Support Complete Libertarianism in Ireland?

Capt'n Midnight

RockinRolla wrote: »

Ridiculous summary.
...
Or what about the minimum wage? A law that buries the poor. When the law says a business man cannot pay an employee below 7.65/hour, you're denying that employee to earn €106 extra a week than what he would be paid on welfare.

on welfare...

so if no one pays PRSI etc.. where do the welfare payments come from ?

blackbiro

philologos wrote: »

And you think that these private education providers are going to be reasonably priced so that poor people can attend?

Education is something that the State should fund precisely because children from all backgrounds should be able to receive it. Educational equality wouldn't be achieved with a private system. Richer people would be able to pay more for better schools.

This is one area where I'd lean a little in RockinRolla's direction. The problems of providing education and making it accessible don't have to be handled by the same body (ie the state). Privatising schools and colleges would give students more choice and with it institutions that'd be run for their benefit rather than that of teachers' unions. This would probably mean changes like a payscale that goes up in accordance with good teaching rather than things like seniority or living in the Gaeltacht. Ensuring access to education would likely need state involvment though, and this would mean the cardinal sin of redistribution of wealth, probably by providing education vouchers to low-income households. Many libertarians would see measures like this as something temporary to ease the transition to the free-market utopia, I'd see them as permament - if a kid has to go without an education to ensure a well-off person's "freedom" then tough, they'll have to pay some tax.

There are other areas where the state's influence could be considerably lessened and still more which it has no business being involved in in the first place - using public money to run a horse breeding stud or to fund an art practice is madness for instance. I'd be in favour of cutting out a lot of fat, but I'd stop well short of this freedom at all costs mentality of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

philologos

blackbiro: If the state has to dive in with a voucher system it seems best that the State do it for pretty much the same reason that the State do health. Businesses care about profit, that's what they do. As such if it is not profitable to have a school in an area they won't and then kids will have to commute further to get to school. The State can run things at a loss it uses tax funds in order to determine this and the State has no motive of profit.

smokedeels

You need a goverment to enforce a few basic laws that stop people hurting others, the rest of it is your own business.

So yes I would, to a degree, I still think education should be free, I've yet to be swayed from that opinion.

General Zod

There have been several private hospitals started in the last 10 years.

Libertarians, if the "government regulations" are preventing "hospitals for the poor" from springing up overnight, why have they not prevented the existing private hospitals from starting up also?

At the moment, the Charity industry is the closest thing to Libertarianism in practise in Ireland. huge administration fees, swolen salaries, minimal government regulation, and the smallest amount actually going to where it is most needed.

This is Libertarianism in practise. Fill your pockets with as much as you can get away with.

**** you, got mine.

blackbiro

philologos wrote: »

blackbiro: If the state has to dive in with a voucher system it seems best that the State do it for pretty much the same reason that the State do health. Businesses care about profit, that's what they do. As such if it is not profitable to have a school in an area they won't and then kids will have to commute further to get to school. The State can run things at a loss it uses tax funds in order to determine this and the State has no motive of profit.

That's true, the ability to choose along with the benefits that brings would be a lot more pronounced in cities. However this could still be handled by the state providing a grant to isolated schools, which they'd have to re-apply for every year. If parents aren't happy with how the school is performing, then another company with a good record would be free to bid for the grant.

It's true that businesses care about profit, but so do unions! With a well implemented private model, the best way for an education company to make a profit is to cater to the students' needs. What tends to work for unions though is threats, go-slows and strikes.

Eric Cartman

General Zod wrote: »

**** you, got mine.

theres nothing wrong with that, Ireland has a sickness, a population of people who leave free education only to go straight onto free welfare and live in free houses , these people can be observed outside the pub at 10am on a monday or down the bookies at 3 in the afternoon, a bunch of lazy workshy people that nobody working in this country should have to bail out , I accept social welfare is necessary for our poor , but its necessary for the disabled and the people whove fallen on hard times inbetween jobs , its for surviving , not living , its not supposed to be a tool to enable layabouts, drug addicts, scroungers , gamblers and alcoholics to piss away all our tax money and making their areas worse as a whole.

free market economies open the door to people starting businesses and progressing themselves further to support themselves , Irelands current motto to school leavers is "try college, try get a job, if you fail f*ck it theres a load of money for free" , it should be "get a job or make a job for yourself or else"

Ron paus beliefs align with my own , there are very few things that should be illegal , things like drugs being illegal just restrict freedom, if somebody wants to kill themselves snorting coke thats none of my business.

