Neo-Liberals? - Socially Liberal and Economically Conservative

Elmo

A lot of talk surrounds a new party of Social Liberals and Economic Conservatives. Really what this often means is a group of Conservatives who have decided against being socially conservative. Meaning that they believe in individual rights e.g. their views on sexuality and on sexual mores are more liberal then those of a conservative nature (further examples exist). While their fiscal policies are about less tax and smaller government. In other words Individual Liberties are free lets not worry too much about them.

For me this Social Liberalism often forgets about equal rights and equal access to services. We all have a right to Food, Shelter, Education, Health Care, Equal Rights and other public services. These services cannot really fit into a Neo-liberal view point of the world (bar Equal Rights but that should be free).

I believe Individual Liberties can only be provided through the provision of the very basic needs of society.

I do not believe in tax cuts and stealth taxes which often find themselves in neo-liberal governments. Instead we need higher taxes used correctly and the removal of most (if not all) stealth taxes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wiseguy

We all have a right to Food, Shelter, Education, Health Care, Equal Rights and other public services.

With rights come responsibilities

It's one thing to provide these services while running up a 20 billion deficit (20%GDP highest in developed world)

It is another thing to provide these services in a responsible manner, and yes we (the current generation) have a responsibilty of not leaving our children with debt strangling their necks

Now that would be socialy "liberal" and economically "conservative"

Anyways the two words have lost their meaning nowadays anyways as disuscussed in another thread here

Elmo

I would consider smaller government and lower taxes as conservative, no?

With rights come responsibilities

As do individual rights.

There's something of an irony in your call for "higher taxes used correctly." If taxes were used correctly—and not wasted on lavish public-sector wages, bank bailouts, quangos, and overinflated welfare—our tax rates would be lower, not higher.

I never suggested that we should bail out the banks. I also suggested an end to stealth taxes.

Do we want the best schools and hospitals?

wiseguy

Elmo wrote: »

Do we want the best schools and hospitals?

You are asking the wrong question

Can we afford the best schools and hospitals?

Eliot Rosewater

wiseguy wrote: »

You are asking the wrong question

Can we afford the best schools and hospitals?

A better question would be, can a typical government achieve the best schools and hospitals? The answer, in my opinion, is no. Governments are more concerned with satisfying special interest groups, in this case trade unions, than society as a whole, that route being the better way to win elections. We see this at all levels.

Opposition social democratic parties always go on about how they will do things better and fairer. In reality they won't. The problem with some services in Ireland isn't the way Fianna Fail have implemented the system, it's the system itself.

An efficient and fair (in terms of prioritising the greater good of society) government is an unattainable ideal.

Eliot Rosewater

Elmo wrote: »

For me this Social Liberalism often forgets about equal rights and equal access to services.

That's a question of opportunity and "positive liberty".

Libertarians are more concerned with "negative liberty", that is, freedom from coercion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hazlittle

Care little for ideology. I mostly dont want to be told what to do. If to escape having rules put on me I have to in return I have to not put rules on others then so be it. Hence libertarianism. Anarchy gets me close to what I want but I would tolerate a government that provided free healthcare and education if it didnt restrict me from doing what I want.

I would consider taxes a restriction.

Denerick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A better question would be, can a typical government achieve the best schools and hospitals? The answer, in my opinion, is no. Governments are more concerned with satisfying special interest groups, in this case trade unions, than society as a whole, that route being the better way to win elections. We see this at all levels.

Opposition social democratic parties always go on about how they will do things better and fairer. In reality they won't. The problem with some services in Ireland isn't the way Fianna Fail have implemented the system, it's the system itself.

An efficient and fair (in terms of prioritising the greater good of society) government is an unattainable ideal.

Thats clearly not the case, to be fair. There are plenty of social democratic systems that provide excellent education and healthcare. The relatively market based US system consistently provides great healthcare for the wealthy and bog standard free clinics for the poor. If you're even lucky enough to have access to a free clinic.

Elmo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes but I was just pointing out that I was removing stealth taxes which are unfair.

Of course. But we should note that the best schools and hospitals in the world are not run by governments. Government-run education and health care systems usually deliver below-par outcomes at an exorbitant cost.

But do private schools and hospitals not get some government, funding isn't this the case here and also isn't private health care and schools far more expensive for the individual.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Yes but I was just pointing out that I was removing stealth taxes which are unfair.

