Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

How would Libertarianism work in an Irish context?

13567

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    He voted in the people who did it, and later he got to vote to get rid of the people who helped out the banks ( if he did). Who are no longer in power.
    What about the Croke Park Agreement? Which party could I have voted for that opposed it, for the record?

    If none existed then, I assume Libertarian Party of Ireland fielded a few candidates, if not off you pop to the hustings.
    With regards to education, I'd prefer that Irish be made optional, at all levels of education. Will I "eventually" get to express my preference, in the form of a democratic vote?

    Sure, whats stopping you? Start a campaign. You may also have to change the constitution, but again, whats stopping you? Start a campaign.

    I have heard arguments like these made, as it happens, by Marxists. Although they are a bit more honest, the basics premise is Democracy is not working perfectly, therefore a proletarian dictatorship is in order. Things don't have to be perfect to be better than the alternative.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Why did we have to bail out the banks? Private investors would have sunk our country if we didn't meet their demands.

    Wrong man to mention the CPA too as I quite agreed with it.

    You can send your child to a private school with your money.


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


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    by pulling investments. killing any further FDI, They would most certainly have punished us if we didn't bail them out.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I've covered this already.

    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    This is Ireland, we have a policy of trying to keep our language alive.
    If there's enough of a demand for private schools in an area surely the market will provide one, no? Is this not you're doctrine for entire economies?


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    I see this has predictably turned into yet another of those "but what about...?" threads.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Soldie wrote: »
    I see this has predictably turned into yet another of those "but what about...?" threads.

    Perhaps it would suit you better if we renamed the forum "Mises institute" and banned all the non believers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    The compulsory Irish thing is a red herring. We are discussing Libertarianism in an Irish context, and therefore should be discussing libertarian schools, when discussing schooling. Irish could be made non-compulsory in the State sector. The State school system would not collapse if it were.

    This kind of argument is as if a homeopath got to talk all the time about the problems with the existing medical cures for cancer, and finding little problems here and there which could be fixed in the existing system, but never really justifying homeopathy. Well, we wouldn't accept that there, so lets not here.

    Can libertarians explain what they mean by a libertarian system of schooling.

    1) How much of the cost of building would be met by fees. ( assuming all)
    2) How much of the cost of the teacher's salary would be met by fees. ( assuming all)
    3) How much of the cost of the book and equipment. ( assuming all)
    4) How much ongoing costs of maintenance paid by fees (assuming all)

    5) How much State involvement if any. ( assuming none).
    6) Is there any curriculum or State exams? ( assuming none).
    6.1) Given that there isn't can they teach Creationism, or Homoeopathy for whatever certification they want. ( assuming they can teach anything for any private cert they choose).
    7) Whats do you think the approximate cost of the average non-subsidised fee paying school would be?
    8) How many people do you expect to not be able to afford schooling. Refer, answering this, to how many went to secondary school prior to 1970. ( assuming significantly < 50%)
    9) Are primary schools to also be made fee paying, how many would go? ( assuming < 50%)

    If you have counter arguments, please have detailed discussions, not one liners like charity, or Churches might educate poor people.

    Thanks. Let get onto actually talking about the subject, not the existing problems with the existing state schooling, which is tangential.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Soldie wrote: »
    I see this has predictably turned into yet another of those "but what about...?" threads.

    What does that even mean. Please actually explain what you mean by libertarian schools. Most of the whataboutary, all of it as far as I can see, is minor level attacks on the existing State sector. Nobody would say it was perfect. What we want from libertarians is actual detailed explanations - sticking to education now ( but I will move on to other forms of libertarian ideas with regard to Ireland later) - on how you actually want the Irish system of libertarianism to work, which is not the same as sniping at the existing system. This is the subject of the thread, but it is not being engaged with.

    Please elaborate, see my last post.


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    RichieC wrote: »
    Perhaps it would suit you better if we renamed the forum "Mises institute" and banned all the non believers.

    It would suit me better if the topic was stuck to instead of dressing up the endless "what if...?" questions as though they are a genuine attempt at discussion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    And let me place on record that I fully expect no answers to post #108.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Soldie wrote: »
    It would suit me better if the topic was stuck to instead of dressing up the endless "what if...?" questions as though they are a genuine attempt at discussion.

    Answer post #108


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    What does that even mean. Please actually explain what you mean by libertarian schools. Most of the whataboutary, all of it as far as I can see, is minor level attacks on the existing State sector. Nobody would say it was perfect. What we want from libertarians is actual detailed explanations - sticking to education now ( but I will move on) - on how you actually want the Irish system of libertarianism to work, which is not the same as sniping at the existing system. This is the subject of the thread, but it is not being engaged with.

    Please elaborate, see my last post.