Capt'n Midnight

blackbiro wrote: »

This is one area where I'd lean a little in RockinRolla's direction. The problems of providing education and making it accessible don't have to be handled by the same body (ie the state).

In Ireland the State doesn't build or operate schools.

In Ireland you have to build the primary or secondary school yourself, then when it is up and running, and only then can you ask the state for money to pay the teachers and some other expenses.


This is why most schools in Ireland are run by religious groups, they had the money to build them.

blackbiro

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In Ireland the State doesn't build or operate schools.

In Ireland you have to build the primary or secondary school yourself, then when it is up and running, and only then can you ask the state for money to pay the teachers and some other expenses.


This is why most schools in Ireland are run by religious groups, they had the money to build them.

True, but the money to run the school goes directly from the state to the school rather than through parents, which would give them greater choice.

simplistic2

But in a libertarian society what would happen is a meteor hit destroying half of the private police companies? And then as they are rebuilding they discover the meteor contains hatched dragon eggs?

The worst part about being a libertarian is that people treat you like a government - they expect you to know every solution to every possible problem, then after they find one hole they say " HA, since people won't subscibe to dragon insurance we need a government."

The government hasn't a clue what it is doing...it just wakes every now and again, plunders more citizens and goes back to partying. The citizens are mostly no differnt so I don't think we will see change in the next 100 years. How many libertarian organisations are there in Ireland? Two I see...

www.freedomireland.com and www.irishlibertyforum.org

... I love the passion here Chuck keep it coming!

InTheTrees

Computer Sci wrote: »

I have two questions for libertarians,

(a) Who or what ensures that property contracts are enforced and adhered to?

They believe in de-regulating firearms so contract "enforcement" would presumably be by threat of violence.

mprgst78

Libertarianism is not the same as anarcho-capitalism. I, as a Libertarian, recognise the importance of government for defence, the law and police as well as a small number of other functions. I do not believe in private armies (although I respect your right to fund and keep one). I do not believe in different varieties of law. I believe in one consistent law applicable to everyone.

RockinRolla

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

on welfare...

so if no one pays PRSI etc.. where do the welfare payments come from ?

They don't.

There is no welfare system or nanny-state in a Libertarian society. The welfare system funds peoples lifestyles. The unemployed are free to gamble, to drink and to consume drugs at the taxpayers expense. Throughout history where there was no available welfare system, communities have got together to support one another and show huge human compassion - America, even with their relatively small welfare system compared to ours, are the biggest contributors to charitable organisations, whom are better able to take care of the disadvantaged than the State. Look no further than the VDP in Ireland. The VDP receives less funding from individuals because there is a safety net in the form of a welfare system - and a glamorous one at that.

If there was no welfare state, the VDP could provide the disadvantaged in our society with Tesco vouchers for example to obtain the basic necessities and not to blow taxpayers money on wants ot luxuries in the form of cigarettes and alcohol. If people want those items, they are given an economic incentive to work to pay for their vices.

But what about a Libertarian welfare system? Well, if you look at the Mormons, they have great principles. One of them is to never accept state welfare or handouts. To get around this issue, they employ fellow Mormons on other members property, to do jobs and to help each other out in financial hardship. This group would be a good example of private welfare set-ups within the Libertarian Ireland.

dienbienphu

im up for legalising prostitution, abortion, drugs and 24 hour off licences. individuals should judge what is moraly right and wrong. but the notion of abolishing the police force is just plain dumb who ever thought up the idea. wheres the sense in that?

simplistic2

Computer Sci wrote: »

I have two questions for libertarians,

(a) Who or what ensures that property contracts are enforced and adhered to?

This is my favorite one. Do you not see? not even in the slightest? that the State, itself is the biggest violator of all property contracts? more than all the criminals in our entire prison system?

The fundamental, glaring, embarrasingly obvious contradiction at the heart of the state is that it violates everyones property in order to what? Protect everyones property? :D:D

The question of who will protect your property is irrelavent. First, you must allow people to protect their property! This is not even close to happening...when that happens individuals can get together and design systems that do the job.