Stealth taxes have always seemed to me in general to be consumption taxes which are anything but unfair. The more you use, the more you pay is a fair principle is it not? Fair and efficient.

But do private schools and hospitals not get some government, funding isn't this the case here

Probably the most significant difference is private schools in general are idealogically aimed at providing the best education possible, and advertising excellence to attract families seeking educational excellence, whereas state run schools are aimed at appeasing teacher unions which seek only mediocrity.

In Irish hospitals too, the most important faction are not the patients or wider public, but the various worker unions. Hence after a massive boost in health spending over the past decade we end up with the best paid health sector in the world, but cystic fibrosis patients are still stacked on trollies in corridors.

Incidentially, in Ireland, all schools are theoretically private, but in practise funding them is a state responsibility. Hence we have the worst of both worlds.

and also isn't private health care and schools far more expensive for the individual.

Well, yes and no. A taxpayer has to pay for private health care to get any sort of decent, patient focused care. But he also has to subsidize everyone else so hes going to end up paying more than someone who doesnt take out private health care by default. Mind you, he at least has half a chance of getting in and out of the hospital before he catches the black death in one of the wards.

Elmo

How many private schools are there in deprived areas or should I say taking in deprived children.

The reason we have so many stealth taxes is that the bottom 50 percent of earners expect to pay little or no income tax—because, guess what, it's "unfair" to ask them to contribute.

But isn't this just typical neo-liberal tax cutting to make it look like we pay less tax when in reality when the bottom 50% end up paying more to councils, more in VAT etc. etc.

Stealth taxes have always seemed to me in general to be consumption taxes which are anything but unfair. The more you use, the more you pay is a fair principle is it not? Fair and efficient.

I wish they were just about consumption, stealth taxes often they aren't, for example the yearly fee on waste disposal isn't relevant to the number of times you put your bin out or which of the 3 bins you use, the only consumption tax on bin collection is the weekly charge.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Elmo

I assumed that if you are a teacher in a private school or a nurse in a private hospital your getting paid then the normal public sector teacher or nurse?

Liberals normally advocate low taxes, low government spending, and greater economic freedom. I don't know that an adjective exists for the strategy of low taxes and high public spending that we enjoyed in Ireland over much of the past decade—but "liberal" doesn't cut it. You might try injudicious, mindless, imprudent, and dumb.

But we didn't have low taxes we had low income tax with stealth taxes. I am not defending the so called neo-liberals.

I assumed that most conservatives wanted lower income tax, lower tax, less of the nanny state and smaller government. Am I wrong to get this impression?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To be fair, the Tories ran a number of right wing candidates following Maggie to no avail. Thatcherism was reformed, the people don't want it in its raw form. Cameron is a Thatcherite but paints it up in rubbish buzz terms like 'the big society'. This absolute nonsense, PR stunt, treat-the-people-like-imbeciles fiasco will be revealed for what it is.

For example, if Cameron actually meets the budget cuts he and Osborne have outlined (A big if, as I don't believe that the last two years of the government will see any cuts) then the size of the state will have been reduced by 15%. Thats hardly a centrist with a soft spot for big government.

wiseguy

Denerick wrote: »

To be fair, the Tories ran a number of right wing candidates following Maggie to no avail. Thatcherism was reformed, the people don't want it in its raw form. Cameron is a Thatcherite but paints it up in rubbish buzz terms like 'the big society'. This absolute nonsense, PR stunt, treat-the-people-like-imbeciles fiasco will be revealed for what it is.

For example, if Cameron actually meets the budget cuts he and Osborne have outlined (A big if, as I don't believe that the last two years of the government will see any cuts) then the size of the state will have been reduced by 15%. Thats hardly a centrist with a soft spot for big government.

You are forgetting that current Con/Lib actions are a result of Labour over-inflating the public service there and getting the country into a hole (wow sounds familiar?).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well hardly. Osborne wants to bring the size of the state in the economy to around the 40% mark. Either way its nearly as ambitious as Thatcher, and he intends to do it in the space of one government, not two (Or even three)

rumour

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am interested in your assertion that the modern conservative is interested in regulating public morality. While the liberal is less inclined to do so.
From my perspective modern morality is governed by the modern liberal. So much so that it is tantamount to a new religon. For example we had such entertainment about the law on blasphemy and its redundancy while in parallel if you call a kid a bastard (using its original meaning) you must resign. Seems to me blasphemy is alive and well!!

