Support Complete Libertarianism in Ireland?

PeakOutput · 15-05-2011 4:45pm

HavingCrack wrote: »

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.

Well I got right in the middle of both right and liberal.

I would imagine that the currently polarised view of political opinion plays a large part in people assuming there is no room for change. I also think libertarian ideals would have to be written into the constitution for them to actually work because unless the goverment is literally physically prevented from taking control of certain areas I think any goverment will inevitably try to slowly increase their control and influence.

K-9 · 15-05-2011 4:59pm

PeakOutput wrote: »

Libertarianism has nothing to do with economics and the market why is that so difficult for people to understand? It is very clear that peoples views of libertarians are skewed because of who gets called one in the united states. The political compass goes 4 ways not two

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

Being far left and authoritarian leads to communism and being far right and authoritarian leads to fascism. as far as i know there has been no really libertarian modern society so we dont know what either left or right leads to when coupled with it

what has that got to do with anything? it is nothing like libertarianism

Depends on which libertarian it is tbh. There seems to be a huge faith in the market and private sector and as little Government intervention as possible.

PeakOutput · 15-05-2011 5:19pm

K-9 wrote: »

Depends on which libertarian it is tbh. There seems to be a huge faith in the market and private sector and as little Government intervention as possible.

yes i get that but that would make you a right leaning / extreme right libertarian I am just making the point that you can be a left leaning / extreme left libertarian as well

I do agree that pretty much all you see on tv from the states are right leaning ones, but thats cause the tea party has taken off in a big way.

I think socially very liberal and economically a bit more then moderately conservative is the way to go but thats just me

RockinRolla · 19-05-2011 3:19pm

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.

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.

Far from the truth. I suspect you're not too familiar with economics. It was government interference in the economy that got us here, and continues with our "normalised" boom/bust cycle. There is no boom/bust cycle in the Free Market. It is government involvement in monetary policy that causes inflation with the printing of money. The boom/bust cycle is the direct consequence of the market trying to balance itself out after coercion.

And then we're fed absolute rubbish via a self-critical opinion that it was our fault or that we partied. The cheek and the absurdity of them. The State has been a vile nuisance for civilised men. As Mises once noted, "collectivism is a doctrine of war, intolerance and persecution, if any of the collectivist creeds should ever succeed in it's endeavors, all people but the great dictator would be deprived of their essential human quality. Luxury is the roadmarker of progress, in so far as they think consistently, moralists who condemn luxury must recommend the comparatively desire-less existence of the wild life roaming the woods as the ultimate ideal of civilised life". We didn't party - we played the hands that were given to us. Government borrowed on our behalf and now we're left to fit the bill. For what? A welfare system exceeding all logic and under-performing public services.

Inflationary results from a combination of fractional reserve banking, the government's grant of monopoly powers through a central bank (the U.S. Federal Reserve in the case of the U.S. or the ECB), and the central banks open market operations to manipulate bank reserves (e.g., monetising debt). How you could support a fiat currency is well beyond all intellectual and independent discourse. In a Capitalist society, the banks would have fallen and new ones would have replaced them. In fact, in a truly Libertarian framework, you or I could become bankers if we had sufficient gold in our vaults - enough to justify the printing of our own private currencies. Because isn't that what bankers around the globe strive for? A single currency where they hold monopoly privileges i.e - not required to be backed by gold.

I was particularly perplexed by your "wonders of democracy" comment. Is this the game we play where 51% of the population get to infringe their values on the other 49%? And yet, who is running this game? Established Statists all playing a cat and mouse game where their only goal is to get re-elected. The concept where government can only be government based on the consent of the governed? In this situation, government is sure to grow: they must buy votes by favoring some over others. In order to get votes and keep votes from one's competitors, one must please a majority of those who will vote by "serving" them (tariffs, redistribution, actualising their favorite programs, etc) and, since those cost money that the government does not itself generate, it must coerce money from other citizens. But this can't simply happen in one shot: it must continue because, as long as there are elections, there is competition to outdo who is trying to outdo you. People must be pleased and as old favors become habit, new favors must be promised. As long as you have the power to give to some with the wealth from others, you have the power to pick winners and losers, generally rather arbitrarily by imposing a favorite view of "fairness" onto everyone.

