The only sensible thing to do

Superlativeman

This "Jeremy Kyle" culture we have has destroyed this country. We have seen a precipitous slide in every area of society and we've become a degenerate state, with no morals, no interests and no pride in ourselves.

First of all: Ireland is NOT a Capitalist country. If you honestly think that, you're a deluded fool or a member of Joe Higgins' bolsheviks. We do have the opportunity to become wealthy, but wealthy in this country is Bono, not 100,000 a year.

Bailing out banks and corporate welfare is not Capitalism. Never has been, never will be. This detrimental notion that this current economic decline is a failure of Capitalism is so asinine that it hardly renders me even to type this message - but a good cause, no matter how obvious, must be carried out.

As a Libertarian Smithian, I honestly feel like crying when I see the SWP outside my college telling everyone that it's time for the Workers of the World to unite. What they fail to comprehend is that Ireland has many features that they wouldn't change and that they would thoroughly augment.

It's the same for all parties in this country: They're all the same, everyone. FF are corrupt to the teeth, but Noonan of FG has said "we can't change FF's policies." Labour offer no alternatives, just their stupid sentiments. The independents raise no issues and are hard to find and SF are there to represent the joyriders.

Ireland is a corporate state in the way it bails out banks, corporations and gives tax exempt status and favors to the likes of Tony O'Reilly and George Soros with the Valentia scandal.

It's a Socialist state because the government is effin' huge. It's involved in all forms of society. And of course, big government leads to failures..... such as healthcare, education, etc. The education system in this country is a joke.

Here is unequivocal evidence that Ireland is a socialist country:

• Medical card(free health care)
• High dole(tax on the Bourgeois to keep that going)
• Free education(B.T.E.A allowance, plus grants)
• Income tax(commie manifesto)
• Pension levy
• Central bank(commie manifesto)
• Minimum wage(interferes with business, like it or hate it, it's socialism)
• Just interfering with business in general on stuff like, you can't reject people based on race, etc. Why not? It's your business.
• Carbon taxes
• TV Tax
• Road Tax
• Child benefits(which have been conscientiously abused)
• Council houses

And many, many more.

Now, I expect to get replies such as: "He's a Anarchist scumbag, who hates poor people." It should be up to pub owners to decide if they want to let people smoke in their premises, not the government, for example. But most archetypal know it alls want the government to tell them what way to dress and say "it's Capitalism."

Well, I'm poor, and my family are as well, but they're all hard working and are getting taxed left right and center for jobs that pay a few extra euro above the minimum wage.

Adam Smith mentioned none of the above. If you want true freedom, you have to have an anarchist society, that's the way it has to be. There is no other alternative than to gradual reduce all these things and stop the abuse of the system. Big government cannot work and either can the government looking after the people like a Nanny state.

I'm not saying we should go anarchist straight away, that would be stupid. But it needs to be brought in over time. I'm not even sure I'd survive in a thoroughly free society, but it's better than being a slave to Brussels and Anglo Irish.

What do we want? Freedom or this:http:

??????????????????????????????

Your call!

Libertarians of the world, Unite!

Liam Byrne

Count me out.

Superlativeman

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Count me out.

Why's that?

ilovelamp2000

So how would this anarchy work ?

Superlativeman

Rosco1982 wrote: »

So how would this anarchy work ?

Think of America from 1776 to 1913 - without slavery and gender discrimination.

ilovelamp2000

Superlativeman wrote: »

Think of America from 1776 to 1913 - without slavery and gender discrimination.

History isn't my strong point, you'll need to educate me.

20Cent

Libertarianism is just a made up thing.
Its like saying you're a Jedi or a Klingon.

Superlativeman

Rosco1982 wrote: »

History isn't my strong point, you'll need to educate me.

I don't understand what you want to know?

If you're trying to be smart and are going to ask "that" question: "But who's going to build the roads?" There is no point in talking.

Superlativeman

20Cent wrote: »

Libertarianism is just a made up thing.
Its like saying you're a Jedi or a Klingon.

Just like that - Libertarianism has been debunked.

Liam Byrne

Superlativeman wrote: »

Why's that?

Any libertarian theories I have seen involve everyone doing whatever the hell they want to make money, regardless of whose lives they affect or even ruin in the process.

As someone who believes in a fair day's wage for a fair day's pay, objects strongly to profiteering based on core things that people need and to ANY profits by anyone who doesn't add something to the chain (e.g. currency speculators just making things more expensive) and also believes that no-one anywhere is worth more than €150,000 a year, I can't subscribe to anything that you have outlined.

Oh - and the racism angle is objectionable.

Superlativeman

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Any libertarian theories I have seen involve everyone doing whatever the hell they want to make money, regardless of whose lives they affect or even ruin in the process.

As someone who believes in a fair day's wage for a fair day's pay, objects strongly to profiteering based on core things that people need and to ANY profits by anyone who doesn't add something to the chain (e.g. currency speculators just making things more expensive) and also believes that no-one anywhere is worth more than €150,000 a year, I can't subscribe to anything that you have outlined.