While the modern liberal may well want the state to increasingly control spending he/she also considers it a 'right' to control public morality. Increasingly it appears to me that the only discourse on morality is resolved by a few in 'media' circles or left overs from the liberal sixties. This I consider as highly ill-liberal if there is such a word. I followed the thread on socialism and was interested into how it decended into a debate on Hitler.

Is there a parallel?

Elmo

rumour wrote: »

I followed the thread on socialism and was interested into how it decended into a debate on Hitler.

Is there a parallel?

I have read:-

Once any thread, on any forum descends into a debate about either Hitler or Nazis the thread/discussion has being killed.

Someone on one side of the argument will at some stage state (in their defense or in an attack against others):-

"Well you know Hilter suggested that in the 1930s!" or "That is just what the Nazis did in Germany".

So for the sake of reasonable discussion there are no parallels with Hilter, but you could always make some up, to make is seem as if you are right. Obviously you haven't made that mistake.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly. People have the right to be wrong, not to do wrong. Its ludicrous prosecuting people for certain types of speech, whether it is offensive or not.

rumour

Elmo wrote: »

So for the sake of reasonable discussion there are no parallels with Hilter, but you could always make some up, to make is seem as if you are right. Obviously you haven't made that mistake.

:rolleyes: Good point...surmising, one side said that although Hitler may have gone under the guise of socialism he never actually was a socialist, the other side said he was.....

Applying that to our liberals....an evocative word that suggests freedom and liberation.

when the liberator becomes the moral law maker he cannot be the liberal anymore. Was this true of Hitler, maybe he started out as a good socialist and then just screwed up a bit when he got power.

Look at John Gormely, he wants to save the planet but when he gets power he finds it's ultimately more important to take up the states time with nimbyism. I'm sure he didn't set out with that intention!!!

Elmo

rumour wrote: »

Look at John Gormely, he wants to save the planet but when he gets power he finds it's ultimately more important to take up the states time with nimbyism. I'm sure he didn't set out with that intention!!!

:rolleyes: It great to think we can associate John Gormely with Hitler. Well done on that and not attacking the real problem makers in the Dail.

Of course an incinerator in any part of the country is part of the Minister for Environments remit. And its not like the other local TD's have not pressurized him on the subject. I am sure when most TD get into they Dail they don't expect to be wasting Dail time with nimbyism, oh! wait that is what they are there for :mad:

rumour

Elmo wrote: »

:rolleyes: It great to think we can associate John Gormely with Hitler. Well done on that and not attacking the real problem makers in the Dail.

Of course an incinerator in any part of the country is part of the Minister for Environments remit. And its not like the other local TD's have not pressurized him on the subject. I am sure when most TD get into they Dail they don't expect to be wasting Dail time with nimbyism, oh! wait that is what they are there for :mad:

I guess the parallel is a bit extreme!!! Entertaining nonetheless.....as for attacking the real problem makers....

As a minister if he is involved in nimbyism and not in the national interest and as you have said that is his job..there is an obvious conflict of interest.

The system that allows this is dysfunctional.

If I assume Gormely is good chap out to save the planet (nobel occupation worthy of support) is he being manipulated? It appears he is working against some very dark forces indeed. Look at some of the facts, he increased taxes (carbon tax, and the brillant piece of PR this morning....)attracting all the negativity that surrounds such a move, nevermind that this is the biggest problem the government has. In opposition the greens major issue was waste management policy,now in government he can't sort it out. Maybe, just maybe this happened to Hitler, but i'd have to assume he was a good guy to begin with;)

As you've said there are real problem makers and I think they lie behind the appendices to government.(Mary Hornet being the other example)
Behind this layer of puppets, is a party that has been in power for powers sake for 13yrs who (clever manipulators that they are) have avoided responsibility for the difficult decisions through this clever masquerade. Health spending mushroomed with no improvement and yet no FF are willing to take on the task.

As it stands we are manipulated and decieved by this construct. This mornings announcement of a tax on commerciqal vehicles???? Realistically its unworkable, even if Gormely believes its another benign attempt at saving the planet. I'd say check the news because there is someting more unpalatable happening that we are not supposed to notice.