Lastly, your last paragraph - bit from all sides, a mixed economy. It doesn't exist. For as long as government interfere in the economy either through money or subsidising industry over others, the Free Market cannot exist. Therefore, a mixed economy does not exist. I thought Amhran Nua may have brought some common sense to the table. But your policies and views are inextricably and quite similarly comparative with the establishment - you will go far indeed.

philologos · 19-05-2011 3:28pm

No state in the world has complete libertarianism.

That would mean being able to do whatever you wanted, including murder, rape, steal, and so on. We place limits on what people can and cannot do, securing liberty to a certain degree where it is reasonable and where it does impose on other peoples liberty. That's why the State ultimately needs to exist.

RockinRolla · 19-05-2011 3:31pm

philologos wrote: »

No state in the world has complete libertarianism.

That would mean being able to do whatever you wanted, including murder, rape, steal, and so on. We place limits on what people can and cannot do, securing liberty to a certain degree where it is reasonable and where it does impose on other peoples liberty. That's why the State ultimately needs to exist.

You've no idea what Libertarianism is.

philologos · 19-05-2011 3:35pm

The OP mentioned "complete libetarianism" in the opening post. That has broader implications than just saying "libetarianism". Complete libetarianism = complete freedom to do whatever you want. We actually can't give complete freedom because it would mean people trampling on other peoples rights. Therefore the State imposes limits on our freedoms in order to ensure reasonable freedoms for others and vice versa.

A valid point pointing out a valid flaw in the OP's post.

RockinRolla · 19-05-2011 3:39pm

philologos wrote: »

The OP mentioned "complete libetarianism" in the opening post. That has broader implications than just saying "libetarianism". Complete libetarianism = complete freedom to do whatever you want. We actually can't give complete freedom because it would mean people trampling on other peoples rights. Therefore the State imposes limits on our freedoms in order to ensure reasonable freedoms for others and vice versa.

A valid point pointing out a valid flaw in the OP's post.

No state in the world is libertarian so I'm not quite sure what your "fully libertarian" comment is supposed to imply. The answer is in your question, no statists can be libertarian because libertarians support the rollback of the State. Also, "fully libertarian" does not mean murder and stealing are permitted - libertarianism is governed by the rule of law. If libertarianism is freedom, then no freedom exists in a society where one is permitted to steal from another or to murder one another.

I think you have a warped view of the topic.

celtictiger32 · 19-05-2011 3:43pm

did he just say each state should decide whether children should have drugs, alcohol etc. :eek:

philologos · 19-05-2011 3:46pm

Read the title of the thread. How can one offer complete and utter freedom in a State?

Definition of "libetarianism" - 'An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention'

One could assume that "complete" given this definition would only mean no state intervention.

Capt'n Midnight · 19-05-2011 3:49pm

RockinRolla wrote: »

There is no boom/bust cycle in the Free Market.

Explain, using diagrams if necessary, the role of the Dutch government in Tulip Mania. Or the role of the UK government in the South Sea Islands.

Some famines are caused by wars others by totalitarian governments. As well as this the famines caused by hoarding that occured in places with liberal financial laws
Now can you please list the major famines that in true democracies.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

Amartya Sen holds the view that there was no overall shortage of rice in Bengal in 1943: availability was actually slightly higher than in 1941, when there was no famine.[12] It was partly this which conditioned the sluggish official response to the disaster, as there had been no serious crop failures and hence the famine was unexpected. Its root causes, Sen argues, lay in rumours of shortage which caused hoarding, and rapid price inflation caused by war-time demands which made rice stocks an excellent investment (prices had already doubled over the previous year). In Sen's interpretation, while landowning peasants who actually grew rice and those employed in defence-related industries in urban areas and at the docks saw their wages rise, this led to a disastrous shift in the exchange entitlements of groups such as landless labourers, fishermen, barbers, paddy huskers and other groups who found the real value of their wages had been slashed by two-thirds since 1940. Quite simply, although Bengal had enough rice and other grains to feed itself, millions of people were suddenly too poor to buy it.