    What I mean is that a once promising thread has unsurprisingly headed south yet again. I would identify this post as the catalyst (namely the "all libertarians really care about" ad hominem). What followed was the usual slew of "what ifs" and "gotchas" that had nothing to do with the topic. I am not interested in that kind of "debate", so thanks but no thanks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Soldie wrote: »
    What I mean is that a once promising thread has unsurprisingly headed south yet again. I would identify this post as the catalyst (namely the "all libertarians really care about" ad hominem). What followed was the usual slew of "what ifs" and "gotchas" that had nothing to do with the topic. I am not interested in that kind of "debate", so thanks but no thanks.

    Right, but I brought it back on topic - where it most certainly wasn't before, since attacks on A, are not justifications for B - and I would sincerely like to know how schools are funded, examined, etc in a libertarian State.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Soldie wrote: »
    It would suit me better if the topic was stuck to instead of dressing up the endless "what if...?" questions as though they are a genuine attempt at discussion.

    They are genuine, just because they ask libertarians to answer uncomfortable questions you don't personally like being aired does not make them disingenuous.


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    Right, but I brought it back on topic - where it most certainly wasn't before, since attacks on A, are not justifications for B - and I would sincerely like to know how schools are funded, examined, etc in a libertarian State.
    Can libertarians explain what they mean by a libertarian system of schooling.

    1) How much of the cost of building would be met by fees. ( assuming all)
    2) How much of the cost of the teacher's salary would be met by fees. ( assuming all)
    3) How much of the cost of the book and equipment. ( assuming all)
    4) How much ongoing costs of maintenance paid by fees (assuming all)

    5) How much State involvement if any. ( assuming none).
    6) Is there any curriculum or State exams? ( assuming none).
    6.1) Given that there isn't can they teach Creationism, or Homoeopathy for whatever certification they want. ( assuming they can teach anything for any private cert they choose).
    7) Whats do you think the approximate cost of the average non-subsidised fee paying school would be?
    8) How many people do you expect to not be able to afford schooling. Refer, answering this, to how many went to secondary school prior to 1970. ( assuming significantly < 50%)
    9) Are primary schools to also be made fee paying, how many would go? ( assuming < 50%)


    There is no such thing as a "libertarian system of schooling". The fact that you think there is suggests two things to me: (1) that you don't know much about libertarianism and (2) that you're not genuinely interested in debating libertarianism. Nevertheless, I'll bite:
    1. That depends on the business model of the school.
    2. As above.
    3. As above.
    4. As above.
    5. None insofar as the running of the school.
    6. I don't see why there would be no curriculum. Again, this depends on the school.
    7. I would imagine this would vary widely. It may depend on the type of school, the number of pupils, the location of the school, and countless other variables.
    8. That is quite impossible to predict.
    9. As with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

    Well that was great fun. (not)

    That's enough for me.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Sure, they have the right to do so, just as I have the right to destroy any paintings that I create (with the important distinction that I would be leaving the world a better place by doing so).
    Rationally speaking, one would need to be quite crazy to destroy an $80 million painting such as The Scream — and so one can argue that its value as private property only gives its owner an incentive to protect it. In that instance, there's no conflict between private property and cultural preservation.
    That only works if there's a monetary value placed on the cultural importance. It would be crazy to destroy a $80m painting, presumably because the owner paid something close to that amount for it, and could reasonably hope to recoup a similar amount upon selling it.

    The ring fort had no monetary value. It was purchased incidentally by a farmer who wanted the farmland, and who - from his own point of view - was improving that land. We're all agreed that it would have been better had he not destroyed it, so is that an instance of the market failing to protect something because it doesn't have a tangible monetary value?
    In any case, it's difficult to claim that governments have a better track record than the private sector when it comes to preserving cultural artifacts. The Nazis systematically destroyed works of art they found to be "degenerate," including much Jewish art. WWII aerial bombardments had a devastating impact on our cultural heritage — Courbet's The Stone Breakers was destroyed during the Allied bombing of Dresden, as just one example out of many thousands. Totalitarian governments have destroyed not only art, but executed artists as well.
    I'm not making a general point that governments can invariably be trusted to preserve culture; rather that the market can't invariably be trusted either. It seems that the market is pretty good at protecting valuable works of art - so we don't need a government to intervene to protect them - but pretty bad at protecting ring forts (or Georgian streetscapes), so we need government intervention to preserve them.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Soldie wrote: »
    I see this has predictably turned into yet another of those "but what about...?" threads.
    I don't know to what extent this is directed at my questions about the preservation of culture, but "what if" questions are essential to probe the limits of how an ideology would actually function if actually implemented.

    When I propose new processes or procedures at work, I expect to be robustly questioned as to how well those process will actually work; I know I'll have to explain how they not only meet all our existing business requirements but will also yield measurable improvements that justify the costs involved in making those changes.

