Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Eliot Rosewater

Akrasia wrote: »

Why do you need to invent attacks in order to be defensive against them?

You didn't read this post then, did you?

There are many valid criticisms of libertarianism and I would actually like to discuss these (despite the best attempts of the opposition to stereotype me as someone with their hands clasped about their ears shouting "la la la").

But why should I respond to a post that declares that "libertarians love instability"? I'm sorry, but that just isn't my idea of a meaningful contribution, and I'd be rather disappointed if it was yours. If you have a good argument, lay it out in a balanced manner and I will respond. I honestly don't believe that I'm as dogmatic as Scofflaw thinks I am.


So your refutation to the moral hazard argument referred to the insurance industry. I think there are a number of advantages of private run insurance over government.

• Those who are insured actually pay premiums. I doubt travel agents have been handing in payments to the government in case of a disaster.
• Private insurance companies will asses risk, accounting for moral hazard, and charge a premium proportional to the risk that that person or group poses to the company. Given that the owners of the company are those paying up, they will be better motivated to truly discern the level of risk.
• In a government system everyone pays. If the travel agents get their bailout it will be me, you and everyone else on this thread paying for it. I never gained by way of insuring the agents, and I did nothing to cause the volcanic explosion (though, I am a libertarian so I probably had something to do with it!).

I think a lot of the criticisms of libertarianism stem from cultural issues. For example, currently individuals do not save for an extended time without work, nor do they seem to save for their children's education. This is because the government pays for these things already, and people fell they don't have to. In the idealistic libertarian society individuals would assume greater responsibility for these things.

It is because of this cultural issue that libertarianism could probably never be fully introduced, especially in the “year zero” sense. As Valmont put it best, the central problem with libertarianism is that it's trying to apply rational principles to an irrational world. However, I think there are some elements of libertarianism, such as personal liberty in social matters, a restrained government and privatized services, that could be introduced now.

And, to whisk right back to the original thread topic, I think an awareness of the benefits that liberal and libertarian policy could bring to our country is fueling the supposed “explosion”.

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

By your own free market philosophy, you should be the one arguing in favour of that. Now stop dodging the question - you admit exceptions exist, apparently more than one, why not accept that other reasons besides pure free market forces should influence lots of things?

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Except for third level educators and supreme court judges.

Taxipete29

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Under a libertarian system, with no state funded education and presumably no requirement to attend school a child born into poverty may never recieve an education.

This appears to contradict the statement liberty trumps everything else because without an education your choices and hence your freedom are limited. The choice was made for you before you were even concieved by virtue of the fact that your parents are poor.

P. Breathnach

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a fundamental problem with Libertarianism. Without free education, you're just building intergenerational inequality. ...

It's not a problem: it's a feature.

Liberty is more important than justice.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

First of all, yes it is a problem, you just want to ignore it and bask in your freedom.

Secondly, it is obvious that you do not consider reducing poverty the top priority of a civilized society. Libertarians see protecting human freedom as top priority, as you pointed out. Fine,this is an acceptable goal, but you just described a transaction (trading some amount of security/education/welfare for some amount of liberty) without describing the cost. Aren't we entitled to know the cost in order to make the decision?

So how many people will have to go without education/food etc. (how many will have to die) in order for you to get and maintain your liberty? Whats an acceptable number to you??

And we get to the nub of why libertarianism is a disgusting ideology

Exile 1798

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Meaningful comment? Are you kidding? This thread has been little more than a platform for people to rant about some group of policies they call "libertarianism", which rarely equaled the accepted thing. As has been said, libertarians have been compared with Nazis, Scientologists and conspiracy theorists. We've been described as a group of people "feeding" off each other. Is that your definition of meaningful?

Not on boards.ie. I can't comment on anywhere else. All the libertarians I know here - donegalfella, ei.sdroab (I think), silverharp, Soldie etc, are miles from that conspiratorial image people here have tainted us with.


And here, at last, we have a genuine criticism of libertarianism.

With respect this is nonsense.

There have been a number of very meaningful criticisms of Libertarian views, especially in regards to current events. These have been completely ignored. Indeed yourself and Dongelfella, probably the two best Libertarian identifying debaters have made a point of ignoring them and repeatedly sought to focus on quips made by various posters, and labour the idea that no one has put forward anything but.

The only inclination to engage in serious debate that any Libertarian has shown in this thread shown is on theoretical level. No one would deny the attractiveness of Utopian theories, but as Libertarians make much more worldy claims for their ideas it would be nice if they could debate them in their practical reality.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65811434&postcount=53

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65811434&postcount=53

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65815296&postcount=122

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65814676&postcount=115

And many more besides.

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Okay, so you are in favour of judges that can be fired now, but not third level educators. Does it not seem possible that in your philosophy therefore that good reasons besides the free market, better than the free market, exist for things like social welfare? As already mentioned they were providing a primitive form of social welfare back in the bronze age - at a time when extremities were an everyday fact of life, doesn't it seem odd that this form of social insurance was made a priority?

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have a nice piss on our constitution there. well done

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think a lot of the criticisms of libertarianism stem from cultural issues. For example, currently individuals do not save for an extended time without work, nor do they seem to save for their children's education. This is because the government pays for these things already, and people fell they don't have to. In the idealistic libertarian society individuals would assume greater responsibility for these things.