Oh - and the racism angle is objectionable.

You've a right cheek. One of these egalitarians I see.

I'm going after this post, but I'd like to ask something to all the egalitarians out there.

Take homelessness for an example. I'm sure you and others would agree the government should be doing something to cure homelessness. A very noble thing I might add.

My question is: How many of you have actually volunteered at a homeless shelter or went on a soup run or invited a homeless person into your house to stay when they've asked for a place to kip?

I doubt any of you have, not just on here, but all over the world. But you want the government to do it. And how do they solve issues like this? Ummm, hmmmm, TAXES! On who? Ummmm, hmmmm, the middle class. And the middle class and upper class are the ones who are an anethma to the workers in this country, yet they pay all their benefits and pay for their council houses.

Let's be clear, the government gives you nothing. They "take" from others and give it to you.

The fact that you just believe that no one should earn over a certain amount is disgusting, outdated and not practical. You're a Liberal Fascist. Read the Fascist Manifesto, that's you. An FDR new deal sponger.

Unbelievable, sick of these socialists, trying to stop us young people from studying hard and becoming rich.

Mister men

Thanks but no thanks.

Liam Byrne

Superlativeman wrote: »

You've a right cheek. One of these egalitarians I see.

Haven't a clue what egalitarians are, but I'll Google it to see if you're anyway close.

TBH, I'm not reallly any form of extremism, believing life is about balance; so I'm not left or right, socialist or capitalist.....in fact, if there's a label I'm probably steering clear of it, and that applies to everything in my life from political views to clothes.

In fact, the only label I've ever found appropriate was my star sign; the scales = balance.

Superlativeman wrote: »

Let's be clear, the government gives you nothing. They "take" from others and give it to you.

No - they take from me to give to bankers and gamblers, actually. I have never received a cent from the Government, so less of the idiotic jumping to conclusions, thank you very much.

Superlativeman wrote: »

The fact that you just believe that no one should earn over a certain amount is disgusting, outdated and not practical. You're a Liberal Fascist. Read the Fascist Manifesto, that's you. An FDR new deal sponger.

Post reported for talking through the wrong opening in your anatomy about someone you know nothing about. I have never, and will never be, a sponger. :mad:

Oh - and your "the government takes from the public and gives to you" philosophy ? All you've done is replace that with "a company takes from consumers and gives to you", because someone has to pay your over-inflated salary while people struggle to make ends meet on the necessities just because you want a higher salary.

ei.sdraob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

and also believes that no-one anywhere is worth more than €150,000 a year

you mention racism which is a form of discrimination based on race
yet support "maxiumum-wageism" (woot i invented a word for this socialist phenomena :P) which discriminates based income and ability...

something to think about Liam

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you mention racism which is a form of discrimination based on race
yet support "maxiumum-wageism" (woot i invented a word for this socialist phenomena :P) which discriminates based income and ability...

something to think about Liam

Ah now.....read what I said.....

I said that "I believe that no-one is worth more than that".

I didn't say that I would enforce that, and as long as they're not making more by forcing me to pay more for necessities, either directly or indirectly, then I've no argument with them.

ei.sdraob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah now.....read what I said.....

I said that "I believe that no-one is worth more than that".

I didn't say that I would enforce that, and as long as they're not making more by forcing me to pay more for necessities, either directly or indirectly, then I've no argument with them.

I understand

I dont like anyone on public payroll earning crazy amounts like this either.
Simply because we have only one government/civil/public service and have no choice but to pay to/for this lot via taxes or be thrown in jail.

On the other hand i could vote with my wallet if i am disgusted with a CEO of a private company and go to the competitor, if enough people do this the company wont be around to pay salaries like that so here we have the market and competition at work

there is no competitive forces unfortunately in the government/civil/public sector and this leads to waste and a sense of "unfairness"

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I understand

I dont like anyone on public payroll earning crazy amounts like this either.
Simply because we have only one government/civil/public service and have no choice but to pay to/for this lot via taxes or be thrown in jail.

On the other hand i could vote with my wallet if i am disgusted with a CEO of a private company and go to the competitor, if enough people do this the company wont be around to pay salaries like that so here we have the market and competition at work

there is no competitive forces unfortunately in the government/civil/public sector and this leads to waste and a sense of "unfairness"

That's fair comment, but I do still think we disagree in some areas such as currency, oil, water, basic foods and basic accommodation - all of which should be protected from profiteering. As, indeed, should military machines, which impose a requirement for manufacturing wars in order to return a profit.

Basically I believe that anyone who contributes should be rewarded, and contrary to our friendly OP's suggestions, I believe there should be no dole for doing nothing.....if the state is paying you you should be on-call to them for community work and be glad that they are giving you the means to survive until you get a job.

Liam Byrne

Also let's not forget that the 'competitiveness' (read:greed and banks wanting to get in on the act) is what screwed up our economy.

ei.sdraob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Also let's not forget that the 'competitiveness' (read:greed and banks wanting to get in on the act) is what screwed up our economy.

