Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Sandvich

I'm just curious as to exactly where it's coming from, and what spurred it. I'm seeing a lot more Libertarians both in Ireland and online in general, at least they're being more vocal.

No Ayn Rand-ish Slogans from the Libs themselves please, I'd like to know what exactly triggered it and why.

Flamed Diving

I would also like to know.

Sandvich

Recessions are meant to bring about a sudden splurge of Keynesianism, so it does seem odd. It seems the "common man on the street" has become more socialist, and more critical of the rich, yet some of the most aggressive debaters online emerging are Libertarians.

Eliot Rosewater

It would seem to me that Boards.ie has a far higher proportion of libertarians than the general population (even among younger age brackets). At least, they're are a lot of people here arguing for liberal economic policy.

It could be a general trend in our society, but I'm not so sure. Attitudes towards social issues, such as gay marriage and abortion, seem to have liberalized over time. There is definitely a swing away from a moralistic state I think.

Einhard

I think one of the reasons perhaps, is that a good proportion of those who call themselves libertarians, don't actually understand what true libertarianism actually consists of. One sees people describing themselves as libertarian, yet supporting a strong social safety net, government role in regulation etc. It seems to me that a lot of "libertarians" have vague notions of reducing state bureaucracy and waste, slimming down the civil service, and other such policies, and adopt the tag because it seems to match their political beliefs.

That's not to say of course, that there hasn't been an increase in true libertarians over the past fews years, and I'd ascribe that to two things. First of all, there's Ron Paul. He didn't exactly set the world alight in the presidential elections, but he and his political tenets certainly gained a lot of publicity. Considering that he's one of the most respected politicians in America, with a reputation for intregrity and acting on his beliefs, he probably has played a small role in the rise his ideology.

The critical factor in libertarianism's new found appeal though, has been the abysmal failure of governments worldwide to anticipate and avoid the recent crash. People were told for years that the state ensured there were checks and balances within the system, only to find that they it was all built like a house of cards. When faith in government is shaken as badly as it has been recently, it's probably no surprise to see a creeping suspicion of state authority in general. If that weren't enough, people now see their leaders pumping billions into financial systems which crashed on their watch, a policy which, rightly or wrongly, is deeply unpopular in most countries. So governments are blamed for bringing about the crisis, for prolonging it, and for mishandling the response. In this kind of situation, it's not all that surprising to see a surge in the popularity of an ideology which seeks to limit the scale and scope of the state.

yermanoffthetv

Sandvich wrote: »

I'm just curious as to exactly where it's coming from, and what spurred it. I'm seeing a lot more Libertarians both in Ireland and online in general, at least they're being more vocal.

No slogans from the Libs themselves, I'd like to know what exactly triggered it and why.

The libertarian movenment is based on truth, and logic and personal freedom, most current governments work in exactly the opposite fashion. I think the current financial crisis might have exposed where governments real attentions lie because it isnt with the people. The libs certainly put forth a interesting alternative.

amacachi

There are a huge number of people who would unknowingly being libertarians in the older ages. Resentment of government interference has been high in a lot of areas since time immemorium. I think the expression of these views has come to the fore somewhat now that a lot of people can no longer be ignored. For years the desire for less government interference was easy to dismiss, "sure aren't things great? Why shouldn't we pay stupid amounts of tax, sure we still have loads of money." Only now that that doesn't apply and people have realised that a big government (in most cases) can't run a successful economy the views of the right are being acknowledged.
Of course there are some new people on the right who have just gotten these views now that they've been left broke by the financial mess the country is in.

Sandvich

To be fair; you are correct, a lot of the Libertarians describing themselves as thus aren't truly, especially in the US.

The politics/news board on 4chan was absolutely over-run by Libertarians the last time I was there for example. Then again, it's also over-run with Stormfront users so maybe not a good example...

But in general most politics forums I've been on have been swinging towards that direction.

Einhard

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

The libertarian movenment is based on truth, and logic and personal freedom, most current governments work in exactly the opposite fashion. I think the current financial crisis might have exposed where governments real attentions lie because it isnt with the people. The libs certainly put forth a interesting alternative.