Stuff like Libertarianism lead to 100,000,000 women not born / dying young
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Missing_women_of_Asia

Sen originally estimated that more than a 100 million women were "missing" (in the sense that their potential existence had been eliminated either through sex selective abortion, infanticide or inadequate nutrition during infancy).
...
According to Das Gupta's research done in Punjab in the 1980s, girls were not receiving inferior treatment if a girl was born as a first child in a given family, when the parents still had high hopes for obtaining a son later. Subsequent births of girls were however unwelcome, because each such birth diminished a chance of the family having a son. The more affluent and educated women would have fewer offspring, and therefore were under more acute pressure to produce a son as early as possible. As ultrasound imaging and other techniques increasingly allow early prediction of the child's sex, the more affluent families opt for an abortion, or if a girl is born, decrease her chance of survival by, for example, not providing sufficient medical care.

One reason for parents, even mothers, to avoid daughters is the traditional patriarchal culture in the countries where the elimination of females takes place. As parents grow older they can expect much more help and support from their independent sons, than from daughters, who after getting married become in a sense property of their husbands' families, and, even if educated and generating significant income, have limited ability to interact with their natal families. Women are also often practically unable to inherit real estate, so a mother-widow will lose her family's (in reality her late husband's) plot of land and become indigent if she had had only daughters. Poor rural families have meager resources to distribute among their children, which reduces the opportunity to discriminate against girls.

HavingCrack · 19-05-2011 4:03pm

philologos wrote: »

Read the title of the thread. How can one offer complete and utter freedom in a State?

Definition of "libetarianism" - 'An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention'

One could assume that "complete" given this definition would only mean no state intervention.

I think the title is wrong or at the least misguided. What you're describing would be anarchism. As far as I know no 'true' libertarian advocates the complete dismantling of the state. If they do, they are anarchists of various shades, whether they self identify as such or not.

Now, classical anarchist theory holds that you can do whatever you like as long as it does not affect someone else (who has not consented to being affected) negatively. As such, murder, rape, assault etc, all harm others apart from oneself which makes having 'complete' freedom an oxymoron.

Certainly, a person has the power to do whatever they want in an anarchist society but by interfering with other people they are not anarchists.

Some "libertarians" (really anarchists) do indeed support the complete removal of the state but referring to themselves as libertarians in the modern era is a bit disingenous. Anarcho-Syndicalists and Anarcho-Capitalists (for examples) have referred to themselves as libertarians but it's really just muddying the waters.

I hope this makes sense

.

philologos · 19-05-2011 4:15pm

"complete libertarianism" is anarchism effectively. Of course it makes sense

ascanbe · 19-05-2011 4:41pm

philologos wrote: »

No state in the world has complete libertarianism.

That would mean being able to do whatever you wanted, including murder, rape, steal, and so on. We place limits on what people can and cannot do, securing liberty to a certain degree where it is reasonable and where it does impose on other peoples liberty. That's why the State ultimately needs to exist.

In practice, it would mean that those who came to control the wealth and could fund their own private army/police-force could and would do whatever they want.
People who want a dose of true libertarianism could try living somewhere controlled by tribal-warlords and see how they get on.

DubTony · 19-05-2011 5:31pm

There's one problem with debating a libertarian society. We don't live in one. So imagine this scenario.