Actually it was the complete lack of regulation and accountability (socializing private losses was added insult on top of this!) that screwed our economy

some basic regulation (not of the top down totalitarian/authoritarian control freak type) is required,
to supervise the kids playing with matches and ensure and a competitive environment exists.

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Actually it was the complete lack of regulation and accountability (socializing private losses was added insult on top of this!) that screwed our economy

some basic regulation (not of the top down totalitarian/authoritarian control freak type) is required,
to supervise the kids playing with matches and ensure and a competitive environment exists.

On mobile so too hard to multiquote, but lack of regulation combined with greed and profiteering; if that didn't go on, it could ne argued that regulation wouldn't be required.

No need for traffic cops if no-one's stupid / reckless / inconsiderate enough to speed.

So - as I said it's all about getting the right balance.

southsiderosie

Superlativeman wrote: »

This "Jeremy Kyle" culture we have has destroyed this country. We have seen a precipitous slide in every area of society and we've become a degenerate state, with no morals, no interests and no pride in ourselves.

First of all: Ireland is NOT a Capitalist country. If you honestly think that, you're a deluded fool or a member of Joe Higgins' bolsheviks. We do have the opportunity to become wealthy, but wealthy in this country is Bono, not 100,000 a year.

Bailing out banks and corporate welfare is not Capitalism. Never has been, never will be. This detrimental notion that this current economic decline is a failure of Capitalism is so asinine that it hardly renders me even to type this message - but a good cause, no matter how obvious, must be carried out.

As a Libertarian Smithian, I honestly feel like crying when I see the SWP outside my college telling everyone that it's time for the Workers of the World to unite. What they fail to comprehend is that Ireland has many features that they wouldn't change and that they would thoroughly augment.

It's the same for all parties in this country: They're all the same, everyone. FF are corrupt to the teeth, but Noonan of FG has said "we can't change FF's policies." Labour offer no alternatives, just their stupid sentiments. The independents raise no issues and are hard to find and SF are there to represent the joyriders.

Ireland is a corporate state in the way it bails out banks, corporations and gives tax exempt status and favors to the likes of Tony O'Reilly and George Soros with the Valentia scandal.

It's a Socialist state because the government is effin' huge. It's involved in all forms of society. And of course, big government leads to failures..... such as healthcare, education, etc. The education system in this country is a joke.

Here is unequivocal evidence that Ireland is a socialist country:

• Medical card(free health care)
• High dole(tax on the Bourgeois to keep that going)
• Free education(B.T.E.A allowance, plus grants)
• Income tax(commie manifesto)
• Pension levy
• Central bank(commie manifesto)
• Minimum wage(interferes with business, like it or hate it, it's socialism)
• Just interfering with business in general on stuff like, you can't reject people based on race, etc. Why not? It's your business.
• Carbon taxes
• TV Tax
• Road Tax
• Child benefits(which have been conscientiously abused)
• Council houses

And many, many more.

Now, I expect to get replies such as: "He's a Anarchist scumbag, who hates poor people." It should be up to pub owners to decide if they want to let people smoke in their premises, not the government, for example. But most archetypal know it alls want the government to tell them what way to dress and say "it's Capitalism."

Well, I'm poor, and my family are as well, but they're all hard working and are getting taxed left right and center for jobs that pay a few extra euro above the minimum wage.

Adam Smith mentioned none of the above. If you want true freedom, you have to have an anarchist society, that's the way it has to be. There is no other alternative than to gradual reduce all these things and stop the abuse of the system. Big government cannot work and either can the government looking after the people like a Nanny state.

I'm not saying we should go anarchist straight away, that would be stupid. But it needs to be brought in over time. I'm not even sure I'd survive in a thoroughly free society, but it's better than being a slave to Brussels and Anglo Irish.

What do we want? Freedom or this:http:

??????????????????????????????

Your call!

Libertarians of the world, Unite!

Your youtube link doesn't work.

Oh, and I'll pass on whatever it is you are offering, because frankly I can't tell what you are even talking about. Plus I am generally wary of college students using lots of superlatives and waving around copies of The Wealth of Nations, Capitalism and Freedom and/or Atlas Shrugged.

SkepticOne

Youtube link from the op if anyone is interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KMrJGz3EIg

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Threads should automatically get closed when DF starts to gloat. :P

OP can you show me any examples of libertarianism working on any kind of large scale? Or do you believe in it for the same reasons people believe in God, cos in the absence of all proof it still sounds nice

Lockstep

Ireland is socialist?
The Heritage Foundation would disagree with you, we're one of the freest economies in the world.

I presume your response will be that "It just shows how socialist the world is", or rather, it shows how unrealistic a completely laissez-faire state is.

You try to cherry pick 19th century America: a nation of conscription, slavery, the disenfranchisement of women and non-whites, the banning of trade unions. An oligarchy.

by the way, the fact your initial post has you claiming to be poor makes to me believes this isn't the case. It seems the more middle class a person is, the more eager they are to claim that they are poor, be they Marxist (to show how in tune they are with the working class) or libertarian (to try and claim that they started from nothing and pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps)

Lockstep

Superlativeman wrote: »

[*]Medical card(free health care)

For those on low incomes. We don't have an NHS.