Eric Cartman

dienbienphu wrote: »

im up for legalising prostitution, abortion, drugs and 24 hour off licences. individuals should judge what is moraly right and wrong. but the notion of abolishing the police force is just plain dumb who ever thought up the idea. wheres the sense in that?

most people here are not supporting that, primary education , the police, ambulance and fire brigade and the goverment could be funded by a lower tax rate easily. The money saved in paying tax could be used by the private individual to fund health insurance and secondary schools etc..

at the moment the goverment pays for things with your tax money because it doesnt trust people to spend their money correctly (set aside some for healthcare etc...) but nannying people doesnt solve anything

dienbienphu

Eric Cartman wrote: »

most people here are not supporting that, primary education , the police, ambulance and fire brigade and the goverment could be funded by a lower tax rate easily. The money saved in paying tax could be used by the private individual to fund health insurance and secondary schools etc..

at the moment the goverment pays for things with your tax money because it doesnt trust people to spend their money correctly (set aside some for healthcare etc...) but nannying people doesnt solve anything

but theres people advocating taking away social welfare. what good will that do? all a political party would have to do to get elected is promise to bring it back and bang there in. not to mention the political follow if it were taken away. people would be allowed starve without it. i dont buy this nannying concept. i think the systems we have in place are fine, of course they could do with updating like the welfare but we are all co dependent on one another one way or the other.

InTheTrees

simplistic2 wrote: »

This is my favorite one. Do you not see? not even in the slightest? that the State, itself is the biggest violator of all property contracts? more than all the criminals in our entire prison system?

The question of who will protect your property is irrelavent. First, you must allow people to protect their property! This is not even close to happening...when that happens individuals can get together and design systems that do the job.

This is the glaring weakness in libertarianism as far as I can see.

None of you people can answer a straight fcuking question.

philologos

Perhaps we need to differentiate between economic libertarianism (entirely free market which IMO is insane) and social libertarianism?

Eric Cartman

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps we need to differentiate between economic libertarianism (entirely free market which IMO is insane) and social libertarianism?

please explain why an entirely free market is insane ?

dienbienphu wrote:

but theres people advocating taking away social welfare. what good will that do? all a political party would have to do to get elected is promise to bring it back and bang there in. not to mention the political follow if it were taken away. people would be allowed starve without it. i dont buy this nannying concept. i think the systems we have in place are fine, of course they could do with updating like the welfare but we are all co dependent on one another one way or the other.

i think the people advocating taking away social welfare would be happier to advocate food stamps / Lasercard system , there is no reason for anyone on social welfare to have cash , with cash you can buy drugs, there is also no reason for anyone on social welfare to buy cars, go on holidays, smoke, drink, have sky tv or be down the pub , on social welfare you should spend your whole day trying to get off social welfare, if our welfare system was trimmed down just to keep the poor alive and not a way to get free money and piss about all day , im sure nobody would object to it

RockinRolla

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps we need to differentiate between economic libertarianism (entirely free market which IMO is insane) and social libertarianism?

Perhaps first, we can understand where we all are if you would describe why exactly you feel the Free Market as "insane".

blackbiro

RockinRolla wrote: »

If there was no welfare state, the VDP could provide the disadvantaged in our society with Tesco vouchers for example to obtain the basic necessities and not to blow taxpayers money on wants ot luxuries in the form of cigarettes and alcohol. If people want those items, they are given an economic incentive to work to pay for their vices.

In the Irish Libertarian State not only would you avoid paying for their vices, you'd get the added benefit of watching them starve. The VDP spent 66.6 million on its services in 2009. That'd work out at a very generous €157 per person on the Live Register that year.

DubTony

philologos wrote: »

This idea sickens me.

It was the lack of regulation in the banking sector that led to the economic crisis we're currently in.

Businesses care about profit. They do not for the most part care about people. If it is not profitable to provide a service in a certain area they will cut it even if people in that area desperately need that service.

It is for this reason why essential services such as schools and hospitals should be public, at least for the most part. They are too important to be treated as the tools of profit.