    There are those who will believe that the destruction of a ring fort, while regrettable, is an acceptable price to pay for the unquestioned sanctity of private property rights. There are those who believe that a few very minor restrictions on those rights are an acceptable price to pay for the preservation of archaeological heritage.

    I don't believe in blind adherence to a simplistic ideology precisely because I feel it is ill-equipped to deal with edge cases like this. I ask "what if" questions to clarify my understanding of the ideology by asking its adherents what they believe. I'm not sure why that's such an offensive thing to do.


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


    This post has been deleted.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Apply the same logic to listed buildings: if we want to preserve quality examples of past architectural styles, we're dependent on another such society to buy every building that's currently protected? If the society can't afford to buy a given building, and its current owner wants to demolish it and build a McDonalds, that's just the way it is?

    In the picturesque town of Skagen in northern Denmark, there are only two or three colours a house can be painted by law. As egregious an interference as that may seem on private property rights, the result is very aesthetically pleasing. Is it such a bad trade-off?


  • Advertisement
  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't know to what extent this is directed at my questions about the preservation of culture, but "what if" questions are essential to probe the limits of how an ideology would actually function if actually implemented.

    When I propose new processes or procedures at work, I expect to be robustly questioned as to how well those process will actually work; I know I'll have to explain how they not only meet all our existing business requirements but will also yield measurable improvements that justify the costs involved in making those changes.

    There are those who will believe that the destruction of a ring fort, while regrettable, is an acceptable price to pay for the unquestioned sanctity of private property rights. There are those who believe that a few very minor restrictions on those rights are an acceptable price to pay for the preservation of archaeological heritage.

    I don't believe in blind adherence to a simplistic ideology precisely because I feel it is ill-equipped to deal with edge cases like this. I ask "what if" questions to clarify my understanding of the ideology by asking its adherents what they believe. I'm not sure why that's such an offensive thing to do.

    My post was not directed at you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    OB makes a good point about the "What If" type question. One I would agree with, it is after all the Theory forum, so posing hypothetical situations is part of parcel of discussing a theory.

    However

    There are some posters who aren't really asking questions such as these to gain understanding or to have a debate. They are really using such questions as cheapo point scoring exercises. We have seen in other threads how Libertarian leaning discussions can work out well, when discussed properly. That will happen in this thread as well, if people have to leave the conversation for that to happen, then so be it.

    Cheers

    DrG


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    No - I'm arguing against an axiomatic and dogmatic statement that either the owner of something has an unqualified right to do with it as he will, or else he doesn't. That's a false dichotomy born of the need to beat the world into a simplistic ideological framework.

    It doesn't matter whether or not I destroy a work of art that I create. It arguably matters whether a great artist destroys one of his own works, but I would consider it an unacceptable intrusion on his private property rights to legislate against him destroying it. It certainly matters if the owner of an established work of art destroys it, but there's a pretty robust market mechanism in place to make it highly unlikely that he will do so. And then there's the question of ring forts, where it matters if they are destroyed, but they don't have a monetary value that lends itself to a market-based solution for their preservation.

    What appears to be a dichotomy when viewed through the simplistic lens of an ideology starts to look more like a continuum when applied to a variety of real-world situations.

    The only argument against a law preventing landowners from destroying ring forts is the circular one that there should be no laws limiting private property rights. Such a law has negligible impact on the owner of the property, as long as he obeys it.
    The ring fort had no monetary value to the farmer, who saw it as an unwanted nuisance, but it does have value to others, such as archaeologists, historians, and anthropologists whose research is supported by universities, societies, institutes, and the like. It also has potential value to the tourist industry as a local attraction. So, rather than relying on state preservation orders, why couldn't parties with an interest in preserving the ring fort just buy it outright and use it for their own purposes? The farmer presumably would be happy to sell off a small patch of land at greater than agricultural value (just as farmers were happy to sell off sites during the boom years). Moreover, farmers would be less likely to bulldoze these ring forts if they thought they might be worth something.
    It's an argument predicated on the assumption that those with an interest in preserving ring forts necessarily have the financial means to protect them, coupled with the assumption that the landowner is willing to sell. It also concludes that if the farmer values the land more highly than the preservation societies are in a position to pay - if, for example, during the property boom he was able to sell it as development land - then it is acceptable for him to destroy it. In other words, rather than it being objectively better for society to preserve heritage sites, they get preserved if that is the will of the highest bidder.

    I don't have that kind of faith in market forces, I'm afraid.


