If A Strong Liberal Or Libertarian Party Ran In The Ge, Would You Vote For Them?

RockinRolla

Well, would you vote in a party with this ideology?

Cookie_Monster

not just because of the ideology, they'd want to put forth some pretty good policies and plans

TheReverend

hell no

nesf

Eh, depends completely on policy. There's a million and one different flavours of libertarian and liberal.

FreudianSlippers

Depends on policy. I'd love to be a part of organising and starting a Libertarian party here, but I don't believe that just blindly following general "Libertarian" policies is right for this country.

I say base it on libertarianism but depart slightly in circumstances where it is right for Ireland.

OhNoYouDidn't

nesf wrote: »

Eh, depends completely on policy. There's a million and one different flavours of libertarian and liberal.

Exactly. This thread won't last the day.

mgmt

nesf wrote: »

Eh, depends completely on policy. There's a million and one different flavours of libertarian and liberal.

US Representative Ron Paul is a Libertarian. President Obama is a Liberal. And they are polar opposite.

nesf

mgmt wrote: »

US Representative Ron Paul is a Libertarian. President Obama is a Liberal. And they are polar opposite.

Nah, it's only in the US that liberal means "left wing".

Gordon Gekko

mgmt wrote: »

US Representative Ron Paul is a Libertarian. President Obama is a Liberal. And they are polar opposite.

IMO that's based on the American perception of Liberal = Left which is not how I would see it. I would view Liberal to mean socially and economically liberal i.e. small government, government out of the bedroom.

phantom_lord

Don't think any such party would get too far in Ireland unfortunetely.

ISAW

nesf wrote: »

Eh, depends completely on policy. There's a million and one different flavours of libertarian and liberal.

I agree. i would call my self a libertarian in the sense that I am anti authoritarian i.e. I am for personal freedom and for smaller and localised government.
I would in no way be in favour of the US version of the Libertarian Party or the neoconservative wing of the US Republican Party. I would be regarded as "liberal" by their standards. US liberitarians are conservatives real liberitarians are liberal. Us ones are economic and not social.
I would also not be against tax to pay for education and health systems for example.
US liberitarians look upon tax as slavery. But they also support the US military #- ironcally there biggest taker and waster of money.

The so called "liberitarians" we see inthese groups seem to me a re creation of the "don't tax us" PD's.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ISAW

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ending long-term welfare dependency? the second use of this phrase is redundant

On the others I tick most boxes.
I don't know about downsizing. Im happy if the State offers dependable jobs as long as they offer efficiency. I would go for cutting high earners rather than cutting jobs.
It isn't good enough to gut the workforce in half and pay on average 150 per cent more. what happens is management get 200 percent or 500 per cent and few managers get laid off compared to lower levels. Look at education for example. University presidents are complaining they have beet cut from 250k to 220k - a 15 per cent cut. what they don't tell you is that in 200 they were getting less than 200k maybe 150k. So in real terms they have got between 50 and 100k more followed by a 30 k cut. at the same time all the lower levels are shaved and embargoed.

Civil views/laws on marriage and views on it as a sacrament are different.
And you would have preferred people to lose all their savings in the banks by letting them go to the wall?
I don't understand the economics but if those who have the loans cant pay them back and the bank goes what happens the depositors money and what happens the system when there are no banks open?

usernamegoes

I would vote for a party who were Libertarian, obviously it's contingent in me agreeing with their implementation of the idea.

I am for less spending by the State and more private spending, eg I don't like sports however, some of my taxes pay for sports fields and facilities, which means that I have less money to do the things that I want to do and no one subsidies the things I enjoy doing.

This is a simple example of how I see Libertarianism a being fairer on everyone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

I would agree with most of donegalfella's list above, however the problem I have with libertarian philosophy that I've seen is that it doesn't appear to look at ANY greater good.

For example, I don't think any significant profit / profiteering should be made / allowed from core NEEDS - core food & water, basic accomodation, heat & oil, military equipment, currency exchange and, given the main causes of the crisis where private enterprise can't be trusted with people's cash - banking & speculation.

Minor profits maybe, but the above are far too key issues affecting everyone to be allowed to simply languish in the hope that the markets will control and regulate themselves - they don't.

I don't trust either governments or private enterprise to do the right thing, so I don't know who should oversee the above, but I know that if those were done right then society would be better and then the libertarians could do what they like with any other area that they believe they could make a profit because those are optional extras based on actual disposable income.

So no, despite being 100% behind what donegalfella said above, I would be too wary of the more subtle background agenda of a libertarian party to vote for it.

COYW

ISAW wrote: »

I don't know about downsizing. Im happy if the State offers dependable jobs as long as they offer efficiency. I would go for cutting high earners rather than cutting jobs.

