Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Iwasfrozen

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Your rights are part of the collective rights of human beings.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Your rights in Ireland are derived from your status as a citizen of Ireland, and the rights you enjoy as an Irish citizen, spring from the collective rights of Irish citizens.

Unless you're strictly talking about the Libertarian philosophy of rights, in which case, have a look at the case of the stateless in the period between WW1 and WW2, or jews in Nazi Germany. Neither group had a guarantor of rights, and both groups were horrifically exploited. Rights require a guarantor. Locke, the man who first outlined the libertarian view on rights, knew this, and he placed the guarantor of individuals rights in god. Unfortunately for us, god has a habit of not protecting people's rights, and the vast history of human rights abuses since Locke have done nothing to prove Locke right, and everything to prove a view of rights as springing from the collective rights of human beings, needing a secure guarantor in the form of a state or a supranational organisation, as the only workable conception of rights.

Why did you bother quoting my post if what you say has got nothing to do with my post. Instead of addressing my post as is the norm here you went off on a one man rant about how the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" proves there is such a thing as collective rights.

Of course you are wrong. The universal Declaration of Human Rights provides an outline of rights to the individual, not to people collectively. Also the universal Declaration of Human Rights is the minimum rights that one should have. It is not a limite on the rights that one should have.

As for the Holocaust, well Sir. I am going to have to call Godwins law on you. As well as point out that had Nazi Germany respect for the right of Jewish people and others in the concentration prisons the Holocaust would never have happened.

Your post was less an attack on Libertarianism and more of an attack on National Socialism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Unless you're strictly talking about the Libertarian philosophy of rights, in which case, have a look at the case of the stateless in the period between WW1 and WW2, or jews in Nazi Germany.

Godwin strikes again!

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Neither group had a guarantor of rights, and both groups were horrifically exploited. Rights require a guarantor

Hence why libertarians believe that the state should protect individuals' rights from both internal and external forces.

sron

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But this ignores the act that some groups of people need to be treated differently. The disabled should have a right to maintenance grants and so on (which they need) that others shouldn't.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And using individual rights an individual or even a group of individuals have the right to discriminate on all those fronts.

sron

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Hence why libertarians believe that the state should protect individuals' rights from both internal and external forces.

I'm curious as to how far the libertarian view takes this. Surely capitalism, for instance, would be impossible in a society where no-one is allowed to tread on the toes of others.

Laminations

sron wrote: »

But this ignores the act that some groups of people need to be treated differently. The disabled should have a right to maintenance grants and so on (which they need) that others shouldn't.

Not according to libertarians. The disabled and vulnerable should rely on charity or preferrably die in a gutter in line with social Darwinism

Eliot Rosewater

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Believe it or not, that only works in the absence of consequence for politicians

I'll repeat. Politicians pander to specific interest groups, abusing the fact that benefits are concentrated and costs diluted, to win the votes of a specific few without losing the votes of others. The majority, operating under a rational ignorance and a general apathy towards the minutiae of expenditure, don't respond negatively.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Ah the old argumentum ad verecundiam, nothing like having an economist tell you how the political system works.

The specific chapter dealt with the provision of public services, and how governments do not allocate resources (ie budget money) in the best interests of society. But you reject the principle?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You do realise that all the words we speak didn't just pop out of the ether wholesale. Of course you could just try to make yourself look smarter by missing the point instead.

I wasn't responding to the point you were making, rather the way in which you feel an ideology's 200-year old (?) title should be renamed to suit your interpretation of it. I have previously explained the title to you, it being based upon negative liberty, but you dismissed the explanation out of hand, if I recall correctly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

sron wrote: »

I'm curious as to how far the libertarian view takes this. Surely capitalism, for instance, would be impossible in a society where no-one is allowed to tread on the toes of others.

How so? Perhaps if you provided an example...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sron

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

How so? Perhaps if you provided an example...

Even the most ardent capitalist wouldn't deny that capitalism is a game of winners and losers. I think my statement is self-evident.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In short, you're on your own. Live and let live, die and let die

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

No: I was in college, away from my bedroom where I keep my Ron Hubbard altar, my conspiracy theorist archive and my computer, on which on I maintain my blog, for which I "feed" off others who share the same views as me.