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


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Well, no. You made a subtle but critical logical leap in the middle of that paragraph, which suggests that you're incapable of seeing any issue other than in terms of ownership. The state applies caveats on the use of property not because the state is asserting ownership of the property, but because of a social contract. I accept that you disagree with the idea of a social contract, but that doesn't mean that you get to reframe the discussion in terms of the only idea you do agree with, and dismiss it on that basis.
    It will however, assert its ownership over its property if you don't (a) pay taxes or (b) use the land according to their guidelines. I won't frame my arguments according to the 'social contract' because such a transparently ludicrous excuse for institutionalised robbery is hardly worth talking about, not to mention tautological in this debate.

    I guess an assumption I am making (open to correction) is that an individual's private property (if we apply the actual meaning of the term) is sovereign i.e. theirs alone if they aren't violating anyone else's property rights in doing so. If your private property rests on the state allowing you to keep it providing you pay taxes and use it according to their guidelines then the logical corollary is that you are only the nominal owner of said property. Ultimately then, it isn't the individual but the state who is sovereign over all private property. Which is of course fascism, all things considered.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    How does that philosophy map to a hypothetical scenario where a farmer beats a horse to death? It's his property, after all.
    I don't accept that animals should be granted 'rights' -- however, if I were to learn of a farmer engaging in such a brutal act I would not support the initiation of aggression against him but I would definitely partake in publicising his cruelty with a view towards a complete boycott of his farm's produce. I don't know about you, but I can't imagine many people standing for such behaviour in their community.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    This post has been deleted.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Valmont wrote: »
    It will however, assert its ownership over its property if you don't (a) pay taxes or (b) use the land according to their guidelines. I won't frame my arguments according to the 'social contract' because such a transparently ludicrous excuse for institutionalised robbery is hardly worth talking about, not to mention tautological in this debate.

    I guess an assumption I am making (open to correction) is that an individual's private property (if we apply the actual meaning of the term) is sovereign i.e. theirs alone if they aren't violating anyone else's property rights in doing so.
    If you're only prepared to have a discussion in which I accept your premises in advance, then we don't really have a great deal of scope for a meaningful discussion.

    The problem is that your definition of private property - i.e., property with which you can do absolutely anything you want with no restrictions whatsoever other than "an it harm none" - is the ideal you are espousing; whereas the social contract, despite being an abstract concept, is something that is widely accepted as existing, however much you'd rather it didn't.
    I don't accept that animals should be granted 'rights' -- however, if I were to learn of a farmer engaging in such a brutal act I would not support the initiation of aggression against him but I would definitely partake in publicising his cruelty with a view towards a complete boycott of his farm's produce. I don't know about you, but I can't imagine many people standing for such behaviour in their community.
    Hmm, so you would attempt to damage his business in response to him using his own property in a way that he wants to - but that doesn't constitute initiation of aggression against him. Interesting.

    Let's move the goalposts: your neighbour, who has a mid-level job in a large company (at which is very competent), is cruel and abusive towards his pets. He has every right to do so; they are his property, after all. What's an appropriate response to that behaviour?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    A little quibble here though, that these statistics don't provide any base figures, i.e. the raw numbers themselves; doesn't discount what you've quoted at all, it's just a lot more informative to have those base figures.

    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    There are a few issues with this:
    1: Without base figures, we don't know what a 300% surge in private education is, thus we can't see if the number going to private schools is proportionate with those leaving public.

    2: A wider issue here, is you can't say that when people have more money, they prefer private schools; not only do you need better stats to make that inference, but you need stats on disposable income for families with kids in public schools, to show that they don't have enough money to send kids to private schools.
    Could easily be that they do have the money but choose public.

    3: As you say, grinds are supplementary, which doesn't say anything about public schools, because grinds are often focused 1-to-1 learning, where as both public and private schools would have a class with many students per teacher; this means students could just as likely opt to take grinds if they were going to a private school.
    You would need some stats, surveys or research to support the view that grinds are due to poor public school standards.
    Permabear wrote: »
    Strangely, people don't doubt the ability of the free market to provide food, clothing, and often shelter. But they don't seem to accept that it can provide education, which I find to be a strange inconsistency.
    People don't doubt it can provide education, people just think that with the costs involved, it brings in a lot of additional undesirable problems that have been discussed through the thread.

    Also, while people don't doubt the free market can provide food, clothing and shelter, people see how it fails to do that for some, and thus is the reason we have social welfare and council housing, to provide an alternative to homelessness for people who (temporarily or otherwise) can't provide for themselves, or who charity isn't forthcoming for.

    Libertarian principals seem to advocate a society where charities take this role, but there does not seem to be evidence that charities could hope to have the economic means to do this for everyone, so it seems likely that many would slip through the net.