Correction. We pay the government (in taxes) to pay for such things as education. Why? because as a society we think these things are important, so even if you dont have kids, these things remain important for the society in which you live. And society exists whether libertarians like it or not. If you dont think societal values are important, either make a case or leave.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really? That bizarre proposal is the only solution you see? You dont see free primary education and targeted child benefit as solutions to the inequality of opportunities that exist as birthrights?
Callous is the best word I can think of to describe libertarians.

'Thats just tough' should be your mantra.

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you're holding up the poor areas of Ghana and Kenya as the model to follow now? I've done some work with similar schools in the Philippines, what you have is families beggaring themselves to put one child through school, and assuming that child succeeds, they spend the rest of their lives keeping their family at approximately the same level they were at before, unless they get very lucky. Yes, socialised education is a good thing.

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In poor areas of Ireland, the UK, US, Spain, Italy, Australia, Canada, France ect 99% of children attend schools, both private and public.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

And society exists whether libertarians like it or not. If you dont think societal values are important, either make a case or leave.

I never denied the existance of society, did I? I merely question the sytem whereby people are forced to partake in it.

And leave? Where to, exactly?

Exile 1798 wrote: »

made a point of ignoring them and repeatedly sought to focus on quips made by various posters, and labour the idea that no one has put forward anything but..

The reason I ignored the meaningful points made by people such as Amhran Nua was because thre thread was smoothered by the other kind of fud. It wasn't exactly a framework for productive debate.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

but as Libertarians make much more worldy claims for their ideas it would be nice if they could debate them in their practical reality..

You should really read what I have said here before making such declarations.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It is because of this cultural issue that libertarianism could probably never be fully introduced, especially in the “year zero” sense. As Valmont put it best, the central problem with libertarianism is that it's trying to apply rational principles to an irrational world. However, I think there are some elements of libertarianism, such as personal liberty in social matters, a restrained government and privatized services, that could be introduced now.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is an extremist ideology that I am glad would never ever be fully implemented.

What use is 'liberty' if you are born to a family with absolutley no opportunity to fulfil your potential.

The kind of repression that the propertyless would experience in a libertarian society would be worse than all but the most totalitarian state, certainly far far worse than life in a modern social democracy.

I can not understand why anyone would be a principled libertarian when those principles would make the world a much worse place to live in under practically every measure I can think of.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Families, communities.... go on, if you keep going you'll get to a 'group of interacting organisms' at the level of society and you'll see we have some responsibility for each others mutual welfare.... and if you keep going you'll see we are all members of the human race, sharing one planet with a duty of care to each other and the environment. Duty ought be a stictly moral issue but as libertarians often do in their naiveity, they confuse ought with is, and duty is not always done out of a moral imperative therefore there has been (and remains) a need to have legal duties. Governments merely act to formalise values/traditions/duties of groupings of people into laws.

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

For anyone that is interested, look no further than article 45.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I never denied the existance of society, did I? I merely question the sytem whereby people are forced to partake in it.

And leave? Where to, exactly?

To give a libertarian answer. Thats not my problem.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

the central problem with libertarianism is that it's trying to apply rational principles to an irrational world.

Sorry this seems quite a fundamental flaw in the extreme dogmatic ideology? This flaw will always exist, even in the fantasy world of Star Trek this flaw exists. So either you remain libertarian with this giant flaw poking from your face or you agree that you are simply liberal, and acknowlrdge the all-seeing, all-knowing market cannot solve everything.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We're not, really - we just like pointing out that the doctrine has unpleasant results and is intellectually vacuous, both of of which are features libertarians necessarily ignore.

I favour liberty, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that it trumps everything else.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Akrasia wrote: »

What use is 'liberty' if you are born to a family with absolutley no opportunity to fulfil your potential.

He will never answer that question, because it doesn't affect him, he has had opportunity, he had good parents, he has gotten an education, other peoples problems do not concern him. Hence, callous.

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Poor example.
Private schools operating here have an unfair competitive advantage.
Namely that is the STATE that is paying the teachers wages.
Private schools are just another coporate welfare scheme.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0427/1224269158554.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Just on the idiotic notion that liberty trumps all else.

DF, you have a daughter, do you let her freely play in the traffic? Or do you recognise that her security trumps her liberty. Do you let her decide where she goes to school or what she learns.

'Today daddy I want to learn what is happening with Sporticus in Lazytown'

Or do you accept that her education trumps her liberty? And that in the long run, an education will maximise her liberty?

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

To give a libertarian answer. Thats not my problem.

So with the one hand you're berating me for not engaging with people, and with the other your contributing stuff like this.

Laminations wrote: »

So either you remain libertarian with this giant flaw poking from your face or you agree that you are simply liberal, and acknowlrdge the all-seeing, all-knowing market cannot solve everything.

My problem isn't with the market; my problem is that I percieve a lack of responsibility and planning ahead in people in general. A reluctance to save up for their child's education, for example, or to ensure that they're financially stable before they have a child. Stuff like that.

Libertarianism is an ideal. I've never suggested that that ideal be placed upon an unwilling population. I think elements of it could be introduced succesfully in Ireland, creating a balance between libertarianism and what we have now. I'm not the big bad evil person ye've made me out to be!