Superlativeman wrote: »

[*]High dole(tax on the Bourgeois to keep that going)

High dole? yes that's true.

Superlativeman wrote: »

[*]Free education(B.T.E.A allowance, plus grants)

It's not 'free'. It's funded by taxation.

Superlativeman wrote: »

[*]Income tax(commie manifesto)

A holdover from the income tax brought in by Robert Peel (filthy commie he was)

Superlativeman wrote: »

[*]Central bank(commie manifesto)

Fecking European bureacratic overlords.

Superlativeman wrote: »

[*]Minimum wage(interferes with business, like it or hate it, it's socialism)

No, it's not. It's a sign of a regulated capitalist economy.

Superlativeman wrote: »

[*]Child benefits(which have been conscientiously abused)

Frankly, we really need to encourage people to have more kids. Aging population and all that jazz.

If you're family are earning slightly above the minimum wage, I don't know what the problem is. I earn that myself (€9 an hour) and the taxation is fairly low.

ei.sdraob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat

Liam Byrne wrote: »

On mobile so too hard to multiquote, but lack of regulation combined with greed and profiteering; if that didn't go on, it could ne argued that regulation wouldn't be required.

No need for traffic cops if no-one's stupid / reckless / inconsiderate enough to speed.

So - as I said it's all about getting the right balance.

Greed and profiteering is what made the phone/computer you typing this on and network connections the message is being sendover.

It is part of our human nature and will to improve ourselves, there is nothing evil about making a profit, the guest for profit has led to many great things (and bad of course, but that says more about us as humans...).

Socialists think that humans can somehow be engineered to overcome our basic drives, that is simply perverse, yes we will evolve over time (and have so already) but not on a short timescale, greed will be with us for a long long time

You know if the banks were isolated and their losses not socialised we now would have moved on. Under capitalism failure should not be rewarded like this.

Laminations

ei.sdraob wrote: »

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat

Ah well because Bastiat said it then it must be true. This makes equal sense

Libertarianism is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Laminations


And you can quote me on that

Laminations

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Socialists think that humans can somehow be engineered to overcome our basic drives, that is simply perverse, yes we will evolve over time (and have so already) but not on a short timescale, greed will be with us for a long long time

It's not the preserve of socialisists, most psychologists worth their salt recognise the power and influence of classical and operant conditioning. We are conditioned beings who have learned through creation of and engagement with social structures (like government) to overcome our basic drives. Without regulation our basic drive for immediate self gratification would kill us off. It's like goldielocks, being too statist is bad and heads towards authoritarian socialism/fascism, too little state intervention and 'the good of the people' is lost and we move into the magical realm of libertarianism, so utopian and perfect that it's not practised anywhere as a social/political order.

This government isn't perfect, far from it but that does not give you the ammunition to say Government is bad. And what does the socialisation of profits in this current crisis have to do with this? Very few agree with that

hobochris

Superlativeman wrote: »

First of all: Ireland is NOT a Capitalist country. If you honestly think that, you're a deluded fool or a member of Joe Higgins' bolsheviks.

You lost me here,

We use money to barter for goods.

A majority of the population spend most of their lives seeking to gain more money through work to improve their lives and consume more goods.

We have a consumer culture which is the catalyst of capitalist society.

We have some parts of society with socialist ideals, we use some of our capital gains to appease these ideals.

Property is privately owned, a majority of production is owned and run privately for private gain.

Definition of capitalism as per Wikipedia:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market rather than by central planning by the government; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.

Like it or not, We are a capitalist country.

we merely flirt with the idea of socialism, to implement it on any notable scale would fail.

Ellian

Superlativeman wrote: »

The fact that you just believe that no one should earn over a certain amount is disgusting, outdated and not practical.

Why is it disgusting to say that there should be an uper fixed point on your earnings (although granted, there could be plenty of healthy back and forth on where that line should actually be?) Put it another way. It's a finite world, with a finite amount of resources and in this world where 25,000 children a day die from lack of clean water why is it "disgusting" to believe that no matter how smart or industrious you are, there simply comes a point where you do not need nor deserve any more?

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Greed and profiteering is what made the phone/computer you typing this on and network connections the message is being sendover.

I don't agree, because you're deliberately muddying "making some return on investment" and "profiteering".

I have already stated numerous times that I have no objection to people getting a return for their contributions and effort.

Making a living should be a basic human right, and paying for the phone/computer and network connections should reflect what time, effort and expertise was put in.

It should not reflect the fact that someone wanted to make a killing, although it's a bad example of what I was getting at because a computer/phone is not an "essential", and therefore someone can simply choose not to have one if those providing them are too greedy.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

It is part of our human nature and will to improve ourselves, there is nothing evil about making a profit, the guest for profit has led to many great things (and bad of course, but that says more about us as humans...).

I don't know whose "human nature" you are on about.....well, I do, because if you look around Ireland these days you can see the me-feiners who just want to line their own pockets.