Well, cutting high earner salaries means that you have to accept a reduction in the quality of candidate and person in that role. Are you happy to accept that? Personally, I would go with the OP, weed out the rubbish and produce a slimmed down, efficient competitively paid public service. For the record, I dont expect the next government to do this. Neither, Kenny nor Gilmore have have the bottle for the fight. Gilmore doesnt want to do it and Enda wont have enough support in government to get it done.

ISAW wrote: »

I don't understand the economics but if those who have the loans cant pay them back and the bank goes what happens the depositors money and what happens the system when there are no banks open?

You lose your savings and the country is really, truely bust.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

COYW wrote: »

Well, cutting high earner salaries means that you have to accept a reduction in the quality of candidate and person in that role.

Any examples of current or recent people (private or public) who were worth their over-inflated salaries, bonuses and perks and who were of reasonable quality while running their banks, development companies, planning departments, regulators offices or whatever ?

This argument is trotted out far too often, and it's indicative of the self-importance of those in particular roles; we've paid fortunes and in some cases it wouldn't even be possible to HAVE a "reduction in quality".

Liam Byrne

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To make a living and provide jobs and services. Not everyone is motivated by money, and we'd be better off if less were.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well I'll agree that it shouldn't be over-generalised, but if the cap fits.....there hasn't been a single indigenous bank that hasn't been damn careless and flaithúlach with other people's money; to different degrees, yes, but it's still true across the board.

usernamegoes

Indeed, and in a free market I think people should be allowed make any profit that they can because people are willing to pay for it. If not then the market will adjust for it.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

usernamegoes

Liam Byrne wrote: »

To make a living and provide jobs and services. Not everyone is motivated by money, and we'd be better off if less were.

No not everyone is motivated by money, but it is necessary for everyone to be motivated by money at least to a degree. And many many people would not work in industries where they were undervalued.

I disagree to say that we would be better if fewer people were motivated by money, so many good ideas and inventions were motivated by desire to make money. Note I am not saying all.

OhNoYouDidn't

usernamegoes wrote: »

Indeed, and in a free market I think people should be allowed make any profit that they can because people are willing to pay for it. If not then the market will adjust for it.

And what happens if that item is a form of medication that you will die without taking? €1,000 a tablet, take it or leave it?

This market 'adjustment' as working across all industries and products has failed time and time again. It baffles me that after the banking collapse that seemingly intelligent people will argue for LESS regulation.

usernamegoes

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And what happens if that item is a form of medication that you will die without taking? €1,000 a tablet, take it or leave it?

Well, people should be taking out insurance that covers the cost of this tablet. As we are at the moment people are dieing because the State-run system cannot afford to look after them and in some instances doesn't buy the medication because it's too expensive. Also so many times the medication is so expensive because the market is encumbered by state regulatons.

This market 'adjustment' as working across all industries and products has failed time and time again. It baffles me that after the banking collapse that seemingly intelligent people will argue for LESS regulation.

Where has it failed, there is not a free market in this country.

phantom_lord

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And what happens if that item is a form of medication that you will die without taking? €1,000 a tablet, take it or leave it?

Catch 22. People aren't going to put the investment into developing the tablet in the first place unless they're going to make a profit.

Liam Byrne

usernamegoes wrote: »

No not everyone is motivated by money, but it is necessary for everyone to be motivated by money at least to a degree.

Agreed - to the degree of making a living. Anything else is a bonus and should be based on excellent performance or significant contribution/benefits to society, not massive profits for the sake of them.

usernamegoes wrote: »

And many many people would not work in industries where they were undervalued.

Many people have no choice because their bosses view themselves as "entitled" to massive perks and company cars and bonuses.

usernamegoes wrote: »

I disagree to say that we would be better if fewer people were motivated by money, so many good ideas and inventions were motivated by desire to make money. Note I am not saying all.

I know you are not saying all, and I do acknowledge that, but we have fundamental differences on some key issues such as making money from speculation and other issues that impact negatively on far too many people, which is why I like your list a lot but could not vote libertarian.....like The Greens, with whom I agreed in principle and would love to have seen a fair and ethical implementation, the methodology and impact of the driving policies and ethos have side-effects that are unacceptable to me.

Liam Byrne

phantom_lord wrote: »

Catch 22. People aren't going to put the investment into developing the tablet in the first place unless they're going to make a profit.

So you reckon there's absolutely no-one on the planet who would put in that investment in order to improve society and simply make a living and create few jobs in the process ?