The problem with that is that libertarians would have advocated for less regulation of the financial systems than was actually in place. So, if anything, the crash of recent years would have been far greater if true libertarian ideals had prevailed over the past decade or so. Interestingly, I've heard Alan Greenspan being described as a closet libertarian, which probably goes some way to explaining his refusal to sanction more robust oversight of the markets.

northwest100

Einhard wrote:

If that weren't enough, people now see their leaders pumping billions into financial systems which crashed on their watch, a policy which, rightly or wrongly, is deeply unpopular in most countries.

It's unpopular because it's people who work and save their money that will have to pay this off in the long term.

Why should we all be working everyday, paying taxes for these assholes to award themselves milion euro bonuses?

I don't know if a libertarian system would work, but the one we have at the moment seems to favour the lawless corrupt and incompetent scum of the earth.

It's definitely not capitalism anymore...there would be no bailout of the banks if it were.

amacachi

Einhard wrote: »

The problem with that is that libertarians would have advocated for less regulation of the financial systems than was actually in place. So, if anything, the crash of recent years would have been far greater if true libertarian ideals had prevailed over the past decade or so. Interestingly, I've heard Alan Greenspan being described as a closet libertarian, which probably explores his refusal to sanction more robust oversight of the markets.

Well the difference is that there is plenty of regulation, but it's the cheating of these regulations is what caused it. Less regulation over a longer time period would lead to an equilibrium being reached much more quickly. As well as this, the housing issue is a big one, and on the surface tax breaks may seem like a "lack" of government interference, but it isn't. By purposely making housing construction more attractive than other investments the governments are interfering in the overall market.

BroomBurner

It depends on what type of Libertarian you're talking about - politics, economics, society, etc.?

Rebelheart

Sandvich wrote: »

I'm just curious as to exactly where it's coming from, and what spurred it. I'm seeing a lot more Libertarians both in Ireland and online in general, at least they're being more vocal.

No Ayn Rand-ish Slogans from the Libs themselves please, I'd like to know what exactly triggered it and why.

Ideological nutcase land, wherever that is, but it's probably somewhere between Fox TV and the O'Reilly Factor - and certainly from the United States.

We're not talking Noam Chomsky libertarian types here. Nothing somewhat intelligent like that.

amacachi

northwest100 wrote: »

It's unpopular because it's people who work and save their money that will have to pay this off in the long term.

Why should we all be working everyday, paying taxes for these assholes to award themselves milion euro bonuses?

I don't know if a libertarian system would work, but the one we have at the moment seems to favour the lawless corrupt and incompetent scum of the earth.

It's definitely not capitalism anymore...there would be no bailout of the banks if it were.

It's like everything in politics though, all descriptions have been bastardised beyond recognition. Being a bit on the "right" myself, I supposedly should have been supporting the tories in the UK election, but I can't, because they're not on the right, they're cronyist.

Einhard

northwest100 wrote: »

It's unpopular because it's people who work and save their money that will have to pay this off in the long term.

Why should we all be working everyday, paying taxes for these assholes to award themselves milion euro bonuses?

I don't know if a libertarian system would work, but the one we have at the moment seems to favour the lawless corrupt and incompetent scum of the earth.

It's definitely not capitalism anymore...there would be no bailout of the banks if it were.

LOL, now that's a whole different argument, and one that I'm too tired on a Sunday night to get into!:D

I will say though, that no one system is ever perfect so it's not necessarily such a bad idea for something not to be 100% capitalist. I'm no expert on the man or his work, but I understand that this was acknowledged even by Adam Smith himself.

Eliot Rosewater

Rebelheart wrote: »

Ideological nutcase land...

You can call libertarians what you want, but "nutcases" is a bit much given that libertarians are able to communicate their views in a far more rational manner than those of other extremes.

Rebelheart wrote: »

We're not talking Noam Chomsky libertarian types here. Nothing somewhat intelligent like that.

Noam Chomsky's intelligent alright. He advocates a system of economic equality, yet charges thousands of dollars for every talk he gives. Intelligent, in that he knows how to milk his supporters for their cash.

Einhard

amacachi wrote: »

Well the difference is that there is plenty of regulation, but it's the cheating of these regulations is what caused it. Less regulation over a longer time period would lead to an equilibrium being reached much more quickly. As well as this, the housing issue is a big one, and on the surface tax breaks may seem like a "lack" of government interference, but it isn't. By purposely making housing construction more attractive than other investments the governments are interfering in the overall market.