Meh, and people claim that I'm right wing on boards :pac:

Regarding the banking problem. The current issue with the banks isn't that there was a lack of regulation. The banks went mad borrowing money on the overnight markets to give out in the form of 30 year loans. What kind of business model is that. They gave too much to individual borrowers in order to buy land and property and ignored the fact that their loan books were jammed with property loans to the point that they were relying on the sector to ensure profits. This is bad banking practice. That's just a couple of the mistakes.

The real issue is that our government gave the banks a blanket guarantee that covered every single mistake they'd made in the past. Any loan they still had outstanding was suddenly guaranteed by you and me. This took the banks debts and put it onto the people of the country.

Under a libertarian system, the banks wouldn't even have bothered making the phone call that night, or trudging up to Leinster House cap in hand because they would have known that even the porter would have laughed at them. They'd have gone to the wall, the receiver would have been called in, and banks all over the world would have lined up to buy their assets and loan books at knock down prices. The banks they'd owed money to would have suffered the loss piscking up (probably) 10% to 20% on the euro and that would have been that. Within a few days, foreign banks would have identified the gap in the market and opened up here and carried on.

philologos wrote: »

And you think that these private education providers are going to be reasonably priced so that poor people can attend?

Education is something that the State should fund precisely because children from all backgrounds should be able to receive it. Educational equality wouldn't be achieved with a private system. Richer people would be able to pay more for better schools.

Rich people already pay more for better schools. The problem we have here is that while the rich people pay for their kids to attend the school [building], you and I pay the wages of the teachers in those schools. In my ideology it wouldn't cost you a penny to end some other guys kid to school.

As for reasonably priced? Where there's a need the market will fill it. In an un regulated system where everybody paid, there'd be cheap schools and expensive schools. And people who couldn't afford to send their kids to any school would either teach their kids themselves, avail of the services of one of those charities I spoke of, or most likely, set up small local schools themselves with their friends and families and neighbours, hire a part-time teacher to develop a curriculum and teach the kids and do the rest of the work at home.

conscious

It's either complete libertarianism or unlimited paternalism! Ron Paul has it spot on when he says we don't need the government interfering in our lives.

Ron Paul in 2012, end the 'war on terror' and bring the troops home!

philologos

Indeed DubTony, I'm suggesting that our education should be good enough for all rather than just the wealthy. We have a lot of work to do clearly. Economic libertarianism isn't the right approach.

Suryavarman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDV0YII6lk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhgy0ymD-NI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64mr-cjxZfU

This series of videos gives a pretty good understanding of Libertarianism for anyone interested.

mprgst78

conscious wrote: »

It's either complete libertarianism or unlimited paternalism! Ron Paul has it spot on when he says we don't need the government interfering in our lives.

Ron Paul in 2012, end the 'war on terror' and bring the troops home!

Revolution 2012!

philologos

Eric Cartman wrote: »

please explain why an entirely free market is insane ?

The poor are condemned to remain poor, while the rich remain rich. It is only with a good public education system and with a robust enough social welfare system that we can ensure that people can at least afford to have a house, to feed their families, and to bring their children to school rather than starving in the streets.

Ultimately, the richer are going to get the jobs unless we level out the playing field somewhat.

There is no reason why anyone in 21st century Ireland should be living on the streets, and there is no reason why people of all backgrounds should be left behind where they can excel.

Economic libertarianism will make this much worse. A social democracy will make this better. (N.B by social democracy I do not mean socialist / communist state, I support business in a regulated market. I'm thinking something along the lines of Sweden which has the lowest income inequality in the world).

Buceph

Libertarianism is a load of bollocks. Its supporters are usually people who refuse to acknowledge their successes came from the very system they oppose. The only difference between anarchists and libertarianists is that the anarchists don't seem to be as selfish. Libertarians idea of freedom is simplistic at best. The "freedom to die" phrase is quite apt when it comes to them.

conscious

Buceph wrote: »

Libertarianism is a load of bollocks. Its supporters are usually people who refuse to acknowledge their successes came from the very system they oppose. The only difference between anarchists and libertarianists is that the anarchists don't seem to be as selfish. Libertarians idea of freedom is simplistic at best. The "freedom to die" phrase is quite apt when it comes to them.

I don't see exactly what's wrong with being able to independently make your own decisions without being limited in choice set by the government! Anyone who argues against this must be a child or mentally disabled person who needs government to nanny them!