Support Complete Libertarianism in Ireland?

philologos · 21-05-2011 3:02pm

If the State "moved aside" it would be more chaotic than it is now. You still haven't provided any form of justification as to how the poor are going to improve their conditions if the State is removed.

RockinRolla · 21-05-2011 3:57pm

philologos wrote: »

If the State "moved aside" it would be more chaotic than it is now. You still haven't provided any form of justification as to how the poor are going to improve their conditions if the State is removed.

The first is the minimum wage. Labour Unions lobby for this law because they want to isolate the disadvantaged from competing with them for positions within the workplace. It prices low-marketable skilled workers out of the market - the poor lose their jobs, some remain unemployed or others need to do more work to justify the extra increase. It is the most anti-humane law on the statute book. And what's worse, is that you're completely oblivious to it. It's not a benevolent law - there is not an endless pit of money and when it has been provided in the form of wages, you're effectively cutting off an entire category of people from being employed. Then they must remain on state welfare handouts in a continuous cycle of childlike dependence. Don't take my word for it - go look at the statistics pre and post 2000.

Secondly, licensing laws. This destroys the poors expectations and opportunities. When occupational licences are required to practice, what we are effectively doing is, we are keeping the price of these services artificially high - medicine, education etc. The poor can't afford these services nor can they enter into these careers because of this red-tape. I've used this example previously, but I'll use it again here - taxi's. Never again can a low income worker buy a cheap car and run a cab business - first, because of government, he must do expensive tests and obtain a costly licence. We, in turn, are paying higher prices for everything in order for the people who have obtained those licences to earn a profit and also, because there is a lack of competition within industries and sectors.

Third, government hold monopoly power over the price of everything you own. They can devalue your home at the push of a button. But it is so subtle that the effects take a few years to really show itself. Printing money is counterfeiting. If we did it, they'd throw us in prison. But when they do it, it causes inflation - prices for everything goes up as the money in circulation becomes less valuable. They have this power by setting us up with a single fiat currency they control. Fiat means that the currency they are printing holds no true value except that "they told us it did". Fiat money is not backed by gold. The Euro is a fiat currency. If government raised taxes, the masses would notice within a second, by printing money, they are in effect, creating a new way to bleed us. It is a tax.

Taxes are the next thing. Everything from the money you earn - a percentage is taken away. Now we have the new taxes as well as consumption taxes, VAT and tariffs, import duties and trade taxes. These hurt the poor more so than the rich. The government is and has long been the enemy of the disadvantaged people.

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]
[/FONT]

HavingCrack · 21-05-2011 5:07pm

RockinRolla wrote: »

Secondly, licensing laws. This destroys the poors expectations and opportunities. When occupational licences are required to practice, what we are effectively doing is, we are keeping the price of these services artificially high - medicine, education etc. The poor can't afford these services nor can they enter into these careers because of this red-tape. I've used this example previously, but I'll use it again here - taxi's. Never again can a low income worker buy a cheap car and run a cab business - first, because of government, he must do expensive tests and obtain a costly licence. We, in turn, are paying higher prices for everything in order for the people who have obtained those licences to earn a profit and also, because there is a lack of competition within industries and sectors.

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]
[/FONT]

I think this a step too far. Effectively what this woul lead to is anyone setting themselves up as doctors and dentists. I seriously would be worried with tonnes of people running around prescribing medication with no qualification to do so. And don't give me the usual 'the market will get rid of these people". How many people will possibly die or become seriously ill from people who have no clue posing as doctors?

There is a huge amount of unneccessary red tape in our society but some sort of standard is neccessary for professions like law or medicine whether that is a government one or a medical association one.

And, to be fair, out of all the sectors you could have chosen the taxi sector is ridiculously competitative. Even if all the red tape was gotten rid of in the morning there is still a massive oversupply in the market. Anyone who has aspiratiosn to become a taxi driver at present would need their heads examined.

genericguy · 21-05-2011 5:31pm

Dean0088 wrote: »

Do you think we should adopt libertarianism here in Ireland??