Money is a means to an end; as someone pointed out above, it's a bartering tool to get you something else. But many people seem to think of it as a stupid bragging / status symbol. Others of us don't; if you'll never spend it then there's no need for it.

The bottom line is that for every decision that the profiteers and money-men make, the end-user is hit, either through more expensive goods (which as you say they can choose to avoid) or through taxes and knock-on effects.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Socialists think that humans can somehow be engineered to overcome our basic drives, that is simply perverse, yes we will evolve over time (and have so already) but not on a short timescale, greed will be with us for a long long time

To suggest that "our basic drives" include so much greed that we don't care about others is equally perverse. It certainly appears to be one of the drives of many, but a lot of us have evolved beyond that.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You know if the banks were isolated and their losses not socialised we now would have moved on. Under capitalism failure should not be rewarded like this.

On that we agree, however it is ignoring the fact that capitalism is what caused the issue in the first place.

There is a greater good than lining the pocket of some CEO who's out playing golf.

As I said earlier, work away all you like on non-essentials; I reckon a Jedward CD is worth about 0.0000000000002 cent (and that's being generous) and so I don't care what libertarians charge for it. But as I said none of the basics should allow for profiteering; they should involve enough to make a living and a small profit to cover rainy days.

I can actually agree with a lot of what you say, but since you are OK with having people who don't contribute make money by buying up stuff and hoarding it until it's "worth" more, I can't bring myself to agree with the philosophy.

Some of us are happy to make a living and not grab profit wherever we can regardless of negative impacts on society and individuals.

danbohan

Laminations wrote: »

Threads should automatically get closed when DF starts to gloat. :P

OP can you show me any examples of libertarianism working on any kind of large scale? Or do you believe in it for the same reasons people believe in God, cos in the absence of all proof it still sounds nice

ogh do let him go on , he has not got around to prin........... and his ph.... yet , your such a spoilsport !

southsiderosie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ireland is socialist?
The Heritage Foundation would disagree with you, we're one of the freest economies in the world.

But the problem with Ireland is that they have a capitalist/laissez-faire fiscal policy (to keep the multinationals happy), a wanna-be Scandinavian social policy (to keep the voters happy), and a hand-in-the-cookie-jar government operating policy (to keep the career politicians happy). And therefore, we have the disaster that exists today.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

It is part of our human nature and will to improve ourselves, there is nothing evil about making a profit, the guest for profit has led to many great things (and bad of course, but that says more about us as humans...).

Socialists think that humans can somehow be engineered to overcome our basic drives, that is simply perverse, yes we will evolve over time (and have so already) but not on a short timescale, greed will be with us for a long long time

Hm.

One of my main problems with a lot of libertarian thought is that society is swept out of the equation, a la Maggie Thatcher, whereas I think society is extremely important for understanding economic outcomes. That said, to use a phrase from the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, man may be moral, but society is not. I think many socialists (and social/communitarian) anarchists have an overly rosy view of human behavior, and while people may care about their fellow man, it is human to resent people who you perceive as not carrying their weight, or to want to keep the fruit of your labors if you work really hard.

Finally, to put a historical perspective on it, "imposed" socialist/communist systems in the long term tend to create atomized individuals with very low levels of interpersonal trust, while hyper-individualistic capitalist countries tend to create deep pockets of religiosity or nationalism, as people struggle to find meaning and a place in society. The extremes in either direction are bad in the long term.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

southsiderosie wrote: »

But the problem with Ireland is that they have a capitalist/laissez-faire fiscal policy (to keep the multinationals happy), a wanna-be Scandinavian social policy (to keep the voters happy), and a hand-in-the-cookie-jar government operating policy (to keep the career politicians happy). And therefore, we have the disaster that exists today.

It's not unfeasible to have both: liberal economics and a strong welfare state can be seen in places like Chile and Hong Kong.
It's the third approach that is really screwing us over.

saywhatyousee

irelands right in the middle half capitalist half socialist
i like some aspects of socialism

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bartizan

southsiderosie wrote: »

But the problem with Ireland is that they have a capitalist/laissez-faire fiscal policy (to keep the multinationals happy), a wanna-be Scandinavian social policy (to keep the voters happy), and a hand-in-the-cookie-jar government operating policy (to keep the career politicians happy). And therefore, we have the disaster that exists today.



Hm.

One of my main problems with a lot of libertarian thought is that society is swept out of the equation, a la Maggie Thatcher, whereas I think society is extremely important for understanding economic outcomes. That said, to use a phrase from the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, man may be moral, but society is not. I think many socialists (and social/communitarian) anarchists have an overly rosy view of human behavior, and while people may care about their fellow man, it is human to resent people who you perceive as not carrying their weight, or to want to keep the fruit of your labors if you work really hard.

Finally, to put a historical perspective on it, "imposed" socialist/communist systems in the long term tend to create atomized individuals with very low levels of interpersonal trust, while hyper-individualistic capitalist countries tend to create deep pockets of religiosity or nationalism, as people struggle to find meaning and a place in society. The extremes in either direction are bad in the long term.

