I support Government restrictions on drugs.

    To be honest, heroin, crack cocaine and crystal meth are the 3 drugs that I would keep illegal. Nobody uses these recreationally. However, the current war on drugs format isn't working for heroin. Look at the epidemic we have in Ireland at the minute.


  • Options
    #80
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Well, you're the first Libertarian that I have spoken to that supports socialised medicine.

    It very much varies depending on your position on the libertarian spectrum. A left libertarian generally would support socialised medicine (to an extent) while a right libertarian most definately would not.

    Unfortunately right libertarianism seems to have a lot more coverage than the left wing of the ideology.


  • Options
    #81
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    rubensni wrote: »
    Silly analogy as flying is discretionary, but putting out fires is everyone's business.

    Simple question: Would you agree with the 'no pay = no spray' system being adopted by your local fire brigade, yes or no?

    I'd rather the system weren't in place, but if my town's fire brigade closed and we were offered coverage from another department for a small fee, you'd be damn sure I'd pay it. The system may be wrong but the actions of the fire department weren't.

    The people either get no coverage or coverage for a fee. If the fire brigade had let him pay after putting out the fire, nobody would pay until they had a fire. And with nobody paying, nobody would be covered by the fire brigade.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Of course it vanishes, as you are required to pay tax to fund it. I've yet to meet a Libertarian that supports state-supported healthcare or welfare. So no, they will not have access to it. A common phrase is peddled 'Healthcare is not a right'.



    While I agree with you that Hash and brewing your own poitín should be legal - I don't agree that heroin should be legal. In a Libertarian utopia, it would be legal. Heroin addicts harm the society in which they live by stealing to feed their habit, and mugging people - therefore I would not support it's legality. That is why I support Government restrictions on drugs.


    Okay okay, I'll concede that state welfare and healthcare may need looking at in terms of this system. But then, I'm not calling for full on libertarianism. Just basic 'stay the **** out of my life' laws when concerning the government.

    Also, with heroine. Why NOT legalise it? Let's look at it on a prctical level.

    Under prohibition: Junkies take it regardless of the laws and will do anything to get it - even KILL it's so addictive. Garda time is devoted to both combating the drug itself, and the associated crime.

    Legalised: The drug could be controlled. Organised crime would stop in terms of drug warfare. Garda can tackle only the heroine addiction related crime (robbery, muggings etc) instead of combatting the drug (navy, army, air corps and garda operations) and the drug dealers (garda time).

    If you can come up with a more reasonable solution then I'll take my hat off to you. If they made heroine legal tomorrow I know I'm not going to go out and shoot up. Yet if cannabis remains illegal, I've no bother funding organised crime to get it if the government are silly enough to force me down this route. I'd much prefer to stroll into a registered business, purchase my goods, contribute tax eurons, safe in the knowledge that everything is above board and I'm not harming anyone.


  • Options
    #83
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Dean0088 wrote: »
    Yet if cannabis remains illegal, I've no bother funding organised crime to get it
    Jesus, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.


  • Options
    #84
    Duffy the Vampire Slayer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭Duffy the Vampire Slayer


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Well, you're the first Libertarian that I have spoken to that supports socialised medicine.

    I think many of these people describing themselves as libertarian here, are just socially liberal. Which I am as well, but I'd never describe myself as libertarian because I find libertarian economic policies as being wrong and damaging to society.

    Incidentally there are some genuine libertarians on boards who oppose almost all forms of government intervention, and I'm wondering where they are at the moment, they'd bring some form of rational debate to this thread other than constant misinterpretation of what libertarian means.


  • Options
    #85
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Healthcare is a social issue. So I ask again, what happens to those that cannot afford healthcare in a Libertarian utopia?

    they get it obviously


  • Options
    #86
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Well, you're the first Libertarian that I have spoken to that supports socialised medicine.

    the whole thing about libertarian is you are allowed do things that dont harm anybody else. not providing health care to the vulnerable in society causes harm.

    any opinions expressed after that are based on the right / left view of economics not a libertarian / authoritarian view of society


  • Options
    #87
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »
    I think many of these people describing themselves as libertarian here, are just socially liberal.
    This.

    If you don't know what libertarianism is and aren't arsed useing Google, think anarchy tweaked to suit rich people, which isn't quite accurate but is on the right track.


  • Options
    #88
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »
    I think many of these people describing themselves as libertarian here, are just socially liberal. Which I am as well, but I'd never describe myself as libertarian because I find libertarian economic policies as being wrong and damaging to society.

    you are judging what libertarian is because the people that say they are libertarian in the united states also happen to be right wing the two things are mutually exclusive.

    ghandi for example is a good example of someone whos economic views would be on the left but whos views of society would be in the libertarian area, friedman is a good example of someone who is economically right but also more liberal then authoritarian. stalin is obviously on the left economically and about as authoritarian as you can get wereas thatcher and hitler are on the right economically but also quite authoritarian

    all the examples i have used can be found on the website political compass. org and there is also a lengthy test there that you can take that will tell you were you are both economically and socially


  • Options
    #89
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Jesus, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Why should I care if there's no other viable option. Governments fault. I'd gladly purchase from legit stores but there are none. So black market it is.

    Complaints? Direct them towards the source of the problem - an Dáil Éireann.


  • Options
    #90
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    This.

    If you don't know what libertarianism is and aren't arsed useing Google, think anarchy tweaked to suit rich people, which isn't quite accurate but is on the right track.

    not really at all, I can believe completely that I should be free to do whatever I want with as little intervention from the state AS POSSIBLE (note not none), that makes me liberal, while still believing that we have a responsibility to help the vulnerable in society.

    even if you stay with the traditional left right opinions any reasonable person can see that the answer lies vaguely in the middle. people who argue that the answer is extreme in one direction or the other are usually idiots imo


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    PeakOutput wrote: »

    all the examples i have used can be found on the website political compass. org and there is also a lengthy test there that you can take that will tell you were you are both economically and socially

    That political compass does appear to be flawed however. Anyone I know who has taken it has been classed as a left libertarian. I just find it odd that everyone seems to get the same result but yet there is no mainstream left libertarian parties around.


Advertisement