This whole thread has been an eye-opener for me in fact: I wasn't aware I did all these things until the kind boards.ie posters informed me so.

I find there is always a point in any conversation with Libertarians where they get all defensive and willfully disengage from meaningful comment.

There have been plenty of perfectly legitimate criticisms of Libertarianism made by numerous people on this thread, but all you can do is trot out the faux offense rather than actually tackle any of the meaningful points.

Do you, or any of the other libertarians on here at least acknowledge that a significant number of self described libertarians on the internet are as I described?

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'll repeat. Politicians pander to specific interest groups, abusing the fact that benefits are concentrated and costs diluted, to win the votes of a specific few without losing the votes of others. The majority, operating under a rational ignorance and a general apathy towards the minutiae of expenditure, don't respond negatively.

I think you'll find that the majority are going to respond pretty negatively at the next elections, one of the rare cases where the parish pump has been superceded by national concerns. Which brings us right back to the point I was making.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The specific chapter dealt with the provision of public services, and how governments do not allocate resources (ie budget money) in the best interests of society. But you reject the principle?

Its like trying to finish a jigsaw puzzle with only half the pieces, would be the appropriate criticism. You've mentioned you are studying economics, do you mind if I ask where?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I wasn't responding to the point you were making, rather the way in which you feel an ideology's 200-year old (?) title should be renamed to suit your interpretation of it.

Yeah, use the google-fu look up endocentric compound words, might save us all some time. Its anarcho-corporatism, because it surely has nothing to do with liberty.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Although I disagree with it the golf club example is justified in the same manner as womens gyms or marathons etc. A libertarian would be quite happy accepting 'no blacks signs' on public houses or 'no disabled need apply'

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What's your position on big government as it pertains to tenured third level educators?

Akrasia

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Collective rights do not exist. The only rights that exist are the rights of the individual and the right of other individuals not to have their rights limited by others.

The term "collective rights" is a paradox as one cannot acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he already possesses. Individual rights cannot be subject to a national vote and the majority does not have the right to limit a minorites rights.

eh, what?

That was a very interesting sequence of highly controversial assertions made with no reference to any evidence or reason, or even a simple explanation of what you define 'rights' as?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Need I remind you that government does not have to be big or equal welfare state. And yes I enjoy those supports because I am lucky, I recognise there are plenty who do not have good families friends or communities to rely on. You recognise this too and ignore it of selfishness

sron

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perhaps it isn't. I suppose children living in poverty have the right to a good education, but when capitalism ensures a tiered society, the right is useless without the means to use it.

Libertarianism to me seems to offer everyone equal rights, but not equal opportunities. Thus it (at the least) makes the world no more fair that it is.

Iwasfrozen

Akrasia wrote: »

eh, what?

That was a very interesting sequence of highly controversial assertions made with no reference to any evidence or reason, or even a simple explanation of what you define 'rights' as?

Source = Objectivism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You made a big point of the importance of ensuring that third level educators have an unassailable job position in another thread, citing an association of professors who took offence at another professor being fired for a disagreement with his institution, incidentally interfering with the operation of the free market by doing so. Have you since changed your mind?

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok so I run a school, I have an engrave exam. If you are not clever or wealthy I will not educate you, why should I. And with the money I make from educating the wealthy I buy the best teachers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, so we have a group of professors who will more happily work in a job they can't be fired from, thus causing most of the the third level institutions to adjust their employment rules accordingly, since they want the best professors, basically strongarming the market into giving them security of employment. Isn't this therefore a case where non-market concerns, specifically "academic freedom" (freedom not to compete perhaps, liberty ho!) supercede those of the operation of a free market, and wouldn't you therefore admit that there are non-market concerns that need to be taken into account, specifically with such situations as social welfare?

You've mentioned also that you have a doctorate, and I can't help but notice that you're also the Letterkenny IT mod. Would it be safe to say that you're involved in third level education yourself?