We live in a fully libertarian society. No interference in our lives from government. The role of police is simply to investigate crimes against people and property and to bring the suspects to the courts. The role of the courts is to try suspected criminals and to arbitrate contractual disagreements. There's likely an army to defend the country from invasion. And that's pretty much all government does. It could possibly be managed by a few hundred people in total.

So one day, some guy decides to run in the next national election and here's his platform.

I will give you free healthcare.
I will pay a benefit for every child in the country.
I will take responsibility for educating your children.
I will make it illegal to use mind altering drugs.

I could go on all day, but I'm sure you get the picture.

Until now, everybody has looked after themselves. They provided their own healthcare by buying insurance or paying for it as they use it. They educated their own children in a fee paying school or at home. Most people didn't feel the need to abuse mind altering drugs as they'd been educated enough to know that the long term effects could be harmful. Those who did use them were aware of the dangers so, in the main, stuck to the "light" stuff like booze and dope. Anyone who lost their job did their utmost to get a new one, lived off savings for a while and if the money ran out they turned to friends and family and any of the numerous charities that were created over time to help people in just that situation. People in general have taken personally responsibility for their lives because they've had to. There hasn't been a big all-caring government to look out for them.

So this guy comes along and offers everybody all this free stuff. What's your reaction? Seriously. You've lived in a society where you've looked out for yourself, more than likely been brought up to have a social conscience of some sort and so make donations to charities you feel are worthwhile. But most of all, almost every penny you earn is yours to do with as you please.

Does anyone see where I'm going here? How's this super-duper free for everyone politician going to do all this stuff and give us all this stuff for nothing.

"Well, I'm going to take some of your wages every week and month and give it away to people who I think deserve it more"

Does anyone really think this fellah would get elected?

philologos · 19-05-2011 6:38pm

DubTony - Wouldn't the police investigating crime not be considered state-interference? That's the logical conclusion of this "complete libertarianism"? The same is true for the courts.

ascanbe · 19-05-2011 7:38pm

DubTony, you have a point regarding the merit of debating certain tenets of libertarianism within the context of our current system.
However, your hypothetical scenario also presumes that this ideal true libertarian 'state', if made reality, would bear some resemblance to the state we live in today.
In my opinion, the way this scenario would play-out is that the fella who started talking about changing the 'system' would simply be shut-up/got rid of on the orders of whomever controlled the wealth and their own private army/police-force.
Same as what might happen under any other totalitarian regime.

PeakOutput · 19-05-2011 8:04pm

philologos wrote: »

DubTony - Wouldn't the police investigating crime not be considered state-interference? That's the logical conclusion of this "complete libertarianism"? The same is true for the courts.

no libertarianism does not mean do whatever the **** you want

PeakOutput · 19-05-2011 8:06pm

DubTony wrote: »

Does anyone see where I'm going here? How's this super-duper free for everyone politician going to do all this stuff and give us all this stuff for nothing.

"Well, I'm going to take some of your wages every week and month and give it away to people who I think deserve it more"

Does anyone really think this fellah would get elected?

Thats why I was saying you have to have these ideals written into the constitution and for that constitution to be upheld

philologos · 19-05-2011 8:28pm

PeakOutput wrote: »

no libertarianism does not mean do whatever the **** you want

Does the title say libertarianism or complete libertarianism? Is there a difference? I think so, read my previous posts to find out why.

DubTony · 19-05-2011 8:29pm

philologos wrote: »

DubTony - Wouldn't the police investigating crime not be considered state-interference? That's the logical conclusion of this "complete libertarianism"? The same is true for the courts.

philologos, I feel you don't have a real grasp of what libertarianism actually is. It's not about no state. It's about minimum action by the state. The government is there simply to provide the absolute necessities. Most libertarians are quite happy with a state provided police force and army, as long as the jobs of those entities are clearly defined. Army defends the country. Police investigate crime and bring suspects to court. Court tries suspects and arbitrates contractual disputes.