Ah, again Mrs Thatcher or "D'Inglish" are to be blamed!

The blame for our predicament rest firmly with Irish politicians spending far too much money, and voters voting them in time after time, believing that the debts would never come home to roost.

It simple isn't credible to blame anyone other than ourselves.

southsiderosie

bartizan wrote: »

Ah, again Mrs Thatcher or "D'Inglish" are to be blamed!

The blame for our predicament rest firmly with Irish politicians spending far too much money, and voters voting them in time after time, believing that the debts would never come home to roost.

It simple isn't credible to blame anyone other than ourselves.

Where did you read that I am blaming Thatcher for the problems of Ireland?

Lockstep

southsiderosie wrote: »

Where did you read that I am blaming Thatcher for the problems of Ireland?

Thatcher is to blame for everything.
She brought the Euro, shot Bobby Sands and made us lose the Eurovision.
Rabble rabble rabble.

southsiderosie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I seem to remember her brandishing a copy of "Capitalism and Freedom" and designating it as the operating manual of the British government, but I digress...:)

I agree that the question of entitlements versus obligations is problematic, but I think that there is an inherent tension between having a society where the individual is first and foremost, but then saying we need to have a system that recognizes reciprocity. I don't think that everyone is entitled to live in a four bedroom house and have a 42" flat screen with 200 channels, but even Friedman acknowledged that society has an obligation to look after its weakest members, including the ill and infirm and children. In addition, today there are a lot of hardworking people who feel that they met the obligations of getting an education and being a law-abiding taxpaying member of society, yet in their hour of need government has utterly failed them. There has to be a happy medium.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But the data is very clear on this: any social survey of Europe shows huge differences between Western and post-communist countries in terms of levels of interpersonal trust. And the increase in globalization and the "flattening" of the world so to speak (god I hate Tom Friedman!) has been met with a concurrent rise in strength of feeling in national or sub-national identity. The whole "One World" model is just wrong. It doesn't always end up being nefarious, but it seems pretty instinctual that in a world where we are increasingly becoming homogenized on one level, people would seek out ways to differentiate themselves on another. But this is veering away from my broader point that while I believe that society exists, and that having a social contract is important, I don't believe in the perfecting power of the state, or that man has the moral capacity to uphold a collectivist society without massive coercion. So collectivist anarchism is doomed to failure unless we go back to living in a world of small kinship tribes, but then I fear we would simply be in the Hobbesean jungle where those who are interested in exercising power will forcibly do so.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

I love these threads :rolleyes:

People end up quoting Friedman, Hayek, Hobbes, Rand, Thatcher!! etc and think that because these people have said something that backs up their own opinion then somehow they are right. Even though most of these thinkers merely published thought experiments and ideas most likely using cartesian reasoning rather than empirical evidence, It all becomes a big intellectual circle jerk of appealing to authority.

I want proof of libertarianism in action, working to enhance both the lives of the individual and of the collective society. I dont think this proof comes from cherry picking elements of c19th America that seemed to work (as the OP did). Left to their own devices, capabilities and potential, are humans rational, altruistic, trusting (yet able to avoid coercion), and all the other yummy things libertarianism requires us to be in order for it to work? or at least work in a way thats not to the complete detriment of those in the bottom half of society and those without wealth or control of a means of production

jmayo

Superlativeman wrote: »

This "Jeremy Kyle" culture we have has destroyed this country. We have seen a precipitous slide in every area of society and we've become a degenerate state, with no morals, no interests and no pride in ourselves.

First of all: Ireland is NOT a Capitalist country. If you honestly think that, you're a deluded fool or a member of Joe Higgins' bolsheviks. We do have the opportunity to become wealthy, but wealthy in this country is Bono, not 100,000 a year.

Bailing out banks and corporate welfare is not Capitalism. Never has been, never will be. This detrimental notion that this current economic decline is a failure of Capitalism is so asinine that it hardly renders me even to type this message - but a good cause, no matter how obvious, must be carried out.

As a Libertarian Smithian, I honestly feel like crying when I see the SWP outside my college telling everyone that it's time for the Workers of the World to unite. What they fail to comprehend is that Ireland has many features that they wouldn't change and that they would thoroughly augment.

It's the same for all parties in this country: They're all the same, everyone. FF are corrupt to the teeth, but Noonan of FG has said "we can't change FF's policies." Labour offer no alternatives, just their stupid sentiments. The independents raise no issues and are hard to find and SF are there to represent the joyriders.

Ireland is a corporate state in the way it bails out banks, corporations and gives tax exempt status and favors to the likes of Tony O'Reilly and George Soros with the Valentia scandal.

It's a Socialist state because the government is effin' huge. It's involved in all forms of society. And of course, big government leads to failures..... such as healthcare, education, etc. The education system in this country is a joke.
....
Now, I expect to get replies such as: "He's a Anarchist scumbag, who hates poor people." It should be up to pub owners to decide if they want to let people smoke in their premises, not the government, for example. But most archetypal know it alls want the government to tell them what way to dress and say "it's Capitalism."

Well, I'm poor, and my family are as well, but they're all hard working and are getting taxed left right and center for jobs that pay a few extra euro above the minimum wage.

Adam Smith mentioned none of the above. If you want true freedom, you have to have an anarchist society, that's the way it has to be. There is no other alternative than to gradual reduce all these things and stop the abuse of the system. Big government cannot work and either can the government looking after the people like a Nanny state.

I'm not saying we should go anarchist straight away, that would be stupid. But it needs to be brought in over time. I'm not even sure I'd survive in a thoroughly free society, but it's better than being a slave to Brussels and Anglo Irish.

What do we want? Freedom or this:http:
??????????????????????????????

Your call!

Libertarians of the world, Unite!

Why do I have this image of you standing on an Idaho mountainsideside, M16 slung over your shoulder waiting for the FBI to call ?

Superlativeman wrote: »

Think of America from 1776 to 1913 - without slavery and gender discrimination.

I will try not think of myself as a navvy Irish or Chinese immigrant working on the railroads, a native American Indian hounded off my ancestoral lands, a recently freed African American slave subject to segregation and the occasional whipping, or a poor newly arrived immigrant homesteader hounded off the land by very rich cattlemen.

Why do people believe that their social system or political system is the solution to all our ills.
We never get pure socialism, pure communism, pure capitalism, pure fascism, pure libertarianism, pure anything.
And the reason is because the systems are all implemented by actual people and are not just some theoretical model that has been worked out in a classroom or in the heads of some philsophical thinker and dreamer.

Once people become involved all the systems can be hijacked to some extent by the power hungry, the greedy, the egotistical and in worse cases by psychopaths or sociopaths that make up the widespread spectrum that is mankind.

ei.sdraob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't agree, because you're deliberately muddying "making some return on investment" and "profiteering".

Ok how would you define "profiteering", profits greater than 1%? 10%? 100%? breaking even?

what level according to you should profits be capped/defined before its called greed?

Laminations wrote: »

And what does the socialisation of profits in this current crisis have to do with this? Very few agree with that

Because it is so perverse, if we were truly a capitalist society then failure on such a spectacular scale would not have been rewarded, we were scared/terrorised into taking over bad debts of few.

Laminations wrote: »

We are conditioned beings who have learned through creation of and engagement with social structures (like government) to overcome our basic drives.

So by your logic a smaller government will lead to less "conditioning" and less greed? how is more "conditioning" help? why do some people think its ok to influence and "condition" other groups of people to conform to their ways??

Laminations wrote: »

Without regulation our basic drive for immediate self gratification would kill us off.

I already said in this thread that I support regulation as far as it produces a level competitive environment for entities to compete in and doesnt fall to the a top down authoritarian command trap. When it comes to regulation i follow Hayek on the issue, regulation is required to create a competitive market, i already gave examples earlier in thread, not sure where you taking "no regulation" from.

Please @Laminations quit straw-manning, some of us are actually trying to have a proper discussion here, one is long overdue anyways

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't know whose "human nature" you are on about.....well, I do, because if you look around Ireland these days you can see the me-feiners who just want to line their own pockets.

You should travel a bit more, in every country majority of people will look after themselves and their family first, yes we have overdone and went crazy during the bubble, but so have people in other countries during their bubbles. I was pointing at China in parallel thread for latest example.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Money is a means to an end; as someone pointed out above, it's a bartering tool to get you something else. But many people seem to think of it as a stupid bragging / status symbol. Others of us don't; if you'll never spend it then there's no need for it.

Yes it is, for some people the "ends" are loftier than their "means", so what? who are you to tell anyone that their dreams are "shallow" and they might be? leave them be
if someone wants to take 120% mortgage fine their choice, just dont come asking for bailouts when it backfires. This goes back to my point about socialising risks.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The bottom line is that for every decision that the profiteers and money-men make, the end-user is hit, either through more expensive goods (which as you say they can choose to avoid) or through taxes and knock-on effects.

We live in a society of 7 billion people, a decision taken by any of us could affect others, not just when it comes to making profit, the coal burned in moneypoint to power our computers while we interact here has polluted the environment for everyone on this planet a small bit during the course of conversation here, and none of us are looking for profit (tho Boards are making some money of those google ads up there )

Liam Byrne wrote: »

To suggest that "our basic drives" include so much greed that we don't care about others is equally perverse. It certainly appears to be one of the drives of many, but a lot of us have evolved beyond that.

As i said i see nothing wrong with people being selfish or greedy or selfabsorbent, it is their choice, just dont come crying asking for bailouts when their ways lead to a pile of poop.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

On that we agree, however it is ignoring the fact that capitalism is what caused the issue in the first place.

Capitalism did not cause this, we've been thru this already. Capitalism might have alot of issues and far from perfect but it has proven time and time again to be the best economic/political/social "ideology". The rest have failed leaving a trail of death and misery. Could capitalism be tweaked? definitely! there are so many flavours of capitalism anyways (eg Mercantilism, Corporatism etc etc) the main thing is that a level competitive environment is created. Competition is the key.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There is a greater good than lining the pocket of some CEO who's out playing golf.

Yes there is, if you dont like a CEO doing things like that vote with your wallet,pitty we cant vote our government out on the other hand and are being denied elections....

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As I said earlier, work away all you like on non-essentials; I reckon a Jedward CD is worth about 0.0000000000002 cent (and that's being generous) and so I don't care what libertarians charge for it. But as I said none of the basics should allow for profiteering; they should involve enough to make a living and a small profit to cover rainy days.

All attempts at artificially controlling and setting prices always endup in waste and mis-allocation,
be it OPEC price fixing our EU farm subsidies. A free and competitive (once again the keyword is competitive its monopolies/cartels that cause trouble!) market will always deliver better results for everyone than some faceless beuracrat, however well intentioned he is.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I can actually agree with a lot of what you say, but since you are OK with having people who don't contribute make money by buying up stuff and hoarding it until it's "worth" more, I can't bring myself to agree with the philosophy.

Hoarding is dealt with via inflation and that pesky thing called death (oh and taxes). No point being a scrooge and not enjoy fruits if labour if these fruits rot due to inflation or are inedible due to you dying,

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Some of us are happy to make a living and not grab profit wherever we can regardless of negative impacts on society and individuals.

Yes some of us are but some of us shouldn't be forcing our world view on others! I am for example happy to discuss things with you and others but wont send you to Siberia for reprogramming for example

southsiderosie

Laminations wrote: »

I love these threads :rolleyes:

People end up quoting Friedman, Hayek, Hobbes, Rand, Thatcher!! etc and think that because these people have said something that backs up their own opinion then somehow they are right. Even though most of these thinkers merely published thought experiments and ideas most likely using cartesian reasoning rather than empirical evidence, It all becomes a big intellectual circle jerk of appealing to authority.

Thatcher is a case in point of why ideas are important. Theory often does get taken up as policy. Chile under Pinochet is another prime example.

Also, given that this is the politics forum, specifically the Irish economy sub-forum, why would people not bring in theories of political economy (which is essentially what we are talking about)? Although if you would like more empirics, I can start posting regression tables...

Laminations wrote: »

I want proof of libertarianism in action, working to enhance both the lives of the individual and of the collective society. I dont think this proof comes from cherry picking elements of c19th America that seemed to work (as the OP did). Left to their own devices, capabilities and potential, are humans rational, altruistic, trusting (yet able to avoid coercion), and all the other yummy things libertarianism requires us to be in order for it to work? or at least work in a way thats not to the complete detriment of those in the bottom half of society and those without wealth or control of a means of production

The closest thing I can think of in terms of a libertarian society (when it comes to the economy anyway) is Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a really dynamic, exciting place, and is definitely an epicenter of 'creative destruction': companies are born and die, buildings are knocked down and rebuilt, and people are always on the go. Over the last 60 years, society has benefited enormously from the massive increase in standards of living and income. Today they have excellent infrastructure and efficient local government; all residents benefit from this. The flip side is, the air and water pollution are dreadful (although much of this today is because of mainland China), they have paved over much of their own history, and levels of economic inequality are quite high.

I guess different systems appeal to different people. Personally I prefer the dynamism of Hong Kong to, say, the French system, which bills itself as egalitarian, but on second glance, really isn't at all. At least the Hong Kong Chinese don't have pretensions of equality; they just get on with it.

Liam Byrne

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

.....proving nothing other than the fact that it was overpriced prior to those 5 years, due to profiteering and greed.

southsiderosie

Liam Byrne wrote: »

.....proving nothing other than the fact that it was overpriced prior to those 5 years, due to profiteering and greed.

In the Irish case I would chalk it up to greed, especially when you compare prices with other parts of Europe...

But it does have to be acknowledged that part of the reason why prices have gone down for consumer goods overall is because of production shifts to Asia and other low-cost, low-regulation countries. I definitely have mixed feelings about that, though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lame Lantern

Think of America from 1776 to 1913 - without slavery and gender discrimination.

I'd just like to address this briefly, as it's important to the present day libertarian ideology. Libertarianism pitches itself against a brand of totalarian socialism, fleeing to the opposite extreme. The ludicrous fallacy arising from this however is that all western economies become "socialist" because they feature any regulation at all. Libertarians are quick to present a fantasy of an old, successful American model of extreme deregulation that, quite simply, never existed. The first 150 years of US history see massive infrastructure and transport projects federally bankrolled on a then unprecedented scale, important regulatory developments like the Sherman anti-trust act, huge crisis intervention like during reconstruction and so on. The US was more than willing to intervene in its economy, not for ideological reasons but because there was clear economic imperative: A capitalist system requires regulation to ensure fair competition, to protect the human capital that fuels the economy at all levels, to prevent corruption and to ensure state stability.

All the state actions listed in bullet points in the OP conform to the criteria I have listed above in which state action becomes necessary. A libertarian economy is effectively an inefficient capitalist economy. Early US leaders knew this without the need to term any arbitrary political binaries.