I couldn't give a rat's arse whether somebody likes hookers, members of the same sex, alcohol, drugs or smoking as long as they're not in my face. The problem is that the general public assumes that if heroin is legal, everyone will be rushing out to buy some, and in the case of prostitution that every man in the country will be saving money for expensive threesomes with slovakian brazzers. And nobody can convince them otherwise. Especially in this country/subsidiary of the vatican.

RockinRolla · 21-05-2011 5:57pm

HavingCrack wrote: »

I think this a step too far. Effectively what this woul lead to is anyone setting themselves up as doctors and dentists. I seriously would be worried with tonnes of people running around prescribing medication with no qualification to do so. And don't give me the usual 'the market will get rid of these people". How many people will possibly die or become seriously ill from people who have no clue posing as doctors?

There is a huge amount of unneccessary red tape in our society but some sort of standard is neccessary for professions like law or medicine whether that is a government one or a medical association one.

And, to be fair, out of all the sectors you could have chosen the taxi sector is ridiculously competitative. Even if all the red tape was gotten rid of in the morning there is still a massive oversupply in the market. Anyone who has aspiratiosn to become a taxi driver at present would need their heads examined.

If someone placed a sign outside their office stating they had completed a course at the College of Surgeons and they did not, then they would rightfully go to prison for fraud. Libertarians are unequivocally opposed to fraud. Those who set up a business in any particular area of industry with no licence does not mean that they can abuse that. Licences mean nothing, they are pieces of paper. A man that was licensed 30 years ago speaks very little - he may be thoroughly incompetent now. Here is a piece I suspect you'd be interested in reading.

The argument in favor of licensing always has been that it protects the public from incompetents, charlatans, and quacks. The main effect, however, is simply to restrict entry and reduce competition in the licensed occupation. Yet from the beginnings of the modern professional movement early in America's history until the seventies, the growth of licensing proceeded with little opposition. The possibility that licensing might be used to enhance professional income and power was considered incidental to serving the public interest.

A careful analysis of licensing's effects across a broad range of occupations reveals some striking, and strikingly negative, similarities. Occupational regulation has limited consumer choice, raised consumer costs, increased practitioner income, limited practitioner mobility, and deprived the poor of adequate services—all without demonstrated improvements in the quality or safety of the licensed activities.

Why have states required licensing of so many occupations if the results are so counter to consumer interests? Participants in any regulatory process must have a reason for getting involved. Because the number of potential political and legal battles is large, people tend to concentrate on those battles in which their personal stake is high. Because their per capita stakes in the licensing controversy are so much greater than those of consumers, it is professionals who usually determine the regulatory agenda in their domains. Crucial licensing decisions that can affect vast numbers of people are often made with little or no input from the public.

If such a process serves the public interest, it is only by happenstance.
Licensing laws generally require candidates to meet four types of requirements: (1) formal schooling, (2) experience, (3) personal characteristics (such as citizenship and residence), and (4) successful completion of a licensing examination. The mechanism for enforcing these requirements and maintaining control over a licensed occupation is the state licensing board. The state legislature, in effect, grants a charter to the board, and the board's members, frequently drawn from the regulated profession itself, are appointed by the governor. Establishing licensure is only part of the story, of course. The tendency in all professions is to increase constraints on entry after licensing laws have been introduced, with existing members of the occupations protecting themselves with "grandfather clauses" that permit them to bypass the new entry requirements

source- http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/OccupationalLicensing.html

Now, I've used the taxi example specifically because no matter what the price it is from O'Connell Street to the airport, there is always somebody, somewhere, that is willing to do the run for cheaper. Can you deny those people that are willing to do this job for the benefit of consumers a wage? It's a simplistic example and one that is easy to follow. It sums up the argument quite nicely. As far as anyone getting into the taxi business is concerned, that is not your concern. Why should we grant monopoly powers to licencing bureaus? The same goes for medicine. Here is Milton Friedman speaking on this issue you touched upon with regards to people claiming to be doctors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdcaLReCG3Y