:eek:But I digress!!


Back to my unanswered question is Gormely:

• a social liberal
• an economic conservative
• or a puppet

Failing that, is he a power hungry fundamentalist with a specific agenda selling his wares under the guise of environmental policy.

Who knows? I remember Mc Dowell being framed in similar fashion. For all I know he was probably a nice fellow.

Elmo

rumour wrote: »

Back to my unanswered question is Gormely:

• a social liberal
• an economic conservative
• or a puppet

.

The problem is The Green Party never pretended to be social liberal or economic conservatives or at least they never play up these parts of their party. This is the difference between them and the PDs.

Failing that, is he a power hungry fundamentalist with a specific agenda selling his wares under the guise of environmental policy.

Who knows? I remember Mc Dowell being framed in similar fashion. For all I know he was probably a nice fellow

In fairness to Gormley he comes across as a much nicer person than McDowell who played up his Neo-Lib credentials at every opportunity and didn't seem to give a fig about Justice. Instead he made up as many laws as he could (the most law making justice minister in the history of the state), yet forgot you have to implement such laws, and then he goes and does the very economic thing of buying land for a prison, the land was far too expensive even for the Celtic tiger. Of course you are right he fell because of his support for FF, but also because he started to attack every other party including the most likely party to go into government with the PDs and FF, The Green Party. (He nearly went as far as attacking his own Party).

I'd say check the news because there is someting more unpalatable happening that we are not supposed to notice

There always is.

rumour

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My thinking on this is that is goes much further than speech and is much more directed at actions.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What constitutes a sexist or racist action? This is a moral distinction that I believe is being defined by the limited input from the politically correct brigade.

I am quite amused for instance at how the'modern liberals' are so tolerant of Islam. What amuses me most is that Islam must be tolerated while Christianity is vilified, while it is the very Christain morals that suport their moral version of right and wrong. Yet no real analysis of the political correctness of islam is permitted as it is not politically correct.:pac:

irishh_bob

rumour wrote: »

My thinking on this is that is goes much further than speech and is much more directed at actions.



What constitutes a sexist or racist action? This is a moral distinction that I believe is being defined by the limited input from the politically correct brigade.

I am quite amused for instance at how the'modern liberals' are so tolerant of Islam. What amuses me most is that Islam must be tolerated while Christianity is vilified, while it is the very Christain morals that suport their moral version of right and wrong. Yet no real analysis of the political correctness of islam is permitted as it is not politically correct.:pac:

islam comes under a list of sacred cows for left liberals in this country , christianity does not

that the likes of the people before profit alliance vehemently support gay marriage is highly ironic considering senior members of thier org ( looking at you mr boyd barrett ) have often litterally shared platforms with members of hamass ( hardly a movement which is recognised for thier committment to the gay rights agenda )< left liberals are usually at odds with the status quo and the establishment , christianity is part of the establishment in this country , islam is not

Sandvich

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's a question of opportunity and "positive liberty".

Libertarians are more concerned with "negative liberty", that is, freedom from coercion.

i.e. what freedoms you have on paper until they are applied to a functioning society with more than one person possessing those freedoms, with varying degrees of ability to exercise them.

Most modern Libertarians are closer to Objectivists and show little concern for the negative consequences of their worldview should it be installed in our society. They are more concerned with their potential freedom to amass large amounts of wealth they may never even use than whether or not people receive vital healthcare.

Hazlittle

Sandvich wrote: »

i.e. what freedoms you have on paper until they are applied to a functioning society with more than one person possessing those freedoms, with varying degrees of ability to exercise them.

Most modern Libertarians are closer to Objectivists and show little concern for the negative consequences of their worldview should it be installed in our society. They are more concerned with their potential freedom to amass large amounts of wealth they may never even use than whether or not people receive vital healthcare.

Wage slavery doesnt exist. Poverty is created by government. And racism isnt a problem.

Liberalbrehon

well said Haz

Mjollnir

Hazlittle wrote: »

Wage slavery doesnt exist. Poverty is created by government. And racism isnt a problem.

I have a tiny bee; it protects my cake.