    Valmont wrote:
    I don't accept that animals should be granted 'rights' -- however, if I were to learn of a farmer engaging in such a brutal act I would not support the initiation of aggression against him but I would definitely partake in publicising his cruelty with a view towards a complete boycott of his farm's produce. I don't know about you, but I can't imagine many people standing for such behaviour in their community.
    Do you not think such animal cruelty should be outlawed?


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    And I'm arguing for a qualified right to one's property. I don't think that owning a ring fort should give you the right to bulldoze it; I don't think that owning a Gandon-designed building in Dublin should give you the right to replace it with a concrete box; and I don't think that owning a horse should give you the right to mistreat it until it dies.

    The false dichotomy stems from the idea that such qualifications extinguish property rights, which is Valmont's argument.
    But why base our argument on property bubble prices? We all know that land prices were anomalous during the bubble — indeed, they have fallen by more than half since 2007. We probably will not see another 2007 again in our lifetimes.
    Because ignoring edge cases is how badly-designed systems come into operation.
    But archeologists and preservationists tell us that despite this alleged state "protection," these historical sites are being destroyed at a relatively rapid rate. I wouldn't have much faith in the current legislative system either, frankly.
    That's a problem of lack of enforcement.

    What's interesting to note from this discussion is that both our approaches are failing. Legislative protection of national monuments isn't working, presumably because not enough landowners are being prosecuted for destroying them and so the disincentive is mostly theoretical. On the other hand, there's nothing to stop a society such as you have posited from buying them - but it hasn't happened.
    Permabear wrote: »
    Conversely, excessive government-mandated "preservation" can stifle healthy architectural development and renewal. Just because a building has been on a particular site for the past two hundred years, and has been deemed as "listed" by the state, should we really strive to keep it there for the next two or three millennia? What happens when our cities essentially become museums, and there is literally no space for new architecture, i.e., cultures of the future can't express themselves because of the weight of the past?
    Once again you manage to create a false dichotomy. It's not a stark choice between preserving every building for eternity on the one hand versus a complete free-for-all on the other; this is also a continuum.

    The Valmont argument is that if I buy a Georgian house in the middle of a terrace in Dublin's leafy suburbs, I should have an unfettered and unqualified right to demolish it and replace it with a steel-and-glass tower block, and that any qualification of that right is fascism. There doesn't seem to be any scope in that worldview for a reasonableness argument, and I am suspicious of worldviews that reject reasonableness.
    It's a trade-off that I wouldn't be willing to accept, personally. What if the government decided that Dublin would be a much more pleasant city if every man had to wear slacks and a shirt, and every woman a dress and heels? The result might be aesthetically preferable (no more tracksuits and goth attire) but could be achieved only by quashing individual preferences and having everyone submit to the will of the collective.

    Similarly, I don't want to have to go to court because I've painted my house a color that falls outside the state-mandated scheme. The color of my house should be my own business and nobody else's.
    Skagen has looked much the way it does for over a century. Allowing people to do what they want with their own properties would change it from what it is - and what it is is a large part of the reason it's a popular tourist destination - to something else; something less. It would be diminished by the unfettered exercise of individual property rights.

    I guess no individual resident of Skagen would be able to directly quantify the loss to them of having something intangible taken away from their town, and I guess in a world that's defined solely in terms of market value, that means that they wouldn't have lost anything at all.

    I doubt you'd get many of the residents of Skagen to agree with that perspective, however.


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


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    whereas the social contract, despite being an abstract concept, is something that is widely accepted as existing, however much you'd rather it didn't.
    That governments coerce money out of individuals and proponents of said government try to explain away the theft by calling it a "social contract" is very much widely accepted as existing. I don't dispute the extent of the robbery one iota.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Hmm, so you would attempt to damage his business in response to him using his own property in a way that he wants to - but that doesn't constitute initiation of aggression against him. Interesting.
    Of course not - I'm speaking of violence.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The Valmont argument is that if I buy a Georgian house in the middle of a terrace in Dublin's leafy suburbs, I should have an unfettered and unqualified right to demolish it and replace it with a steel-and-glass tower block, and that any qualification of that right is fascism.
    As I understand the definition: it is precisely fascism. Your ownership is dependent on fulfilling criteria set by the state; your ownership is then, in essence, nominal.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    We can have great architects of the future by building radical and interesting buildings in Vejle, or Aarhus, or Copenhagen. Allowing Skagen to retain the character that inspired an entire artistic movement isn't going to destroy Danish architecture.
    Well, you surely have to acknowledge that the Danes are rather more zealous in their embrace of collectivism than we are here in Ireland.
    Yup. That doesn't make them always wrong.
    Go around Mayo telling people what color they have to paint their houses and I'm sure you'll get a fair percentage of rude and hostile responses.
    Tell people in Mayo that they can't dump raw sewage into rivers and you'll get some fairly hostile responses. That doesn't make them right.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    This post has been deleted.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    And yet, those same "forces of bureaucratic preservationist stasis" allow buildings such as those I've linked to define new vistas in the towns and cities that contain them.