HavingCrack · 22-05-2011 9:28pm

RockinRolla wrote: »

If someone placed a sign outside their office stating they had completed a course at the College of Surgeons and they did not, then they would rightfully go to prison for fraud. Libertarians are unequivocally opposed to fraud. Those who set up a business in any particular area of industry with no licence does not mean that they can abuse that. Licences mean nothing, they are pieces of paper. A man that was licensed 30 years ago speaks very little - he may be thoroughly incompetent now. Here is a piece I suspect you'd be interested in reading.

source- http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/OccupationalLicensing.html

Now, I've used the taxi example specifically because no matter what the price it is from O'Connell Street to the airport, there is always somebody, somewhere, that is willing to do the run for cheaper. Can you deny those people that are willing to do this job for the benefit of consumers a wage? It's a simplistic example and one that is easy to follow. It sums up the argument quite nicely. As far as anyone getting into the taxi business is concerned, that is not your concern. Why should we grant monopoly powers to licencing bureaus? The same goes for medicine. Here is Milton Friedman speaking on this issue you touched upon with regards to people claiming to be doctors.

You've clearly missed the point. How many people have to die from unqualified doctors before a fraud case occurs? Just answer the question. What's an acceptable number?

Friedman says absolutely nothing in that video at all apart from stating that he believes licencing is wrong.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-05-2011 10:01pm

RockinRolla wrote: »

Secondly, licensing laws. This destroys the poors expectations and opportunities. When occupational licences are required to practice, what we are effectively doing is, we are keeping the price of these services artificially high - medicine, education etc.

The poor won't be going to the private schools that the elite go to. Here in Ireland if you don't have the points etc. to do medicine you can always go to the Royal College of Surgeons if you afford it. Call me old fashioned but I'd rather live in a Meritocracy. In Italy everyone has a constitutional right to study medicine. First year classes are huge, but second year classes are normal sized. I've also heard people complaining about the quality of Doctors produced in Cuba.

The poor can't afford these services nor can they enter into these careers because of this red-tape. I've used this example previously, but I'll use it again here - taxi's. Never again can a low income worker buy a cheap car and run a cab business - first, because of government, he must do expensive tests and obtain a costly licence.

Were you here when Taxi plates cost more than a house ? It was a result of supply and demand. Now there is a glut of taxi's precisely because low income workers can get them. How much does a nine year old car cost ??? (especially when you can rent a taxi) And you want to deregulate it further ?

Third, government hold monopoly power over the price of everything you own. They can devalue your home at the push of a button. But it is so subtle that the effects take a few years to really show itself. Printing money is counterfeiting. If we did it, they'd throw us in prison. But when they do it, it causes inflation - prices for everything goes up as the money in circulation becomes less valuable. They have this power by setting us up with a single fiat currency they control. Fiat means that the currency they are printing holds no true value except that "they told us it did". Fiat money is not backed by gold. The Euro is a fiat currency. If government raised taxes, the masses would notice within a second, by printing money, they are in effect, creating a new way to bleed us. It is a tax.

If you devalue a currency it makes exports easier, ask USA , Italy, Japan. Most governments have external debt, in currencies they can't control. Printing money is counter productive so there is a balance between this and exports.

Please name a currency that is backed up by Gold and how the increase in the value of gold has caused deflations since people would hold off on buying stuff since their money would be worth more in a little while.
Please explain what would happen to such a currency if the US or Russia decided to sell Gold to destabilise it.
Please explain what would happen to a gold based currency if a new method of extraction is found , say for example a heavy metal accumulating algae, or even a new mine.

Taxes are the next thing. Everything from the money you earn - a percentage is taken away. Now we have the new taxes as well as consumption taxes, VAT and tariffs, import duties and trade taxes. These hurt the poor more so than the rich. The government is and has long been the enemy of the disadvantaged people.

Tax is about the only way wealth gets transferred from rich to poor. In most other cases it's the other way around. Rich people can afford better lawyers.

