Libertarian party in Ireland

BOHtox

Which would be the most Libertarian party in Ireland?
There isn't really a libertarian party but there is libertarian views.
Would you vote for and irish lib dems?

Johnboy1951

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ireland2011

This might help you decide

The Volt

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ireland2011

This might help you decide

That grid is way off.. Fine Gael are Tory-esque. Social democratic Labour should be left of center and not right.

Duke Leonal Felmet

There is no Libertarian party.

The Volt

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

There is no Libertarian party.

Thanks be to jaysus.

RandomName2

Voltwad wrote: »

That grid is way off.. Fine Gael are Tory-esque. Social democratic Labour should be left of center and not right.

+1.

On these grounds I would most likely be voting Green :eek:

Hold on... Socialists are Libertarian? Try telling that to Eastern Europeans :D:D

----

Logan, where are the Libertarians?
There is NO LIIBBERRTARRRIANNNN

---

Seriously, I'd say FF and FG are your best bet. Lousy bet, but best bet. Maybe People Before Profit if you want the same amount of libertarianism from a left-wing slant... maybe.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Voltwad wrote: »

Thanks be to jaysus.

A question. Do you agree with the bank bailouts?

RandomName2

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

A question. Do you agree with the bank bailouts?

I'm afraid that has little to do with libertarianism - unless you believe that there should have been a public vote on the matter.

The Volt

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

A question. Do you agree with the bank bailouts?

Nope.

I might add that I was referring to a stance against economically liberal. As far as socially liberal policies go, I'm pretty liberal.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Voltwad wrote: »

Nope.

I might add that I was referring to a stance against economically liberal. As far as socially liberal policies go, I'm pretty liberal.

Yet an 'economically liberal' (ultra free market) position would be to let the banks fall. So why do you oppose it?

Duke Leonal Felmet

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm afraid that has little to do with libertarianism - unless you believe that there should have been a public vote on the matter.

You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

The Volt

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yet an 'economically liberal' (ultra free market) position would be to let the banks fall. So why do you oppose it?

Because I don't believe that a population should be beholden to the markets. The view that Anglo should have fallen was one shared by many. It wasn't exclusive.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Voltwad wrote: »

Because I don't believe that a population should be beholden to the markets. The view that Anglo should have fallen was one shared by many. It wasn't exclusive.

What is your issue with keeping the government out of the market then?

The Volt

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

What is your issue with keeping the government out of the market then?

An economy should exist to serve the people, not the other way around. The markets can exist but they need stern walls around their playground.

CokaColumbo

Voltwad wrote: »

An economy should exist to serve the people, not the other way around. The markets can exist but they need stern walls around their playground.

It is precisely because government has been meddling in the economy or 'guarding the playground' as it were (i.e. artificially suppressing interest rates; explicitly guaranteeing private companies from going bust; distorting, for example, the property market with inconsistent tax rates etc.) that this current crisis has come about. The tyranny of central banks and keynesianism is to blame, not free-markets.

When you say that an economy should exist to serve the people, what you are really saying, either knowingly or unknowingly, is that the person who produces and creates does not have a right to the fruit of his or her own initiative. What you mean is that you believe in the forceful redistribution of private wealth to those who did not create it. When you have a system which is based on coercion and state theft, you not only abandon the broadest principals of freedom and natural rights, you also ensure that productivity is hindered and society, as a whole, becomes poorer.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Voltwad wrote: »

An economy should exist to serve the people, not the other way around. The markets can exist but they need stern walls around their playground.

And if these walls fail in their task? Should the government try to steer the market?

RandomName2

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

You seem to be talking about economic liberalism as being interchangeable with liberalism per se.

ei.sdraob

Voltwad wrote: »

That grid is way off.. Fine Gael are Tory-esque. Social democratic Labour should be left of center and not right.

The Greens should be waaaaay up there on the Authoritarian end of the axis as well

their policies and actions in government has exposed them for who they really are, a modern day eco fascists.

The Volt

CokaColumbo wrote: »

It is precisely because government has been meddling in the economy or 'guarding the playground' as it were (i.e. artificially suppressing interest rates; explicitly guaranteeing private companies from going bust; distorting, for example, the property market with inconsistent tax rates etc.) that this current crisis has come about. The tyranny of central banks and keynesianism is to blame, not free-markets.

When you say that an economy should exist to serve the people, what you are really saying, either knowingly or unknowingly, is that the person who produces and creates does not have a right to the fruit of his or her own initiative. What you mean is that you believe in the forceful redistribution of private wealth to those who did not create it. When you have a system which is based on coercion and state theft, you not only abandon the broadest principals of freedom and natural rights, you also ensure that productivity is hindered and society, as a whole, becomes poorer.

There's not much point in me debating this much further as we're clearly of completely opposite belief systems.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kinski

Why don't all the posters on various Irish political message boards who profess to hold libertarian views actually get together, form a political party, and put themselves before the electorate? I see lots of posters with these views, but I don't see any political movement with corresponding positions. Wouldn't that be more contructive than just debating about it on forums? Are you all concerned that you'd only garner a handful of votes? I don't mean these as rhetorical questions, I'm genuinely curious.

nesf

Voltwad wrote: »

That grid is way off.. Fine Gael are Tory-esque. Social democratic Labour should be left of center and not right.