I agree with you that governments tend to skeew various markets for short term economic benefit. And it can't be denied that the regulations were rarely, if ever, enforced, and then only in half-hearted, half-arsed way. But I'd argue that the regulations should be reformed whereas a libertarian seek to abolish them entirely, and leave everything to the market.

The one strange thing I've noticed about most libertarians, is their almost blind faith in the power of the market. They seem to have convinced (deluded?) themselves that the market is some form of pure entity, unsullied by man, and thus able to react and make decisions logically and rationally. Yet the market is a machine designed by man, to be used by my man, and in which man is the single most important component. If ever there was a design more adulturated by man, it's the market, yet libertarians seem completely oblivious to this.

Rebelheart

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

He advocates a system of economic equality, yet charges thousands of dollars for every talk he gives. Intelligent, in that he knows how to milk his supporters for their cash.

This is untrue. Can you footnote it? (I doubt very, very much that UCD's L&H paid him anything like that, if indeed anything at all, a couple of years back)

Flamed Diving

Milton Friedman was an awful dimwit, alright...

amacachi

Einhard wrote: »

I agree with you that governments tend to skeew various markets for short term economic benefit. And it can't be denied that the regulations were rarely, if ever, enforced, and then only in half-hearted, half-arsed way. But I'd argue that the regulations should be reformed whereas a libertarian seek to abolish them entirely, and leave everything to the market.

The one strange thing I've noticed about most libertarians, is their almost blind faith in the power of the market. They seem to have convinced (deluded?) themselves that the market is some form of pure entity, unsullied by man, and thus able to react and make decisions logically and rationally. Yet the market is a machine designed by man, to be used by my man, and in which man is the single most important component. If ever there was a design more adulturated by man, it's the market, yet libertarians seem completely oblivious to this.

Libertarianism is about freedom, and that freedom includes making mistakes in a market and losing out.

Einhard

Godammit, I loathe Naom Chomsky. Although I'm not sure whether that's due to his politics or the fact that I took a course of linguistics in college, only to discover that a knowledge of English came a distant second as a requirement to a complete mastery of maths!! And if there's one thing I hate more than Naom Chomsky, it's maths!

Eliot Rosewater

Einhard wrote: »

But I'd argue that the regulations should be reformed whereas a libertarian seek to abolish them entirely, and leave everything to the market.

There is a significant aspect of moral hazard. With the government around people take more risk, because the government will bail them out if something goes wrong. The government seems to be viewed as a place where those who feel wronged get cash: the latest group are travel agents who want taxpayer money for the ash-cloud crisis.

The ways in which government contributed towards the boom have been outlined by others in other places.

Einhard wrote: »

Yet the market is a machine designed by man, to be used by my man, and in which man is the single most important component.

Well the alternative is government, which is designed by man and is demonstrably more fallible.


I would continue but this is really all off-topic: this thread is about the perceived increase in libertarians rather than libertarianism itself. If you want to discuss libertarianism you could set up another thread.

Flamed Diving

Einhard wrote: »

I agree with you that governments tend to skeew various markets for short term economic benefit. And it can't be denied that the regulations were rarely, if ever, enforced, and then only in half-hearted, half-arsed way. But I'd argue that the regulations should be reformed whereas a libertarian seek to abolish them entirely, and leave everything to the market.

The one strange thing I've noticed about most libertarians, is their almost blind faith in the power of the market. They seem to have convinced (deluded?) themselves that the market is some form of pure entity, unsullied by man, and thus able to react and make decisions logically and rationally. Yet the market is a machine designed by man, to be used by my man, and in which man is the single most important component. If ever there was a design more adulturated by man, it's the market, yet libertarians seem completely oblivious to this.

"Designed by man" is a very strong term. At best, the market is a machine that man was part of without understanding it's underlying structure. We designed it unwittingly, and for a period, unknowingly. This is why the first people who accurately studied it (16th century Gnostic monks from Spain) attributed it's workings to God, as they could not describe it's processes as being consciously designed and directed by humans. Smith simply replacing God with the "invisible hand" (and a bit more, in fairness). Of course, we now have built a wealth of knowledge about markets and play a role in designing them. But I believe this to be the libertarians objection.