Sandvich

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

well said Haz

Well said? That's the definition of not saying something well, since nothing is backed up. It's just a bunch of unbacked and quite frankly rather naive statements. The fact that two people feel the need to give thanks to it just shows the intellectual dishonesty of the Libertarians on this forum. It's not about what works, it's about what sounds nice.

Hazlittle wrote: »

Wage slavery doesnt exist. Poverty is created by government. And racism isnt a problem.

Sorry, how is racism not a problem? And how is poverty created by the government? And racism is not the only form of bigotry.

The reason I despise right wing libertarian thinking is that in completely unregulated capitalism, if you have a situation where a particularly minority, such as muslims or LGBT is unpopular to hire, then all of a sudden you'll find it very hard to get a job as that minority. After all, companies don't want to scare people away employing a minority with a bad reputation. You could end up getting dismissed unfairly should this be found out. With no unions and no regulation, you're ****ed.

When the possibility of suing a company for discriminative practices exists, it at least keeps them in check to some extent.

It's bad enough that some office jobs will fire you just for dying your hair a silly colours. Employers control much about you since there are many things you can't easily switch off about yourself such as your religion or sexuality, and even if they didn't you spend most of your time at work anyway.

Libertarians claim to be individualists when in reality they advocate a system of extreme conformity as the social Darwinian nature of a libertarian society would weed out difference. Of course, since most Libertarians are either 1) Already rich, 2) Normal aside from having some rather barmy beliefs about reality, it's not an issue.

Again, what happens to other people isn't a big concern for Libertarians. They're only socially liberal in theory.

rumour

Sandvich wrote: »

Well said? That's the definition of not saying something well, since nothing is backed up. It's just a bunch of unbacked and quite frankly rather naive statements. The fact that two people feel the need to give thanks to it just shows the intellectual dishonesty of the Libertarians on this forum. It's not about what works, it's about what sounds nice.

Well somone was trying to communicate with cartoons.

Sandvich wrote: »

Sorry, how is racism not a problem?

Hypothetically its enormous and everywhere to be hounded to the ends of the earth but really, really in reality have you seen apartheid or the KKK in Ireland??

Sandvich wrote: »

And how is poverty created by the government?

Check out the Irish Economy section of politics there are loads of enlightening tit bits in there. For a worked up example check out zimbabwae.

Sandvich wrote: »

And racism is not the only form of bigotry.

:eek:.......really

Sandvich wrote: »

The reason I despisefear right wing libertarian thinking is that in completely unregulated capitalism, if you have a situation where a particularly minority, such as muslims or LGBT is unpopular to hire, then all of a sudden you'll find it very hard to get a job as that minority.

I understand better with the edit above,apologies.

Sandvich wrote: »

After all, companies don't want to scare people away employing a minority with a bad reputation. You could end up getting dismissed unfairly should this be found out. With no unions and no regulation, you're ****ed.

Would you hire a suspected paedophile as a babysitter?? Be honest...

Sandvich wrote: »

When the possibility of suing a company for discriminative practices exists, it at least keeps them in check to some extent.

True don't forget to mention that at your next interview.;)

Sandvich wrote: »

It's bad enough that some office jobs will fire you just for dying your hair a silly colours. Employers control much about you since there are many things you can't easily switch off about yourself such as your religion or sexuality, and even if they didn't you spend most of your time at work anyway.

Pesky employers :rolleyes:, you can always leave.....surely you don't think they must change to accomodate you??

Sandvich wrote: »

Libertarians claim to be individualists when in reality they advocate a system of extreme conformity as the social Darwinian nature of a libertarian society would weed out difference. Of course, since most Libertarians are either 1) Already rich, 2) Normal aside from having some rather barmy beliefs about reality, it's not an issue.

Can I take it you don't fall into either of the two categories you've just mentioned?

Sandvich wrote: »

Again, what happens to other people isn't a big concern for Libertarians. They're only socially liberal in theory.

Did you say this already

Sandvich

Well somone was trying to communicate with cartoons.

Libertarians are cartoons, practically.

Hypothetically its enormous and everywhere to be hounded to the ends of the earth but really, really in reality have you seen apartheid or the KKK in Ireland??

Because you don't see people dressing up in silly white robes, there's no racism in Ireland?

I think you're horribly naive and sheltered. I've regularly encountered racist viewpoints.