The "complete libertarianism" you speak of seems like something else to me. I think others here have called it anarchism. I know nothing about anarchism so really can't comment. But the generally accepted complete form of libertarianism is pretty much how I've described it.

ascanbe wrote: »

DubTony, you have a point regarding the merit of debating certain tenets of libertarianism within the context of our current system.
However, your hypothetical scenario also presumes that this ideal true libertarian 'state', if made reality, would bear some resemblance to the state we live in today.
In my opinion, the way this scenario would play-out is that the fella who started talking about changing the 'system' would simply be shut-up/got rid of on the orders of whomever controlled the wealth and their own private army/police-force.
Same as what might happen under any other totalitarian regime.

But the libertarian "regime" is the exact opposite of the totalitarian one. A totalitarian regime governs with the threat of force hanging over every citizen. It's authoritarian.

Personally I don't believe that a state like ours could ever be transformed into a libertarian one. If it were to happen it would take an immense amount of gradual very small changes in the way people think over several decades.

As for the guy with the his own police force? Well, that's a security company. They could liaise with police to bring suspects to court but the power would lie in the hands of the police.

And the fellah being "taken out"? That'd be murder and would be investigated by the police.

philologos · 19-05-2011 8:30pm

DubTony - Is there a difference between complete libertarianism and libertarianism?

If not why did the OP use the word complete? I didn't use complete first, read the actual thread title!

HavingCrack · 19-05-2011 8:44pm

philologos wrote: »

DubTony - Is there a difference between complete libertarianism and libertarianism?

If not why did the OP use the word complete? I didn't use complete first, read the actual thread title!

To be honest philologos I think you're reading too much into the thread title. When the OP refers to libertatarianism I think he means the commonly accepted definition of right wing libertarianism with property rights, a police force, judiciary and defence forces. I am a left-libertarian myself so I actually disagree with this being presented as the 'correct' or 'standard' form of libertarianism but for the sake of this thread I'll roll with it.

As I posted previously, what you're trying to describe is simply an anarchist society of sorts. However I think you're simply reading too much into the thread title. I doubt the OP was referring to anarchy. I imagine my definition is closer to what the OP meant.

philologos · 19-05-2011 8:50pm

Libertarianism is pretty difficult to define then. There are still limits its just that we have to determine what the limits should be to allow for the most liberty where it is rational to do so. Different people put the lines in different places in relation to family, family structures, sexual boundaries, substance abuse etc. So libertarianism actually is really subjective.

RockinRolla · 19-05-2011 8:51pm

philologos wrote: »

DubTony - Is there a difference between complete libertarianism and libertarianism?

If not why did the OP use the word complete? I didn't use complete first, read the actual thread title!

No, nobody can say they are half libertarian and half something else. Libertarianism is Libertarianism. The OP used the word loosely. Some parties may favour relaxed social policy but take a firm grip on the economy - Liberals. The others, may regard loose economics and strong social traditions as beneficial - Conservatives. But again, it depends what country you're in. Libertarianism comes from Liberal - the old liberals or classic liberals were in effect, Libertarians, but somewhere in the last 200 years, many Liberals have opted for State intervention.

Now, there are many kinds of Libertarians as a sub-group; as in left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, libertarian socialists (although I don't know how they came up with that one). And yet, "Complete Libertarianism" does not explain too much of the OP's values or principles so I would disregard it altogether and focus on the topic at hand. I'm an anarcho-capitalist - which means I've just gone one step further in dismantling the State.

ascanbe · 19-05-2011 9:07pm

My contention, DubTony, is that pure libertarianism in practice would result in a defacto totalitarian regime; or, at best, a 'state' controlled by a number of competing 'tribal-warlords'.

RockinRolla · 19-05-2011 9:16pm

ascanbe wrote: »

My contention, DubTony, is that pure libertarianism in practice would result in a defacto totalitarian regime; or, at best, a 'state' controlled by a number of competing 'tribal-warlords'.

What is the difference between that situation and now?