Eliot Rosewater

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is untrue. Can you footnote it?

Yes, I can. 2006 article: http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2912626.html

Chomsky’s business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at $12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year.

[...]

Chomsky’s marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new meaning to the term war profiteer. In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand.

mike65

Did I step into a DCU lecture room?

aDeener

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

The libertarian movenment is based on truth, and logic and personal freedom, most current governments work in exactly the opposite fashion. I think the current financial crisis might have exposed where governments real attentions lie because it isnt with the people. The libs certainly put forth a interesting alternative.

you could say most of those things about nearly every movement, dont fool yourself into thinking that its not as corruptable as any other

aDeener

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You can call libertarians what you want, but "nutcases" is a bit much given that libertarians are able to communicate their views in a far more rational manner than those of other extremes.



Noam Chomsky's intelligent alright. He advocates a system of economic equality, yet charges thousands of dollars for every talk he gives. Intelligent, in that he knows how to milk his supporters for their cash.

fan of sweeping generalisations i see

Einhard

amacachi wrote: »

Libertarianism is about freedom, and that freedom includes making mistakes in a market and losing out.

I don't think you appreciate where I'm coming from.

Of course the market is risky and people should have no complaint then they lose out. What I'm talking about though, is the notion that the market is uncorruptible, like some deity, aloof from and untouched by human motivations, and therefore infallible as an economic engine. This, of course, is nonsense, but libertarians like to blind themselves to the fact that the market is merely a tool. It is as liable to flaws as any human, because it is operated by humans. For example, just look at the turmoil the other day, which is being blamed, in part, on a trader mistakenly imputting b for billions into a deal instead of millions. And the market tanked. It's also open to manipulation by unsrcupulous individuals to further their own private gain, at the expense of wider economic wellbeing, which libertarians argue is what the market is supposed to guarantee. The crisis in Greece illustrates this. Whereas the markets worked as they should in exposing the scale of Athens' financial meltdown, and forcing immediate remedial action, there was also a huge amount of betting against Greece with the deliberate intent of further skewing the market and hastening Greek bankruptcy. Nobody could argue that this indicates market infallibility.

Note though, that I'm not against markets per se, more the libertarian ideal that they are all that is needed to further economic growth, and no oversight is needed.

ei.sdraob

Simple

the state and top down authority rule and central banks have let many countries of a cliff

like lemmings

more government and more debt and less liberties wont fix the problems

the world has tried left and right wingism with all flavours of authority sprinkled on top
how about more liberal/libertarian approach?

Einhard

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I would continue but this is really all off-topic: this thread is about the perceived increase in libertarians rather than libertarianism itself. If you want to discuss libertarianism you could set up another thread.

This thread is about that? Damn, it's so long since the original topic was discussed, I thought it had started off on who'd win in a fight, Batman or Superman!! :pac:

thebman

I think governments have shown they cannot control the economy.

It is a chaotic system with too many variables to track especially for politicians who have other responsibilities.

Its not a problem to study economics and attempt to predict it but its much like predicting the weather, your not going to be right as often as you'd like to be and when your not, people will most likely mock you as they do economists in the current climate saying where were the ones warning us ignoring that some did much like the weather forecaster gets blamed for the bad forecast.

Eliot Rosewater

aDeener wrote: »

fan of sweeping generalisations i see

I'm basing that generalization on the manner in which libertarians on boards.ie debate, as opposed to the manner in which other extremists debate.

Einhard wrote: »

What I'm talking about though, is the notion that the market is uncorruptible, like some deity, aloof from and untouched by human motivations, and therefore infallible as an economic engine.

Libertarians believe that, do they?

Einhard wrote: »

This thread is about that? Damn, it's so long since the original topic was discussed, I thought it had started off on who'd win in a fight, Batman or Superman!! :pac:

Sorry for trying to maintain the discussion standards that the moderators ask of us.

aDeener

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm basing that generalization on the manner in which libertarians on boards.ie debate, as opposed to the manner in which other extremists debate.



Libertarians believe that, do they?