Check out the Irish Economy section of politics there are loads of enlightening tit bits in there. For a worked up example check out zimbabwae.

Just because a government can create povery doesn't mean the concept of government creates poverty. Obviously, our government has potentially created a lot of poverty by pissing money away on the banks that could have been used to restore the economy.

It doesn't mean that every government does this, or that government intervention always results in poverty.

I understand better with the edit above,apologies.

So do you acknowledge what I'm saying as fact? And I'm just a big scaredy cat for not sucking up the fact that minorities would have it harder in a supposedly "Liberal" society?

Would you hire a suspected paedophile as a babysitter?? Be honest...

Are you comparing paedophiles to muslims, homosexuals, transsexuals or any number of people who are potentially discriminated against in the workplace?

There's a difference between logical decisions and illogical decisions. Obviously I'm protesting the illogical ones, whereas you don't give a toss since your ideology isn't founded on logic to begin with.

Pesky employers , you can always leave.....surely you don't think they must change to accomodate you??

The individual should come before the company. Businesses are not people.

It is not practical to "leave" job and find another so immediately that will not discriminate against you. If a minority is viewed negatively by the general public then in order to maximise profits all businesses will do this.

It is a fairly regular occurance than men will cut their long hair to greatly increase their chances of finding a job. This is flat out sexism but not something that bothers the supposedly socially liberal libertarians.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pagancornflake

rumour wrote: »

in reality have you seen apartheid or the KKK in Ireland??

No. Now, back to the topic. How is racism not a problem?

According to the 2010 human rights report published by the US state department; "societal discrimination and violence against immigrants and racial and ethnic minorities, including Asians, Eastern and Baltic Europeans, and Africans, continues to be a problem...Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) reported an increase in 'Irish Only' job advertisements, and the Economic and Social Research Institute noted that job candidates with typical Irish names were more likely to be appointed."

Doesn't seem great to me.

Eliot Rosewater

Sandvich wrote: »

The reason I despise right wing libertarian thinking is that in completely unregulated capitalism, if you have a situation where a particularly minority, such as muslims or LGBT is unpopular to hire, then all of a sudden you'll find it very hard to get a job as that minority.

But, what is stopping this kind of mass discrimination happening now? Companies in Ireland aren't obliged to hire minorities. So the present situation proves this false.

Also don't you think that these minorities would start boycotting these discriminatory business?

And, finally, this kind of economic discrimination is monetary suicide. Sure, you'll get a few nut jobs who'll refuse to serve "dem foriners", but most business owners are primarily concerned with the making of money, not silly beliefs..

Sandvich wrote: »

With no unions

No unions?

Sandvich wrote: »

It's bad enough that some office jobs will fire you just for dying your hair a silly colours.

Contrary to socialist belief, your employer didn't grab you in a side alley, hold a gun up to your head and force you to be their employee. When you sign up for a job you get benefits (money) at a price (your time, certain rules). If you don't like them, move along. If no where suits you then you accept that your competition (other workers) are better than you and change, or set up your own business.

Sandvich wrote: »

Libertarians claim to be individualists when in reality they advocate a system of extreme conformity as the social Darwinian nature of a libertarian society would weed out difference.

Conspiracy nonsense.

Sandvich

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you kidding me? You have to be smarter than that.

If men have to do it and women don't, then yes it is discrimination based on sex. There is no inherent characteristic of the male or female physic that has to do with the hair on your head, other than girls can grow it a bit faster.

But, what is stopping this kind of mass discrimination happening now? Companies in Ireland aren't obliged to hire minorities. So the present situation proves this false.

There's a difference between being obliged to hire minorities and enforcement of fairness in the workplace.

I don't doubt the current model we do have leads to a lot of discrimination.

However for example if you get fired for having a sex change, believe it or not that is against the law, and would be unlikely to be so under a Libertarian system.

Similar if someone is unfairly dismissed because they're found to be gay, or a certain religion, they would entitled to press legal action.

Where would the weight of this legal action come from in a society that has an even more lax attitude towards business?

Also don't you think that these minorities would start boycotting these discriminatory business?

They're minorities. What good would that do? If they were very small minorities especially, it'll be irrelevant in the long run. Boycotts rarely work these days anyway.