    Which, ultimately, is my point. If we were arguing about the two sides of an either-or absolutist dichotomy, then the choice would be one between either preserving all historical architecture in aspic, or allowing a complete free-for-all. But we're only discussing one of those extremes here: the one that says that there are no circumstances under which it is ever acceptable for anyone but the owner of property to have any input into the design of that property, because that would (apparently) be fascism.

    (As an aside, I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall when Valmont tells the Danes that they are fascists, what with them having been occupied by Nazi Germany and all.)

    Skagen has very little going for it other than fishing and tourism. The main tourist draw is nostalgia for a time when it was an artist colony (along with some beautiful scenery). The town optimises that tourist draw by preserving a sense of the past, and it works well. Other towns find different balancing points between preservation and progress - there's no compelling reason for Skagen to be a hub for architectural experimentation, and good reason for it to cling to its nostalgic vibe.

    The private property fundamentalist will argue that what's good for the town as a whole is irrelevant to his particular wants and desires, and that nobody else in the town has any right to have any input into the visual impact that his property has on the town.

    As strong as you believe the foundations of the philosophy to be, it's very hard to argue against the idea that its underpinning motive is selfishness.
    Well, this thread is about how libertarianism might work in the Irish context — and as I've said, we tend to be a bit more resistant than the Danes to having the government tell us what color we should paint our houses.
    Be careful of caricaturing Danish people as obedient sheep that simply let the government tell them what to do. The local government in Skagen - elected by the people of Skagen - enforce the rules on house colours in Skagen, for reasons that make sense to the electorate of Skagen. Other areas have different sets of rules that make sense for them.

    I'm not going to argue that every set of rules that is endorsed by a large group of people is objectively correct - I'm not a democratic fundamentalist either - but we are a gregarious species, and I'm naturally suspicious of philosophies that reject the very concept of society.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Heh, fun article; in that case, there's a clear justification for killing the rats, and while the methods used to kill them are debatable in how 'humane' they are, the killing was justified on many grounds and was not purposefully cruel.

    While there is a necessity to kill animals sometimes, when they pose a wide scale agricultural, economic or societal (health wise) threat, it should not be legal to do so in a cruel way, when there is a practical alternative.

    Another example is livestock; it is allowed to breed and slaughter animals for economic/agricultural purposes, but to treat them cruelly is wrong and should be illegal (there's much debate over this when it comes to the living conditions of factory farmed animals).


    At what point do you draw the line on animal cruelty in general? (clearly there are a lot of pretty big grey areas)


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


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Which, ultimately, is my point. If we were arguing about the two sides of an either-or absolutist dichotomy, then the choice would be one between either preserving all historical architecture in aspic, or allowing a complete free-for-all.

    In practice neither would be absolute though. The market won't preserve 60,000 ring-forts but likely still preserve Bunratty Castle and in a system where the State claims all 60,000 ring-forts are to be protected, it will eventually have to make concessions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't believe in blind adherence to a simplistic ideology precisely because I feel it is ill-equipped to deal with edge cases like this.
    Yet I could equally accuse you of blind adherence to the ideology of the State (social contract?); which is as very real as the ideology behind libertarianism. However, this point is always swept under the carpet.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No - I'm arguing against an axiomatic and dogmatic statement that either the owner of something has an unqualified right to do with it as he will, or else he doesn't. That's a false dichotomy born of the need to beat the world into a simplistic ideological framework.
    Even though you argue that exact position with the only difference being you favour the state over the individual. Your need to have the state lord over ring forts and the colours people paint their houses is exactly an attempt to beat the world into a simplistic framework i.e. the simplistic framework of State either having the unqualified right to property or not having it.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And I'm arguing for a qualified right to one's property. I don't think that owning a ring fort should give you the right to bulldoze it; I don't think that owning a Gandon-designed building in Dublin should give you the right to replace it with a concrete box; and I don't think that owning a horse should give you the right to mistreat it until it dies.
    That's a lot of moralising for someone supposedly opposed to ideology! I'm pointing out these contradictions because I think you should either criticise the ideology specific to libertarianism rather than attack it because it is ideological in nature. All political beliefs are based on philosophical assumptions concerning how men should act towards one another; necessarily, all political beliefs are ideological in nature i.e. how we should be doing things.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The Valmont argument is that if I buy a Georgian house in the middle of a terrace in Dublin's leafy suburbs, I should have an unfettered and unqualified right to demolish it and replace it with a steel-and-glass tower block, and that any qualification of that right is fascism....
    (As an aside, I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall when Valmont tells the Danes that they are fascists, what with them having been occupied by Nazi Germany and all.)
    I have identified a key feature of fascistic governments and demonstrated it is alive and well in many western countries -- if you don't want to call those countries fascistic in nature you could stop mocking me and explain why you disagree.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...and I'm naturally suspicious of philosophies that reject the very concept of society.
    Reject your concept of society, yes, reject the fact that individuals are social creatures, no. One of the greatest conflations perpetrated by statists is assuming that because man needs society, man needs the state. Now, that is a leap of logic.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's a problem of lack of enforcement.
    Suprise Surprise! More power and enforcement and we could fix it once and for all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Back to schooling, it is the nature of this thread that it has concurrent themes as the topic is large.
    Soldie wrote: »
    There is no such thing as a "libertarian system of schooling".