Sorry for trying to maintain the discussion standards that the moderators ask of us.

which is still sweeping

Einhard

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Libertarians believe that, do they?

They believe that human interference in the form of oversight and regulation taints the free market, yet fail to acknowledge that human interference is an integral part of that system.

Sorry for trying to maintain the discussion standards that the moderators ask of us.

I was actually agreeing with you that the thread has veered off topic!

Scofflaw

This thread has indeed veered off topic, as was perhaps predictable. It needs to veer back again, and away from ritual curses.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Amhran Nua

Sandvich wrote: »

I'm just curious as to exactly where it's coming from, and what spurred it. I'm seeing a lot more Libertarians both in Ireland and online in general, at least they're being more vocal.

As was correctly pointed out, most of the libertarians don't exactly get what they've signed up for.

A better name for it would be anarcho-corporatism, the reduction of government and replacing it with a version of social darwinism, as is best evidenced by the complete removal of social welfare advocated by its proponents, and its replacement with charities.

A lot of people find the corruption and waste of government repulsive, and rightly so, and would seek to balance that with a smaller government, so some elements of libertarianism appeal to them - there are useful elements within the general theory, unquestionably. Taken as a whole however, not so much.

There is also a backlash against the far left in many countries, as the results of the careful accumulation of power over decades become apparent. Greece would probably be the most extant example of this at the moment, we've had recent members of these boards holding up Mondragon corporation as an example of the succcess of anarcho-syndicalism, a large faction in Greece, and peddling their philosophy on that basis. Of course, that the structure and success of this group mirrors the success of various Japanese horizontal Keiretsu, among others such as co-ops, except without any political underpinnings, needs to be pointed out in case anyone might actually believe them.

As for Ireland, some seem to have mistakenly identified the country as a good base to launch a wider campaign of anarcho-corporatism in a similar fashion because of our low corporate tax, which they believe justifies the ideological trappings of the system (which fly in the face of the palpable damage caused by highly deregulated markets) and because an island hanging off the edge of Europe appeals to the mentality. The history, unique culture, and social fabric of said nation makes no never mind of course.

johnnyskeleton

As unrealistic as libertarianism is, I think it is important that such views be discussed in public. For example, although you may not agree with Michael McDowell, Joe Higgins or the late Tony Gregory, they certainly made the dail a bit more interesting because of their firm views on various issues. Compared with the pork barrell politics of your standard FF/FG/Labour TD, I'd rather see more people in the dail who have actual belief systems beyond being elected next time.

Valmont

It's simple really. The last few years have shown how governments are unable to perform even their basic functions effectively and people are beginning to question why we need such a big government in the first place. The tenets of Libertarianism answer some of these questions. Note however, that libertarianism is not exactly an economic or social theory; it is a philosophy of law that sets out to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. Everything else is a result of this freedom and liberty.

yermanoffthetv, thanks for the link. It was really interesting.

P. Breathnach

Valmont wrote: »

... Note however, that libertarianism is not exactly an economic or social theory; it is a philosophy of law that sets out to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. Everything else is a result of this freedom and liberty....

I like "the rights and freedoms". So simple. We are all agreed on what individual rights and freedoms are, aren't we?

Sandvich

complete removal of social welfare advocated by its proponents, and its replacement with charities.

This is the thing that repulses me about many libertarians. I've been on disability and known many people who are, who are just not fit for the working world yet.

Relying on some supposed charity that will pop out of nowhere when the government retracts inside it's shell is insane. There are tons of people in need of alms, and we're not seeing near enough.

What this situation makes me think of is if you had some local trouble maker who kept getting pulled in by the guards; and he comes out with the outlandish excuse that he'd be a much better guy if it wasn't for the cops pissing him off. Stop arresting me and I'll be a better guy.

Imagine this criminal as a rich businessman. Libertarians to me either seem to be this criminal, or the guy that believes him.

Libertarianism is so incredibly idealistic. Far too much of it expects things to happen as soon as you get rid of big government. Like communism it requires an ideal state that just isn't going to happen any time soon.

northwest100

i wouldn't begrudge you your disability benefit, Sandvich and i don't think those who claim to be libertarians would either.

Are you aware though of people in ireland who collect disability benefit because they're alcoholics?