Laisurg

I might, obviously it would depend on their views but its not like theres anyone else to vote for

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

phantom_lord

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you reckon there's absolutely no-one on the planet who would put in that investment in order to improve society and simply make a living and create few jobs in the process ?

I wouldn't want to rely on it, I think it's fairly clear that the present system is far more efficient.

Gunsfortoys

There is no doubt that the public sector needs to be completely revamped.

Start off with redundancies for the areas of wastage, pencil pushers etc.

For example, the public sector could be run on an incentive basis such as with most of the private sector. This would no doubt boost productivity and in short, more would get done.

Fat salaries should only be paid to the highly skilled and people that meet deadlines etc.

I am no big fan of the Conservatives in the U.K but I think they have the right ideas in encouraging the higher ups in their Public service to start up businesses to get the economy moving again.

They also have in place a more fitting tax system for self-employed people. All these are ingredients for getting an economy moving in the right direction.

Spudmonkey

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And what happens if that item is a form of medication that you will die without taking? €1,000 a tablet, take it or leave it?

The very reason that tablet may have been invented may have been through increased R&D money with the ultimate goal of making money. Without this incentive, that R&D may never have taken place and that tablet may never have been created in the first place.

Which is better a tablet you cannot afford but which could potentially save your life, or a tablet which simply does not exist. Neither is going to be much use to someone with little money anyway.

Spudmonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you reckon there's absolutely no-one on the planet who would put in that investment in order to improve society and simply make a living and create few jobs in the process ?

There may well be some altruistic millionaire pharmacists out there. I wouldn't be waiting for them though.

Liam Byrne

phantom_lord wrote: »

I wouldn't want to rely on it, I think it's fairly clear that the present system is far more efficient.

Given the level of sickening mé-féinism, greed and selfishness that many show, I'd agree.

That doesn't mean I can vote for or endose the inferior alternative.

phantom_lord

I don't think it's selfish to reward someone for their investment or expertise.

Liam Byrne

phantom_lord wrote: »

I don't think it's selfish to reward someone for their investment or expertise.

Depends on the level of reward.

loldog

No. Libertarianism might have worked OK on the American frontier in the late 19th century, but there's no place for this extremism in a modern, crowded society which is already too much under the heel of multinational corporations and banksters. The whole idea is ridiculous.

.

kaiser sauze

mgmt wrote: »

US Representative Ron Paul is a Libertarian. President Obama is a Liberal. And they are polar opposite.

You are very confused.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would agree with most of donegalfella's list above, however the problem I have with libertarian philosophy that I've seen is that it doesn't appear to look at ANY greater good.

For example, I don't think any significant profit / profiteering should be made / allowed from core NEEDS - core food & water, basic accomodation, heat & oil, military equipment, currency exchange and, given the main causes of the crisis where private enterprise can't be trusted with people's cash - banking & speculation.

The only thing where private enterprise has absolutely no business is in the provision of social welfare/protection.

Aside from that, a single payer health system (NHS style) with a completely independent private option for those that can afford it is the only other area that government should have a major input into.

Everything else in your list above I would be only too pleased to see a well regulated market established where business can operate without a major bureaucratic overhang, but realise that they will lose their shirts if they put peoples' lives at risk.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Minor profits maybe, but the above are far too key issues affecting everyone to be allowed to simply languish in the hope that the markets will control and regulate themselves - they don't.

I cannot agree here.

If you establish the market, the entrepreneurs will fill the gap. Just let them get on with it.

What is acceptable profits? That is a ridiculous notion! If a company does well, they do so because they are the best in their field and provide a less costly, more efficient, service to their customers. That's the whole idea of the free market, you cannot take bits of it like a buffet.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't trust either governments or private enterprise to do the right thing, so I don't know who should oversee the above, but I know that if those were done right then society would be better and then the libertarians could do what they like with any other area that they believe they could make a profit because those are optional extras based on actual disposable income.

There is noone after governments and private enterprise.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So no, despite being 100% behind what donegalfella said above, I would be too wary of the more subtle background agenda of a libertarian party to vote for it.

If they are true to Libertarian ethos, I could never vote for them either. Unfettered markets are just a pipe dream thought up to enrich corporations at the expense of Joe Public.

HavingCrack

Yes, most definately as long as they are not just economically liberal but also socially liberal. I get fed up with so many 'so called' libertarians in the US who support US militarism, bans on abortion, pro war on drugs, anti gay marriage etc. Let's call a spade a spade, these people are conservatives not libertarians/classical liberals/liberal democrats etc.

RockinRolla

For Libertarians to be in Government in Ireland, we'd have to leave the E.U. That wouldn't go down well with a lot of people.

FreudianSlippers

RockinRolla wrote: »

For Libertarians to be in Government in Ireland, we'd have to leave the E.U. That wouldn't go down well with a lot of people.