    Of course there is. It is one where the State doesn't get involved. If that means there are all kind of different schools, well all kinds of different schools could exist in the State sector, which doesn't mean there isn't a statist system of schooling.
    The fact that you think there is suggests two things to me: (1) that you don't know much about libertarianism

    Do I need to? The thread is not for libertarians, and the political theory thread is not a libertarian forum. We are here to learn, which is why I am asking. Who knows, we may be convinced.
    and (2) that you're not genuinely interested in debating libertarianism. Nevertheless, I'll bite:

    Asking questions about how the system works in a practical sense is a problem? Really? Some day the Libertarian party might just get out from hiding behind keyboard onto a hustings, or a public debate - you will be asked these very questions.
    1. That depends on the business model of the school.
    2. As above.
    3. As above.
    4. As above.
    5. None insofar as the running of the school.
    6. I don't see why there would be no curriculum. Again, this depends on the school.
    7. I would imagine this would vary widely. It may depend on the type of school, the number of pupils, the location of the school, and countless other variables.
    8. That is quite impossible to predict.
    9. As with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

    Well that was great fun. (not)


    None of these are reasonable answers, or miss the point. Question 1-4 ( questions on fees, equipment etc.) cannot be dismissed as "depends on the schools business model", unless we get some idea of how school models could exist without state funding, and low fees. What percentage would charge full fees? What percentage wouldn't charge full fees? Why wouldn't they ( Corporate or Church sponsorship, something else?). These are practical questions of an extremist ideology.

    Question 5 is answered ( no State involvement).

    Two major questions remained unanswered. Would there be a State curriculum ( 6), that was answered as "of course there would be a curriculum" which is to deliberately miss the point, as I meant a standardised one . In 6.1 I asked if every school had their own curriculum would that not allow that school to teach creationism, and that question remained unanswered. ( Of course it has to be allowed, the only organisation that can standardise it is the State, or council.)

    The question about how many people could afford school ( either primary or secondary) was also impossible to predict, although I did suggest referring to the stats prior to 1970 when most people did not get secondary schooling, and the working classes needed scholarships. Primary schools - which have always been free - would fall into the fee paying category ( last answer), so presumably about 50% of the population would remain unschooled, barring massive transfers from Churches, or Charities. I doubt the voluntary sector has it in them.

    However little is answered here we do learn something, because Soldie is not pretending, at least, that all, most, or even very many people should or will go to school in a libertarian Ireland. It's impossible to predict, but the present system we can predict that 100% of people get free access, whatever they do with it, and the libertarians are clearly not supporting that.


  • Advertisement
  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    In practice neither would be absolute though. The market won't preserve 60,000 ring-forts but likely still preserve Bunratty Castle and in a system where the State claims all 60,000 ring-forts are to be protected, it will eventually have to make concessions.
    Well, I guess if we have Bunratty Castle we don't need ring forts, because they're exactly the same thing.
    Valmont wrote: »
    Yet I could equally accuse you of blind adherence to the ideology of the State (social contract?); which is as very real as the ideology behind libertarianism. However, this point is always swept under the carpet.

    Even though you argue that exact position with the only difference being you favour the state over the individual.
    That's such a caricature of everything I've said that I genuinely can't decide whether you are physically incapable of understanding any point of view other than your own, or have such a desperate need to win an argument at all costs that you have your straw man factory working overtime.

    I don't favour the state over the individual. I have explicitly - in as many words - in this very thread expressed support for private property rights. I have suggested that there is an argument for qualifying those rights under some circumstances. If your frame of reference only allows for the monochrome possibilities of unqualified property rights on the one had versus complete serfdom and slavery on the other, and you are literally mentally incapable of grasping the idea of a continuum between the two, then we quite simply don't share a common language, so if that's the case let me know and I can stop wasting time discussing this with you.
    Your need to have the state lord over ring forts and the colours people paint their houses is exactly an attempt to beat the world into a simplistic framework i.e. the simplistic framework of State either having the unqualified right to property or not having it.
    I have never once argued for the State to have the unqualified right to people's private property. Not. Once. Ever.