Contrary to socialist belief, your employer didn't grab you in a side alley, hold a gun up to your head and force you to be their employee. When you sign up for a job you get benefits (money) at a price (your time, certain rules). If you don't like them, move along. If no where suits you then you accept that your competition (other workers) are better than you and change, or set up your own business.

Sorry, but this is where I'm going to hound you.

Why should I accept someone is "Better" than me because they are more similar to each other than me? That's ludicrous.

And starting up a business does not have any entitlements. It could succeed or fail. I could be bound by the same issues as other businesses, without any government interference to put everyone on a level playing field(for example, if one business hires black people in a racist society, they're at a disadvantage, if companies with no black people are put under pressure, everyone is at the same standard).

It's not a solution. You're presenting me with a situation, at best, that I am unlikely to be able to maintain my individual appearance.

You are not selling me your ideology, largely based on this fact. I do not believe protection of individual rights is anywhere near a concern for "Libertarians" such as yourself, only granting economic rights that work on paper. I've presented an example where people's freedoms can be limited without a government, and you're trying to slime out of it.

You claim conspiracy bull****, yet prove me right with this reasoning.

Also Recessions occur, you have limited freedom to choose a job there regardless. And many people with "Libertarian" leanings are chiming in on the Dole scroungers being forced to work thread saying what a great idea it is. They have to take it or leave it.

It is utterly pointless being a "social liberal" if you can't guarantee such basic rights as sexual identity from being discriminated against.

Eliot Rosewater

Sandvich wrote: »

However for example if you get fired for having a sex change, believe it or not that is against the law, and would be unlikely to be so under a Libertarian system.

Firstly, this kind of situation is not very likely.

Should it actually happen, the worker has options. If they're member of union they can force some action. They can start a publicity campaign trying to shame the country. I, for one, wouldn't purchase anything off of a company if they fired people on the basis of sexual preference. (Thankfully that doesn't really preclude me from any company.)

Sandvich wrote: »

They're minorities. What good would that do?

The LGBT minority is quite a large one. As I said, they can publicise the wrong that has been done to them.

But I don't think you really understand the idea of doing business. It's about making money, not about cherry picking workers based on sexual preference.

Sandvich wrote: »

Why should I accept someone is "Better" than me because they are more similar to each other than me? That's ludicrous.

They're "better" within the terms of that job. The system admins of boards.ie are better at computer administration than me, hence they're better for their job. Hence, they'll get hired ahead of me. I fail to see the issue.

A lot of people seem to have problems with this kind of sentiment; this kind of realistic admission that some people are superior to others at certain things. I recently suggested to an intelligent young women that smarter children should be given the opportunity to attend special schools for more academically able students. What?! Never! That's discrimination!

Sandvich wrote: »

You are not selling me your ideology

The worlds greatest salesman couldn't sell you libertarianism, Sandvich.

Sandvich wrote: »

I do not believe protection of individual rights is anywhere near a concern for "Libertarians" such as yourself, only granting economic rights that work on paper

Once again, the conspiracy. Libertarians believe in granting individuals freedom from coercion from others. In a libertarian society people are most free, socially, because no one can legislate for their personal lives.

There are some criticisms of libertarianism out there. This "all libertarians are out to get us and micro-manage social convention" argument you're currently pursuing is not one of them.

Sergeant

Why does every discussion about small government and social equality descend into some petty rant about Randian liberalism?

The froth at the very extreme end of "liberal" thinking.

You can be an advocate of the virtue of personal responsibility, a hands off policy to the private life, and an exponent of a low tax (all thrown in here) society.

But with that viewpoint there can be a sense of social justice. Not everything is so black and white.

Extreme viewpoints suck balls.

simplistic2

Sergeant wrote: »

Why does every discussion about small government and social equality descend into some petty rant about Randian liberalism?

The froth at the very extreme end of "liberal" thinking.

You can be an advocate of the virtue of personal responsibility, a hands off policy to the private life, and an exponent of a low tax (all thrown in here) society.

But with that viewpoint there can be a sense of social justice. Not everything is so black and white.

Extreme viewpoints suck balls.

Libertarianism is a principled based approach to building a society. It only seems extreme to those who hate being tied down by principle. Thats why generally people have freakout emotional reactions to the concept. much like the reaction from religious people when they get a face full of logic.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

simplistic2 wrote: »

Libertarianism is a principled based approach to building a society. It only seems extreme to those who hate being tied down by principle. Thats why generally people have freakout emotional reactions to the concept. much like the reaction from religious people when they get a face full of logic.