I don't necessarily agree with that.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you reckon there's absolutely no-one on the planet who would put in that investment in order to improve society and simply make a living and create few jobs in the process ?

The specific issue with pharmacological work is that for every super tablet that is effective a company needs to develop a dozen to two dozen tablets that don't work. This is really expensive and is why there needs to be such profits made on the tablet that works.

Generic manufacturers get to charge low prices for tablets because they don't have to take on the risk of developing the drugs in the first place. Any group that develops drugs takes on enormous risks in terms of developing medication.

Nationalising the manufacture of medication doesn't get around this problem because someone has to pay for all the failed drugs being developed and it's either going to be in the per tablet price of good drugs or in taxes in a public owned system.

OhNoYouDidn't

phantom_lord wrote: »

Catch 22. People aren't going to put the investment into developing the tablet in the first place unless they're going to make a profit.

There is a difference between profit and naked profiteering.

I don't trust private monopolies one little bit.

OhNoYouDidn't

phantom_lord wrote: »

I don't think it's selfish to reward someone for their investment or expertise.

Reward is fine. I am talking about a private monopoly who will hold their patent forever under libertarianism and thouroughly pulling the píss.

As with all these 'isms', you seem to completely ignore the fact that human nature will take over. If you can charge €1,000 for a €10 pill with nothing to stop you, you will. If you can dump your toxic sludge in the river, you will. If you can cut safety corners, you will.

I'm reluctant to hand over all the consumer and legal protections previous generations have won for my on the whim that the 'market' will self correct.

OhNoYouDidn't

nesf wrote: »

The specific issue with pharmacological work is that for every super tablet that is effective a company needs to develop a dozen to two dozen tablets that don't work. This is really expensive and is why there needs to be such profits made on the tablet that works.

Generic manufacturers get to charge low prices for tablets because they don't have to take on the risk of developing the drugs in the first place. Any group that develops drugs takes on enormous risks in terms of developing medication.

Nationalising the manufacture of medication doesn't get around this problem because someone has to pay for all the failed drugs being developed and it's either going to be in the per tablet price of good drugs or in taxes in a public owned system.

Who is talking about nationalisation?

The Libertarians are claiming that removing the lifting of patents after a time, eliminating safety and environmental regulations in manufacture and allowing companies create a natural monopoly and charging anything they like is somehow good for the consumer.

Again, as done to death on the other thread, a great theory, but dismal in real world situations.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And what happens if that item is a form of medication that you will die without taking? €1,000 a tablet, take it or leave it?

This market 'adjustment' as working across all industries and products has failed time and time again. It baffles me that after the banking collapse that seemingly intelligent people will argue for LESS regulation.

I think you are using strawmen to prove your point.

What if the components of the medication cost £1000 per tablet anywat ? In a libertarian environment a competitive market will exist and as companies seek to outflank each other, they will engage in competitive tendering. If this competitive tendering comes at the expense of the quality of the drug, then there is recourse to the purchaser through the courts to gain recompense. The manufacturing company would be aware of this and ensure quality would be kept high, while competitive prices would be maintained.

What libertarians argue in relation to the banking collapse is that the banks which became insolvent should have been wound up. The problem is the state was so heavily involved in the crisis, and are the real reason for the collapse, that it became impossible to allow the banks to fail at this point in time. They would not have permitted it. I would also point out that regulation existed, it was never enforced.

RichieC

Het-Field wrote: »

I think you are using strawmen to prove your point.

What if the components of the medication cost £1000 per tablet anywat ?

Haha, good one.

Het-Field

RichieC wrote: »

Haha, good one.

I have created no strawman. First, depending on the type of medication, it can be highly expensive. Second, I am responding to the posters original contention.

irishh_bob

loldog wrote: »

No. Libertarianism might have worked OK on the American frontier in the late 19th century, but there's no place for this extremism in a modern, crowded society which is already too much under the heel of multinational corporations and banksters. The whole idea is ridiculous.

.

watched the movie robocop last night , now their is a movie which libertarians would love , everything is privatised including the police force

Het-Field

irishh_bob wrote: »

watched the movie robocop last night , now their is a movie which libertarians would love , everything is privatised including the police force

Read Friedman. You might learn something of the technical monopoly.

FreudianSlippers

Het-Field wrote: »

I have created no strawman. First, depending on the type of medication, it can be highly expensive. Second, I am responding to the posters original contention.

Actually your medicine argument is still invalid. That's a question of intellectual property; specifically patents and whether or not governments should be protecting patents so strictly.

A more open market would likely result in lower prices for medications rather than higher.