NO! I'm not saying you're an alcoholic!!

But i know of a number of people claiming disability because of a drug or alcohol dependency.

I wouldn't mind paying taxes personally, but it's difficult to justify when it's so badly spent in this country.

Banks are bailed out, government sector are overpaying themselves, giving themselves bonuses and generous pensions for the least possible or no amount of work at all.

meanwhile, if you are working hard, saving your money, trying to make ends meet and do the best you can, the government are ass raping you for taxes to pay for all this nonsense.

So, in some ways, I can understand why there's an increasing interest in the libertarian system of economics but that doesn't mean I know much about it.

bonkey

Sandvich wrote: »

I'm just curious as to exactly where it's coming from, and what spurred it. I'm seeing a lot more Libertarians both in Ireland and online in general, at least they're being more vocal.

No Ayn Rand-ish Slogans from the Libs themselves please, I'd like to know what exactly triggered it and why.

While I can't speak for other sites, my feeling about things here is that more people are certainly labelled Libertarian, although I wouldn't be certain that more people would decribe themselves as Libertarian.

Its a trend I've noticed more-and-more over the years...that its quote common to label others with one of the stereotypes, rather than just to stick to discussing what they're saying.

I honestly know very few people (on boards or elsewhere) who profess to an ideology. You get people saying they lean slightly one way or another, or that on a certain issue their thinking might be described as this or that....but I would have thought its comparatively rare to see someone standing up and saying "I'm very Conservative" or "I'm socialist", or (indeed) "I'm Libertarian"....certainly in comparison to how often one would see posts saying something like "the Libertarians here would have us believe...", "What excuse will the socialists offer us this time..." and so forth.

Eliot Rosewater

Amhran Nua wrote: »

As was correctly pointed out, most of the libertarians don't exactly get what they've signed up for.

How so? I don't there are any illusions as to what libertarianism is, so I don't see how someone could support it without knowing what they were supporting.

On that point, do you then feel that the rise in libertarianism can somehow be attributed to ignorance of same?

Sandvich wrote: »

Libertarianism is so incredibly idealistic. Far too much of it expects things to happen as soon as you get rid of big government.

Well here's the question: do libertarians believe in a "year 0" type reset, with a dramatic, complete and instant change of the governmental system, or the gradual working towards a libertarian state over the period of say 50 years? I would think the latter.

ei.sdraob

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well here's the question: do libertarians believe in a "year 0" type reset, with a dramatic, complete and instant change of the governmental system, or the gradual working towards a libertarian state over the period of say 50 years? I would think the latter.

To add to above

All past "ideologies" like socialism/communism, religious fundamentalism and now environmentalism require the whole world to switch (willingly or unwillingly...) for the "system" to work (in theory of course)
Libertarianism could be tried on a small scale such as a city state or town, it doesn't need to go to war or put in trade barriers with other people/countries in order to force "liberty" onto others
and lets be realistic, the most libertarians hope to accomplish is to regain some of the freedoms lost due to ever increasing state authoritarianism


Someone keeps dragging welfare into this, theres no reason why welfare cant exist under a libertarian system, it would be called social insurance and whoever wants to avail of it can pay into it, it wont be forced on anyone who doesn't want to pay in, when they need to use it they they get paid from insurance fund

In fact thats how the concept of Insurance came about few centuries ago (the Scottish Widows), the aim was to provide welfare to widows of men after they die... and thanks to having detailed data and knowledge of stats and probability they were able to calculate how to run the fund to this day

The formation of the society had been discussed from March 1812 with the purpose of providing for widows, sisters and other female relatives of fund holders so that they would not be plunged into poverty on the death of the fund holder during and after Napoleonic wars.

baalthor

The Internet is responsible for a large part of the rise in popularity of libertariansm. There are two reasons for this:

1. The Internet popularised libertarian ideas which would otherwise have received little coverage.

2. The core Internet using demographic is particularly receptive to libertarian ideology.

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

How so? I don't there are any illusions as to what libertarianism is

Even the name is an illusion - libertarianism has as much to do with liberty as freedom fries. And it comes from the same source oddly enough.

ei.sdraob wrote:

Someone keeps dragging welfare into this, theres no reason why welfare cant exist under a libertarian system, it would be called social insurance and whoever wants to avail of it can pay into it, it wont be forced on anyone who doesn't want to pay in, when they need to use it they they get paid from insurance fund

Already exists, and no its not enough. It might work on a personal level for small numbers of people for a short while, but when you have 10%+ unemployment for a few years, and the insurers go bankrupt, how does that work? Never mind disability, it seems the crippled can go beg in the streets. And do you really think you'll end up paying less in unemployment insurance than in PRSI?