Labour are heavy on the social democrat rhetoric but are their policies left of centre? I mean their broadband policy is a market solution and definitely centre-right.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duke Leonal Felmet

RandomName2 wrote: »

You seem to be talking about economic liberalism as being interchangeable with liberalism per se.

I'm saying that both are inseperable. Keeping the Govt out of economic and social affairs, where possible. That would be the Libertarian stance.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Kinski wrote: »

Why don't all the posters on various Irish political message boards who profess to hold libertarian views actually get together, form a political party, and put themselves before the electorate? I see lots of posters with these views, but I don't see any political movement with corresponding positions. Wouldn't that be more contructive than just debating about it on forums? Are you all concerned that you'd only garner a handful of votes? I don't mean these as rhetorical questions, I'm genuinely curious.

Honestly? I think the Irish like being told what to do. Libertarianism is not for Ireland.

Lockstep

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yet an 'economically liberal' (ultra free market) position would be to let the banks fall. So why do you oppose it?

Labour were the only party to oppose the bank bailouts, doesn't mean they're economically libertarian.

CokaColumbo

Kinski wrote: »

Why don't all the posters on various Irish political message boards who profess to hold libertarian views actually get together, form a political party, and put themselves before the electorate? I see lots of posters with these views, but I don't see any political movement with corresponding positions. Wouldn't that be more contructive than just debating about it on forums? Are you all concerned that you'd only garner a handful of votes? I don't mean these as rhetorical questions, I'm genuinely curious.

Admittedly, that's a decent point. I guess libertarians see the entrenched sense of entitlement people in Ireland have when it comes to other people's money and sort of lose confidence in the idea that institutional change is possible. When up to 50% of the electorate is intent on voting for leftists who want to increase government intervention in the economy (when excessive intervention is the source of our problems) one can't but lose hope!

But I absolutely agree with Permabear when he says that the welfare state is entirely unsustainable. In America, which has perhaps the highest birth rate in the Western world (even they are only reproducing at replacement rate though I think) the social security and Medicare budgets alone will consume 40% of private sector output by 2050. Ageing demographics will bring an end to these government programmes regardless of what libertarians do.

meditraitor

There will never be a libertarian party in Ireland.

OhNoYouDidn't

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Admittedly, that's a decent point. I guess libertarians see the entrenched sense of entitlement people in Ireland have when it comes to other people's money and sort of lose confidence in the idea that institutional change is possible. When up to 50% of the electorate is intent on voting for leftists who want to increase government intervention in the economy (when excessive intervention is the source of our problems) one can't but lose hope!

But I absolutely agree with Permabear when he says that the welfare state is entirely unsustainable. In America, which has perhaps the highest birth rate in the Western world (even they are only reproducing at replacement rate though I think) the social security and Medicare budgets alone will consume 40% of private sector output by 2050. Ageing demographics will bring an end to these government programmes regardless of what libertarians do.

Can you please explain to the group who the 'leftists' are?

Duke Leonal Felmet

meditraitor wrote: »

There will never be a libertarian party in Ireland.

I agree. Irish people want to be told what to do. It's our cultural and historical heritage. No sooner had we removed the British we placed the Vatican in charge. We accepted the dominance of a single party for almost the entire history of the state. And now we cede control of our economic affairs to the EU/IMF. We have a history of being commanded from authority figures. The Irish must like this.

OhNoYouDidn't

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I disagree.

Its been done to death on here.

There are three reasons why the Libertarians don't get organised:

1: They can't agree amongst themselves the basics of their -ism. Welfare state, no welfare state. Coercive police force, not a coercive police force. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but some libertarians argue for reform, others for Somalia.

2: They are very short on practical solutions. In short, libertarianism is one of those theories that sounds great on paper, but fails the real world test.

3: By definition, libertarians don't believe in a central organisation.

And there does tend to be a waft of policy arrogance off them. Claiming FF are left wing, attempting to claim that they are the only political philosophy that opposed the bail out etc.

Duke Leonal Felmet

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its been done to death on here.

There are three reasons why the Libertarians don't get organised:

1: They can't agree amongst themselves the basics of their -ism. Welfare state, no welfare state. Coercive police force, not a coercive police force. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but some libertarians argue for reform, others for Somalia.

2: They are very short on practical solutions. In short, libertarianism is one of those theories that sounds great on paper, but fails the real world test.

3: By definition, libertarians don't believe in a central organisation.

And there does tend to be a waft of policy arrogance off them. Claiming FF are left wing, attempting to claim that they are the only political philosophy that opposed the bail out etc.

Who claimed 'they' were the only philosophy opposed to the bailout? Provide direct evidence, not supposition.

Cheers.

OhNoYouDidn't

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Who claimed 'they' were the only philosophy opposed to the bailout? Provide direct evidence, not supposition.

Cheers.

There have been four or five threads on this topic in the last six months.

Do your own reading.