A 'state' controlled by a number of competing 'tribal-warlords' is the perfect definition of the world we live in right now. When people concentrate too much power in government hands, what you're really saying is "Here is all our weapons, now you promise you won't use it?"... It's ridiculous. Why give it to them in the first place.

If a scuffle or a fire fight broke out between competing police agencies in a society, what would be the outcome? They would be arrested and brought to justice. How can we, no matter how persistent one might be, justify the creation of WMD and Nuclear bombs that has the power to wipe our species from the face of the earth? And for what? "Our benefit"? They're not benefiting us. How can one honestly put forth a rigorous debate in defense of a gun vs. a nuclear bomb? Absurdity.

elefant · 19-05-2011 10:03pm

I've recently been thinking quite a lot about what I understand to be libertarianism. Prior to this I don't think I really had any sort of political stance as such because I just didn't have enough knowledge on the subject of politics. In studying recently for exams in law, however, I read a little bit of philosophy on liberal theory (Kant and Rawls mostly) and the small pieces I read really struck a chord with me. My grasp of libertarianism is not even in the same realm as some of the posters here it seems, but I've found this thread very interesting, and I'd like to study it in depth in the future if I get the chance.

Social liberalness, at my basic level, is appealing because I don't think the state should have any say in what I decide to do as long as I don't adversely affect others. As long as someone has reached an age where they are capable of taking a mature decision they should be allowed drink whenever they want, smoke whatever they like, marry whomever they choose etc. Criminalising or policing issues that don't infringe on anybody's basic rights just seems like an enormous waste of money to me.

I'll be keeping an eye on this thread in the hopes of expanding and/or refining my opinions!

Capt'n Midnight · 20-05-2011 12:08am

DubTony wrote: »

Until now, everybody has looked after themselves. They provided their own healthcare by buying insurance or paying for it as they use it.

Have a look at statistics for health cover in Ireland there is a huge chunk of the population that have neither Medical card nor Private Health Cover, - what happens to them if they develop a long term ilness ??

Or the old Michael Moore quote that the most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is for medical bills for people who have health cover , but they just didn't have enough.

DubTony · 20-05-2011 12:38am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Have a look at statistics for health cover in Ireland there is a huge chunk of the population that have neither Medical card nor Private Health Cover, - what happens to them if they develop a long term ilness ??

Or the old Michael Moore quote that the most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is for medical bills for people who have health cover , but they just didn't have enough.

The scenario I pointed out obviously doesn't exist. The reason people here today don't have health cover is because they don't need it. As far as they're concerned, if they get sick the state will look after them That is, after all, the system we live in. So comparing this country today with what it would be like if we were Libertyland isn't comparing like with like. If we lived in a completely free society where the states only "job" was as I outlined above, almost everybody would have some sort of health insurance. Those who couldn't afford it would go to the numerous charities set up by benevolent people who saw that there was a need.

In a completely free society charities would set up their own hospitals, the myriad of insurance companies would bring extra benefits and competition in the market would push prices down while extending additional cover.

I'm inclined to take a lot of what Michael Moore says with a pinch of salt. (Are you surprised?;))

One of the issues America has with health care is the attitude of people. There's an element of "Well I'm paying for it, so I'll get what I can". Add to that the fear of litigation and some doctors won't let patients leave until they've had every possible test. All of this adds to the cost.

I recently watched a report (I can't find it online) that showed how one company had reduced health care costs massively with the help of employees. The employees shopped around for the best price they could get because they weren't insured by an insurance company. Their employer paid a percentage toward their healthcare and all the money was put in a fund. The employer insured employees for emergency hospital care and care for serious illness, but the basic stuff was looked after by the employees themselves. They had an incentive to get the best price as they were actually spending their own money.

Safeways have introduced a way to keep healthcare costs down by rewarding good behavioural choices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb3CelO_CNM

There are lots of answers. I think that a little out of the box thinking is all that's required.

Support Complete Libertarianism in Ireland?

Comments