I mean in the bronze age rulers would take a certain amount of each crop from each province to store for the year, in case of crop failure in any particular area. Everyone took a small hit ongoing so that major random hits didn't result in provinces being wiped out and neighbouring provinces being ransacked (oops, better get hiring that private army from the lowest bidder via the free market, who needs quality when it comes to cracking the heads of starving peasants).

If your grand theory of society and the economy doesn't account for basics they were on top of back in the bronze age, maybe its time you went back to the drawing board.

ei.sdraob wrote:

In fact thats how the concept of Insurance came about few centuries ago (the Scottish Widows), the aim was to provide welfare to widows of men after they die... and thanks to having detailed data and knowledge of stats and probability they were able to calculate how to run the fund to this day

Early insurance originates around the risky maritime trading industry, circa 1500 BC. The more modern variants can be traced back to Babylon and China around 2 or 3 BC.

Flamed Diving

And again we sliiiiide off-topic.

irishh_bob

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It would seem to me that Boards.ie has a far higher proportion of libertarians than the general population (even among younger age brackets). At least, they're are a lot of people here arguing for liberal economic policy.

It could be a general trend in our society, but I'm not so sure. Attitudes towards social issues, such as gay marriage and abortion, seem to have liberalized over time. There is definitely a swing away from a moralistic state I think.

by the same token , i would say boards .ie ( and other internet forums ) has a higher proportion of socilists than the general population , internet forum users tend to be more idealogical than your average bear

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

meditraitor

Sandvich wrote: »

I'm just curious as to exactly where it's coming from, and what spurred it. I'm seeing a lot more Libertarians both in Ireland and online in general, at least they're being more vocal.

No Ayn Rand-ish Slogans from the Libs themselves please, I'd like to know what exactly triggered it and why.

They have always been around, its just that in times of economic and social upheaval they can raise their voices without too much ridicule.
People are sick of the state of affairs and are willing to look at other concepts more freely, people turn to the strangest things in times of hardship, religion, drugs and unworkable crazy economic and social concepts...... its the nature of things

Libertarianism will fall back into its little hiding hole in a couple of years, maybe even with a couple of failed experiments to further blight its value as nothing more than a historical footnote for bored sophists to argue about.

Laminations

The explanation above relates the rise in libertarianism with an unhappiness about THE government but how this generalises to government as a whole is poorly explained. No one is happy with waste or ineptitude in government, it's why we can vote for an alternative. And if alternatives are so poor then you can run yourself. Yes governments are bad at managing x y z but so are individuals. I've yet to find a libertarian who can explain how they'd avoid a tragedy of the commons? Or how they ensure the poor and disabled were protected - charity is simply not enough and social insurance is fine if you can afford. Libertarianism is the preserve of the better off, it is fine for those who are happy withtheir hand. Those who aren't happy usually prefer socialism. Both extreme ideologies have vested interests. I think there is a rise now because more people are looking inward and asking why am I paying this much when person B is only paying this. It reflects a rise in selfishness. People are thinking if they are left to operate under their own steam that they will thrive.

Of course these people (at least the ones I've debated) already have a good means of production - either education or wealth or both. When they attribute blame for the financial crisi they speak of government failure, ignoring the major role private companies played and ironically lecturing on personal responsility in the next breath. The rise in libertarianism comes from the rise in over educated self obsessed individuals who underestimate individual differences, thinking 'if I can do it, anyone can'. They see inequality and accept it.

I'm born Ro uneducated parents who do not make sure I go to school. What chance have I under a libertarian system? Who provides the schools? I've a drug addiction? Who pays for rehabilitation in a libertarian system? I'm disabled and I've never been able to afford social insurance. Who will ensure I don't die in the gutter? If charity is your answer to all this then you are really showing up your delusion.