Some of the discussions we have here on the subject certainly do remind me of atheists and religious trying to have a discussion I even made a comparison few times before

DaSilva

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I just picked this specific quote, but it is something I hear very very often.

I'm curious where this idea comes from. I can see that there are plenty of examples of inefficient government run programs, but I can see plenty of examples of terrible quality products and awful services from private companies.

I agree that very often Government-run programs are expensive and not great, but I don't believe that it is due to some intrinsic nature of government.

Sandvich

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Within a centralised government, mechanisms exist to change that. With no centralised control, the bigoted masses will always be pandered to. There is no pressure for example for a private military to take on women if they manage to make as much money regardless.

It's also the typical libertarian insanity of spludging all governments in together, taking the good bits of the Free Market and the bad bits of governments. Obviously, there are many bad governments in the world and more backwards countries are often going to have mass oppression, corruption and mismanagment and Ireland's latest mess probably has a lot to do with the rise in Libertarianism despite it being largely contrary to what is actually needed. It's a knee jerk reaction.

However, the fact is that a good government can do a lot more than no or little government can.

There are many similar areas like this in the sciences - where the majority of something is "bad", but the good parts are too valuable to ignore. With Libertarian logic, penicillin would have been disregarded. With Libertarian logic, Chemotherapy would not exist. With Libertarian logic, we should ignore most art since most art is derivative.

It's in some ways irrelevant how many bad examples there are if it's possible, given enough progress, to have a good example and it certain seems that many countries are pulling themselves more and more towards a progressive future, however slowly. Do you think China will be as oppressive in 20 years time? Probably not.

The issue with government is that it's a very hard thing to get right. That's why there are so many bad examples. How many theories get disregarded before the correct one comes up?

Libertarianism and especially anarchy try to solve the problem by introducing something that means no progress can happen, or much slower progress happens. Science doesn't do this. Science doesn't stop researching something because most of the examples are bad, if there is a theoretical victory at the end.

I used the example of Chemotherapy, which is a good one. Chemotherapy can make people very sick, and doesn't always "cure" people of cancer. But would people be better off without it? Government is largely the same - you have to accept some level of sickness to avoid a greater one.

In general when you hear the word "virus", you think of bad things, yet a huge area of study at the moment is creating retroviruses to actually do good rather than harm.

Even if there's only one good government in the world, that's what we should aspire to have, because you can never achieve any kind of universal protection of rights without it. I think Libertarians as a whole make the mistake that because most governments are bad, we should get rid of them, instead of working to improve them. The same mistake is almost always made with Unions too.

I honestly think most Libertarians have not put serious thought into this, and I think this is the crux of the issue. Because most examples of something are bad, does not mean that there isn't something at the end we need to strive for. Technology harms the environment, yet better technology harms it less. It's much the same with government.

Sandvich

Sergeant wrote: »

Why does every discussion about small government and social equality descend into some petty rant about Randian liberalism?

The froth at the very extreme end of "liberal" thinking.

You can be an advocate of the virtue of personal responsibility, a hands off policy to the private life, and an exponent of a low tax (all thrown in here) society.

But with that viewpoint there can be a sense of social justice. Not everything is so black and white.

Extreme viewpoints suck balls.

Because many people actually do hold those values, and the less extreme ones do little or nothing to disassociate themselves. donegalfella and the others have made some truly profoundly odd statements in the pass that seem to have been forgotten or ignored(see: dealing with Global Warming).

You talk about people being locked into certain principles, and easily pushing people into stereotypes, but tell me where are all the Chomsky Libertarians on this forum?

Most of the Libertarians on this forum are Rand-esque, whether you like the label or not. Level of extremity doesn't mean that it isn't at least pointing in that direction.

msteiner

In the United States, this ideology is known as Libertarianism this primary belief is very common in the Tea Party movement. Essentialy, at a general level, in the Tea Party movement, there are two factions: the social conservatives (ex. Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell) and the Libertarians (ex. Ron Paul). In general, this group stresses civil liberties and extreme fiscal conservativism as well as noninterventionism in foreign policy. Because of their basic beliefs, they have a huge overlap with constitutionalists.