Eliot Rosewater

Silly and personalised posts deleted. Less of the pointless contributions please. Keep it civil and respectful, and concentrate on what people are saying rather the people themselves.

/mod.

CokaColumbo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Can you please explain to the group who the 'leftists' are?

By Irish standards: Labour, Sinn Fein, a significant number of independents and candidates from other socialist groups. How is that not clear "to the group?"

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

...Nothing inherently wrong with that, but some libertarians argue for reform, others for Somalia.

I have read individuals reference Somalia as a "case-study" of libertarianism in action before. How do you suppose that a country which has been marked by 20 years of civil war; attempted military take-overs; government and warlord atrocities; genocide; general state oppression and an absence of free-elections; absolutely no law and order in many parts; and Islamic rule constitutes anything related to libertarianism?

OhNoYouDidn't

CokaColumbo wrote: »

By Irish standards: Labour, Sinn Fein, a significant number of independents and candidates from other socialist groups. How is that not clear "to the group?"

And you reckon they will get 50% of the vote?

Seriously?

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I have read individuals reference Somalia as a "case-study" of libertarianism in action before. How do you suppose that a country which has been marked by 20 years of civil war; attempted military take-overs; government and warlord atrocities; genocide; general state oppression and an absence of free-elections; absolutely no law and order in many parts; and Islamic rule constitutes anything related to libertarianism?

Some people advocated a feudal type of Libertarianism whereby there would be no central state whatsoever, no welfarism and privatised police forces. Somalia in other words.

To be fair, most other libertarians disputed that definition.

CokaColumbo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And you reckon they will get 50% of the vote?

Seriously?

Over the last couple of months, the polls have put their collective support at between 40% and 50%.

CokaColumbo

http://www.irishelection2011.com/opinion-polls-leading-up-to-election-2011/

OhNoYouDidn't

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Over the last couple of months, the polls have put their collective support at between 40% and 50%.

According to the poll average you posted, the total of Lab and SF is 38%. Independents / others are at 10%. So even if we assume ALL independents are left wing, you are still short.

More red scare nonsense in other words.

Duke Leonal Felmet

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

According to the poll average you posted, the total of Lab and SF is 38%. Independents / others are at 10%. So even if we assume ALL independents are left wing, you are still short.

More red scare nonsense in other words.

In that very post you quoted he said '40-50%'. If just 2% of Ind/other are lefties then you have 40%.

Seems like a fair call, to me.

OhNoYouDidn't

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

In that very post you quoted he said '40-50%'. If just 2% of Ind/other are lefties then you have 40%.

Seems like a fair call, to me.

He said 'over 50%' initially, which I called him on.

And it would need to be 20% of the independents being lefties...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duke Leonal Felmet

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

He said 'over 50%' initially, which I called him on.

And it would need to be 20% of the independents being lefties...

Two percentage points. You knew that. Don't drag the thread down again, please.

CokaColumbo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

He said 'over 50%' initially, which I called him on.

And it would need to be 20% of the independents being lefties...

I did not say 'over' 50%; I said 'up to' 50%. If you study the page I linked, the 16/12/10 Irish Times poll puts Labour & SF at a collective 40%. So does the 03/12/10 Irish Sun poll. Leftists also form a significant chunk of the 11% of Independent candidates, perhaps a majority, so 40%-50% is accurate.

Cannibal Ox

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Like the IMF? I'm not sure if you're arguing whether this is a positive thing, if you're not you can ignore the next part.

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

If you're arguing that the law itself is illegitimate, which I'm assuming, and as such it is justifiable to circumvent it when the opportunity presents itself (i.e, tax or welfare fraud), who exactly decides when it is illegitimate, on what grounds it is possible to judge when it is illegitimate, and when it is justifiable to circumvent it?

In other words, what gives them the right to circumvent the rule of law when confronted with what they deem unjust laws? Is this really the Libertarian spirit? Because I don't see how the attitude you've identified, which I largely agree with, is anything other then utterly corrosive in a democracy and responsible for more then it's fair share of the mess in Ireland.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

UsernameInUse

liberal front are libertarians

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I see what you are getting at, but I assume as a Libertarian you object to paying a TV licence.

So don't.

How much more stark can you get in terms of "fight[ing] to prevent that rule of law from becoming too stifling of social and economic freedoms" than non-compliance on a massive scale?

If the law is an ass, it should be ignored.

Duke Leonal Felmet

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I see what you are getting at, but I assume as a Libertarian you object to paying a TV licence.

So don't.

How much more stark can you get in terms of "fight[ing] to prevent that rule of law from becoming too stifling of social and economic freedoms" than non-compliance on a massive scale?

If the law is an ass, it should be ignored.

Yeah, Libertarians love nothing more than the prospect of imprisonment. It goes right to the core of freedom and liberty.

OhNoYouDidn't

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yeah, Libertarians love nothing more than the prospect of imprisonment. It goes right to the core of freedom and liberty.

I'm so happy you said that.

That dovetails nicely into the argument that libertarians are all talk. If something is wrong, fight it. Back to my point about the real world test.

Say what you like about the ULA types, they are willing to go to jail for their beliefs....