    Again, you seem to be begging the question and arguing from your conclusion that any qualification on the right to do anything whatsoever you want with your own property means that the State has the unqualified right to do anything whatsoever it wants with your property. I can't even begin to understand the logical processes required to arrive at that conclusion.
    I'm pointing out these contradictions because I think you should either criticise the ideology specific to libertarianism rather than attack it because it is ideological in nature. All political beliefs are based on philosophical assumptions concerning how men should act towards one another; necessarily, all political beliefs are ideological in nature i.e. how we should be doing things.
    I'm not attacking it because it's ideological - I'm pointing out what I perceive as flaws in the ideology, and in turn the rather strange mental contortions its adherents will go through in order to avoid compromising it in any way.

    Your axioms are structured such that the concepts of a state and private property are mutually exclusive - if one exists, the other does not. You then frame your every argument around those axioms, no matter how contrived the resulting mental gymnastics. You appear completely incapable of relaxing your constraints in any way to accept the possibility that both a State and private property can exist simultaneously. Which is strange, because - presumably - you live in a state, and own property. How do you reconcile that contradiction?
    I have identified a key feature of fascistic governments and demonstrated it is alive and well in many western countries -- if you don't want to call those countries fascistic in nature you could stop mocking me and explain why you disagree.
    I disagree because, by your definition, pretty much every single state in existence is fascist. Given that pretty much nobody outside of die-hard anarchists believe that that is the case, I think you need to check your premises.
    Reject your concept of society, yes, reject the fact that individuals are social creatures, no. One of the greatest conflations perpetrated by statists is assuming that because man needs society, man needs the state. Now, that is a leap of logic.
    It's not my concept of society. It's society's concept of society. Almost everyone accepts that, to a greater or lesser extent, individual rights are tempered by the greater good. The argument is usually about where that balance should be drawn. There are a few extremists who believe that you have no right to any private property, and that society should own everything. This is self-evidently nuts. Then there are extremists who believe that there is no greater good, and that everything can be defined entirely in terms of private property rights. To some of us, that extreme is self-evidently nuts as well.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Well, I guess if we have Bunratty Castle we don't need ring forts, because they're exactly the same thing.

    I never said they were, but I guess this makes for a smart one liner to divert away from the point.


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


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    Two major questions remained unanswered. Would there be a State curriculum ( 6), that was answered as "of course there would be a curriculum" which is to deliberately miss the point, as I meant a standardised one . In 6.1 I asked if every school had their own curriculum would that not allow that school to teach creationism, and that question remained unanswered. ( Of course it has to be allowed, the only organisation that can standardise it is the State, or council.)
    Standardisation authorities can certainly be privately run, there are already numerous industries where this is the case. Granted it hasn't been applied to a generalised syllabus for children yet, but it can certainly be done.


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


    This post has been deleted.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    The alternative to trying to find that balance is to argue that there can be no balance; that the public interest doesn't exist.

    I'll be honest and admit that I can't be bothered formulating an argument against that point of view. It is - quite literally - an egregious perspective.
    Valmont is correct in observing that if one accepts that the state should have regulatory authority over everything from ancient monuments to the color of one's walls, it effectively reduces the "owner" to the status of a tenant in his or her own home.
    By the same token, the imposition of a speed limit means I don't own my car, as my right to do with it as I see fit is qualified. Therefore it's not my property.

    Can you understand how the man on the Clapham Omnibus would dismiss that as a completely specious argument?
    Assuming that you don't want to come across as a proponent of overbearing state control over every conceivable aspect of property ownership, can you please tell us what aspect of property rights, in your mind, is "off limits" to the state.
    I'm not sure why you're asking me for a simplistic answer, when I've been busy dismissing simplistic philosophies as unfit for purpose.

    I'm not a proponent of overbearing state control - and it's disingenuous of you to frame me thus, given that I always argue against extremism - but I accept that it's sometimes appropriate for individual rights to be tempered (not extinguished) where to do so is in the interest of the greater good. The alternative is to argue that no individual's rights can ever be tempered under any circumstances ever - including a serial killer's right to live freely wherever he wants.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    By the same token, the imposition of a speed limit means I don't own my car, as my right to do with it as I see fit is qualified. Therefore it's not my property.

    It's not the same token though. When I am on someone else's property they can set some rules, whether it be that I am required to meet a minimum dress code to enter a club, or agree to a speed limit to travel on a highway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    If you're against harming people though surely knocking down a Georgian house on a Georgian Street will reduce the value of everyone else's house? Or does harming mean something else?
    Destroying historic artifacts is also bad for all of society so is therefore harming it.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement