Libertarian/Classic Liberal parties in Ireland.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Are there any small political parties or other such groups that have socially and economically liberal viewpoints in Ireland? We seem to have no shortage of far-left parties but I'm unaware of any parties with opposing economic policies.

mgmt

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Are there any small political parties or other such groups that have socially and economically liberal viewpoints in Ireland? We seem to have no shortage of far-left parties but I'm unaware of any parties with opposing economic policies.

Libertas maybe??

imme

no there is no Libertarian party in Ireland. Because Irish people don't know what the tag Libertarian means. It's a new political term for many people and doesn't mean really mean that much.

this type of question seems to pop up on Boards a lot, nearly as much as questions about the powers of the President.:rolleyes:

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Im not sure if Libertas fit the description they seem to quite conservative and reactionary on some issues.

Apologies if this is a repeat of previous threads!

ei.sdraob

Libertas are not libertarian, far from it

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Yeah I seen the National Forum representative on The Frontline. Unfortunately they don't seem to be as socially liberal as they are economically liberal and I certainly doubt they are if David Quinn is involved.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Not sure I know what libertarian is - would the PDs have been libertarian? or at least would they have been had they a majority in government?

Soldie

The Irish Liberal Party was formed recently, although it's not yet registered. The party's founder created a thread about it on Politics.ie.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Not sure I know what libertarian is - would the PDs have been libertarian? or at least would they have been had they a majority in government?

No but they'd have been on the same general side of the political spectrum.

Soldie wrote: »

The Irish Liberal Party was formed recently, although it's not registered yet. The party's founder created a thread about it on Politics.ie.

Thats more along the lines of Libertarian alright.

Cróga

Here is another group, www.freedomireland.com

ArtSmart

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Are there any small political parties or other such groups that have socially and economically liberal viewpoints in Ireland? We seem to have no shortage of far-left parties but I'm unaware of any parties with opposing economic policies.

hopefully not. the PD's were hammered, even during 'boomish ' times.. cant see that aul truck gaining a foothold in current circumstances, the opp in fact. Friedman Rand and Nozick, nutters all.

loldog

Libertarianism worked out great for Ireland in the 19th century. I'm surprised that people aren't clamouring to go back to the heady days of the 1840's.

.

ArtSmart

loldog wrote: »

Libertarianism worked out great for Ireland in the 19th century. I'm surprised that people aren't clamouring to go back to the heady days of the 1840's.

.

too tired to decipher the possible levels of meaning in yuor post. any chance for clarity? no biggy, but wud make my life a little easier.

InTheTrees

Libertarians are NOT liberals. They believe in a kind of medieval feudalism with no government and where we poor people work for our elite masters.

They believe cash should dicatate all. Supply and demand above all else.

I dont think there's ever been a "libertarian" government or country anywhere its just a right wing fantasy.

InTheTrees

ArtSmart wrote: »

too tired to decipher the possible levels of meaning in yuor post. any chance for clarity? no biggy, but wud make my life a little easier.

It means leaving the "free market" to deal with issues with the potato crop didnt work out too well did it?

(libertarians believe the markets should be completely free and allowed to decide supply and NEVER interfered with.)

ArtSmart

InTheTrees wrote: »

Libertarians are NOT liberals.

true, economically speaking.

They believe in a kind of medieval feudalism with no government and where we poor people work for our elite masters.

They believe cash should dicatate all. Supply and demand above all else.

I dont think there's ever been a "libertarian" government or country anywhere its just a right wing fantasy.

in fairness thatcher and reagan came pretty close...

ArtSmart

InTheTrees wrote: »

It means leaving the "free market" to deal with issues with the potato crop didnt work out too well did it?

was thinking that alright.

Cróga

InTheTrees wrote: »

Libertarians are NOT liberals. They believe in a kind of medieval feudalism with no government and where we poor people work for our elite masters.

Actually a libertarian believes in non-aggression, voluntary transactions and that using coercion against others to get what they want is immoral.

ArtSmart

Op mentioned social and economic . prob should have stuck to one mind...

course the whole def of liberal has ranged from far left to far right these last 200 odd years or so.

InTheTrees

Cróga wrote: »

Actually a libertarian believes in non-aggression, voluntary transactions and that using coercion against others to get what they want is immoral.

Nonsense.

So you're saying everyone who's not libertarian believes in aggression, forced transactions and coercion?

Or have you not really thought it out yet?

ArtSmart

InTheTrees wrote: »

Nonsense.

So you're saying everyone who's not libertarian believes in aggression, forced transactions and coercion?

Or have you not really thought it out yet?

have to sleep. ps, my money's on Cranog (or whatever) in the ensuing 'debate'. best of luck trees.

InTheTrees

ArtSmart wrote: »

in fairness thatcher and reagan came pretty close...

yes, you can see the right wing connection.

Libertarians are totally opposed to any welfare at all. No subsidies, no dole, no healthcare, no benefits at all. if it cant pay for itself then it isnt done.

And no Government involvement in anything but defense.

Cróga

InTheTrees wrote: »

Nonsense.

So you're saying everyone who's not libertarian believes in aggression, forced transactions and coercion?

Or have you not really thought it out yet?

"everyone who's not libertarian believes in aggression, forced transactions and coercion". Im not saying that because I dont know about everyone. I do know that when/if libertarians follow the principles through they arrive at anarchism, and the government uses coercion to get people to do what they want. So if anyone who supports a coercive government then yes i am saying they believe in coercion.

Cróga

InTheTrees wrote: »

Libertarians are totally opposed to any welfare at all. No subsidies, no dole, no healthcare, no benefits at all. if it cant pay for itself then it isnt done.

They oppose this because the government uses force to pay for these services via taxation. If you dont pay taxes you are kidnapped or shot. This doesnt mean that libertarians oppose supporting the welfare of others through voluntary means, and libertarians argue that society would be much wealthier because instead of money being artificially inflated by government or used to pay off debt, or to pay the wages in these services then people would be able to spend their money on each other/job creation.

InTheTrees wrote: »

And no Government involvement in anything but defense.

What do you mean?

RichieC

With lots of cash cometh the libertarian, I do not consider it an actual political philosophy but instead, a selfish streak the have lots develop.

cavedave

RichieC

With lots of cash cometh the libertarian, I do not consider it an actual political philosophy but instead, a selfish streak the have lots develop.

That is an appalling slur. Some of us are libertarian because we want to be allowed take drugs and have sex with prostitutes. How dare you say its just because we are rich.

RichieC

cavedave wrote: »

That is an appalling slur. Some of us are libertarian because we want to be allowed take drugs and have sex with prostitutes. How dare you say its just because we are rich.

haha, my coffee came out my nose reading that!

CokaColumbo

There seems to be a lot of confusion about libertarianism on this thread. Firstly, libertarians are not economically liberal (in the modern, perverted sense of the word). They are economically conservative, believing that taxes should be kept low and spending low also. They are socially very liberal, believing that citizens should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as their actions don't harm a 3rd party.

Those who view taxes to be legitimate believe in aggression and coercion. What I produce and earn becomes mine; my money is my private property. If my neighbours show up outside my front door and demand, with the threat of violence, €1,000 so that they can afford to mend the leaking roof of neighbour X, they are coercing me and attempting to steal my money. In 2010, this is a central role of government.

Libertarianism preaches the freedom of the individual, socially, economically and politically, and the minimisation of the greatest threat to freedom, the government. Free market capitalism is the best means to provide the citizenry as a whole with a better life for themselves, because it generates job growth and allows individuals to keep the vast majority of their income. The welfare state, barriers to trade, and taxes are all an impediment to prosperity and stifle the creation of jobs which are necessary to provide the opportunity to escape poverty.

Eliot Rosewater

RichieC wrote: »

With lots of cash cometh the libertarian, I do not consider it an actual political philosophy but instead, a selfish streak the have lots develop.

I'm a college student who cycles into college partly because I can't afford the bus. You think that's super-rich?

Hell, we don't even have Sky+ in our house, we're technically under the poverty line.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

The problem with Libertarianism is it never developed beyond an academic debate. There are some articulate libertarians on here who are pointedly short of real world examples of how their theory would translate in practice. And they can't seem to agree amongst themselves about whether there would be a welfare system, or police to 'coerce' lawbreakers.

Somalia is currently the closest place in the world to Libertarian utopia, and its clearly an abject failure.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Presuambly by a coercive poilice force, court system and fines / prisons and a standing army.

All very well and good on the internet, meanwhile back in the real world, people have bigger fish to fry than a debate about angels on pinheads.

cavedave

OhNoYouDidn't even if you don't believe in a libertarian paradise you can still thinks its useful to have libertarians. People who question sometimes overarching attempts by the government to fix everything. Whenever someone says "the government should do more to help fix X" it can be still worth someone asking "why?" or "wheres the evidence the government will do anything to help fix X if they try?" or "how much more?".

You don't have to be libertarian to think its useful to have some cranky people around who point out the foibles of government spending your money or telling you what to do with your own body.

RichieC

We've come to expect a certain level of government at this stage, we have also invested vast sums of money into our infrastructure.

Perhaps if we had to start all over again it might be a viable philosophy, but as it is now we are all bought into the system we have. I do not want to live in a libertarian paradise were the poor and infirm are out in the cold while the rich have to live in moated castles to protect themselves from the desperate.

I'm sorry, but that video posted by CokaColumbo is ridiculously simplistic. Your taxes go towards the upkeep of the country you live and prosper in, it is for your own advantage as well as society's as a whole that it is done.

OhNoYouDidn't

cavedave wrote: »

OhNoYouDidn't even if you don't believe in a libertarian paradise you can still thinks its useful to have libertarians. People who question sometimes overarching attempts by the government to fix everything. Whenever someone says "the government should do more to help fix X" it can be still worth someone asking "why?" or "wheres the evidence the government will do anything to help fix X if they try?" or "how much more?".

You don't have to be libertarian to think its useful to have some cranky people around who point out the foibles of government spending your money or telling you what to do with your own body.

I'm not disputing that for a second. But the reality is they are a micro group. The OP asked why there are loads of left wing parties and no libertarians. Because the left wing have the numbers and drive to get organised.

CokaColumbo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The problem with Libertarianism is it never developed beyond an academic debate. There are some articulate libertarians on here who are pointedly short of real world examples of how their theory would translate in practice. And they can't seem to agree amongst themselves about whether there would be a welfare system, or police to 'coerce' lawbreakers.

Somalia is currently the closest place in the world to Libertarian utopia, and its clearly an abject failure.

Not true. In relation to the liberalisation of drugs, for example, libertarians point to the success of decriminalising all hard recreational drugs in Portugal a decade ago.

In relation to economic freedom, i.e. free trade, low taxes etc., one has only to look at the countries which have benefited enormously from it throughout history and, just as importantly, those countries which have suffered enormously from central economic planning, high taxation, excessive government regulation etc.

In relation to voluntary charitable donations as the basis for a welfare system, one has only to look at 19th century USA where private charity consistently increased to an all-time high as coercive government interference in society decreased.

One can look at the high rates of unemployment and dependency on the state, historically speaking, in European welfare states versus America, whose governments have historically stolen less off of its citizens and maintained a more minimal welfare state.

There are currently no purely free-market countries in the world, but the currently and historically existing socio-political and economic systems show us that the more one moves in a libertarian direction, the more prosperous, liberated, innovative, creative and peaceful one becomes.

cavedave

RichieC

I do not want to live in a libertarian paradise were the poor and infirm are out in the cold while the rich have to live in moated castles to protect themselves from the desperate.

No one I have ever read thinks that would be a libertarian paradise. You currently live in a society where the poor and infirm are out in the cold and the rich live in moated castles they gave to their wives the day before you took their debts off them.

OhNoYouDidn't

The OP asked why there are loads of left wing parties and no libertarians. Because the left wing have the numbers and drive to get organised.

Thats a fair point. I wanted to go on a capitalists against the bailout march but the only one I could find was run by the public sector unions and the socialist workers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CokaColumbo

RichieC wrote: »

I do not want to live in a libertarian paradise were the poor and infirm are out in the cold while the rich have to live in moated castles to protect themselves from the desperate.

I'm sorry, but that video posted by CokaColumbo is ridiculously simplistic. Your taxes go towards the upkeep of the country you live and prosper in, it is for your own advantage as well as society's as a whole that it is done.

Don't you see how the welfare state is an impediment to prosperity and serves to keep the less well off in a state of dependency on the government? Jobs are the answer to poverty, not maudlin handouts. With a job, you can progress higher and higher in the world, by developing your skills and experience, by getting an education and affording more things. If the rate of VAT was consistently reduced and the income tax was abolished, for example, you would find yourself with much more disposable income and more opportunities to make something of yourself than the current state-charity system.

High taxes are amongst the biggest impediments to prosperity, as they stifle job creation and hindering investment, the only two constructive things which can bring wealth to the world.

topper75

loldog wrote: »

Libertarianism worked out great for Ireland in the 19th century. I'm surprised that people aren't clamouring to go back to the heady days of the 1840's.

.

Socialist economics would hardly have stopped the entry of potato blight. Ireland at the time was ridiculously overpopulated. We didn't have the land resources to sustain 8 million people (nor do we today). Emigration was not avoidable. Intransigence for many brought starvation and death. The folk history of the famine is saturated in sentimentality that utterly ignores a harsh reality - that being you cannot support countless ever-growing families living on small plots on rain-sodden hillsides. But of course that is throwing the blame back on ourselves. Don't want to do that now, do we? ref. overextended borrowers of 2010 and anger at lending institutions/EU/zionists/whatever. Then, as now, the required readjustment came with no soft landing. Blame is cast outwards and lessons are lost.

This country is in trouble because it desperately needs to move away from the big spend and big tax approach. We don't need to move backwards!! There should have been no bailout for failed gamblers be they banks/developers/bondholders. That is not right wing. That is just protecting an inner circle. Free and honest economics is deserving of a chance.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats entirely my point. Even in your utopia, there would still be a centralised, coercive state. All you are doing is trimming some fat, and even then it comes across a spoilt middle classes refusing to involve themselves in a social contract. Its not as radical a theory as you seem to want to think it is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cróga

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats entirely my point. Even in your utopia, there would still be a centralised, coercive state.

I dont think so, if the aim of libertarians is to get rid of government, the government will no longer have a monopoly on force so people will be free to set up their own police force.

OhNoYouDidn't

Cróga wrote: »

I dont think so, if the aim of libertarians is to get rid of government, the government will no longer have a monopoly on force so people will be free to set up their own police force.

So you are advocating the rich set up their own armed militia's to 'defend their interests'?

Somalia in other words.

Cróga

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So you are advocating the rich set up their own armed militia's to 'defend their interests'?

Can you expand on what you mean?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cróga

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I believe Libertarian and Anarchists positions are the same only difference is that the Libertarian train stops before the Anarchists but the means are the same - using coercion to get what we want is immoral. When libertarians follow their principles through they arrive at a anarchist/free society. Like if libertarians believe using coercion is wrong then they must believe that taxation should be voluntary and if so then individuals can opt out of government or set up competing governments or have none at all. In a free society there still can be "governments" just as long as they're voluntary. What do you think?

Valmont

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So you are advocating the rich set up their own armed militia's to 'defend their interests'?

Somalia in other words.

Still banging that drum?

Could you explain to me your understanding of the differentiation between Libertarianism and Anarchism? It seems a distinction relevant to your Somalia analogy.

OhNoYouDidn't

Cróga wrote: »

Can you expand on what you mean?

The idea that I can decide to 'opt out' of the criminal justice system and set up your own police force, presumably armed, to defend me from the rest of the world is feudal, warlord stuff. What happens when my police force decide your police force have no authority over me? Its a nonsense.

Also, isn't interesting the wildely differnt interpretations of what form Libertarinism should take. Some are for tax, some against. Some for a centralised justice system, some others.

As I said before, sort out the practicalities please chaps.

Cróga

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The idea that I can decide to 'opt out' of the criminal justice system and set up your own police force, presumably armed, to defend me from the rest of the world is feudal, warlord stuff. What happens when my police force decide your police force have no authority over me? Its a nonsense.

Good points. Do you believe using coercion to get what you want is wrong? If so how would you solve situations like this?

Also, isn't interesting the wildely differnt interpretations of what form Libertarinism should take. Some are for tax, some against. Some for a centralised justice system, some others.

As I said before, sort out the practicalities please chaps.

From my understanding it doesnt matter whether they agree or disagree as long as they're voluntary and not forced on anyone.