The American dream relies on you doinig well at the expense of others who don't. Bill Gates is worth more than 40% of the US population. Without taxation how can they ever attempt to catch up ? (Bill like most US millionares came from a weathly backgound )

General Zod · 23-05-2011 9:49am

DubTony wrote: »

As for the hospital question? Cross my palm with silver and you can put your hospital anywhere ... OR ... I need more votes - here take a chunk of land beside the hospital in a busy and as good as inaccessible part of the city and build your hospital there.

That's not an answer to the hospital question. It was said that burocracy has stopped the "hospitals for the poor" from springing up, yet plenty of private enterprise hospitals have started in the last 10 years. So what's stopping them from "springing up"?

23-05-2011 9:58am

philologos wrote: »

If the State "moved aside" it would be more chaotic than it is now.

Can you demonstrate this? If not, your claim is just as much conjecture as what you're trying to argue against.

philologos · 23-05-2011 1:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you demonstrate this? If not, your claim is just as much conjecture as what you're trying to argue against.

I've explained thoroughly on this thread the implications that this has for those in poverty, education and healthcare. As far as I'm concerned it is those who argue for economic libertarianism who have to convince us in respect to these three and more.

RockinRolla · 23-05-2011 6:26pm

HavingCrack wrote: »

You've clearly missed the point. How many people have to die from unqualified doctors before a fraud case occurs? Just answer the question. What's an acceptable number?

Friedman says absolutely nothing in that video at all apart from stating that he believes licencing is wrong.

I understood perfectly but I suspect it is you that misunderstood. To explain this, I'd like to ask you a question. How many times have you walked into a hospital and first asked whether or not the doctor that would be treating you, had a medical degree or not? I would imagine that number would add to a zero. Or perhaps they received their medical education elsewhere and may not be up to standards? Perhaps you will think twice before speaking with a non-Irish educated doctor at the hospital about your sickness in the future.... What many people in this case usually shout, or rather, what they're basically arguing, is that they don't want somebody to treat them for a particular complaint unless those that are treating them have had that particular complaint.

What I am arguing against is that a licence is nothing more than a piece of paper. It does not explain the doctors skills or talent even, nor does it clearly state that the doctor has lost [enter random number here] patients throughout his career. Given a Libertarian society, what company which owned, say, the Sacred Heart Hospital, would employ a man to work in their business that had not received some kind of medical accolades? It would be a bad business move on their part and of course, they could be sued for providing false information. The point is, why provide a law stating that those who wish to practice a particular role need obtain a licence if a) a licence tells us nothing of the doctors ability, b) does not tell us how many patients he has lost in the past, c) provides monopoly privileges over this area or d) when misinformation and bad business decisions will result in imprisonment?

You're grasping at straws by asking a question about the number of people that would need to die or the acceptable number. You have to realise that I could ask you this same question back. How many people would be thrown on long waiting lists to receive an important operation? How many people would not have the money to go private? What is an acceptable number to you? What you fail to understand is that deregulating medicine would bring competition to the area, which in turn would lower prices and long-waiting lists. Why go to my GP and pay €50, when I could just go down the road and pay €5? It may not be as good advice as my GP, but then again, it was MY decision to go there and isn't that what a Libertarian society is about? Individual responsibility?

Well, you may ask - what is the point in going there for bad advice? Well, can we really say the cheaper would be less educated even? Not at all. That €5 doctor must have had talent, enough to convince the companies staff of providing him with a wage by sitting there all day. Milton Friedman said the most important thing in that clip - to remove monopoly powers. You may believe I'm in the wrong - but you're the one defending bureaucracy in this argument.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The poor won't be going to the private schools that the elite go to. Here in Ireland if you don't have the points etc. to do medicine you can always go to the Royal College of Surgeons if you afford it. Call me old fashioned but I'd rather live in a Meritocracy. In Italy everyone has a constitutional right to study medicine. First year classes are huge, but second year classes are normal sized. I've also heard people complaining about the quality of Doctors produced in Cuba.

Were you here when Taxi plates cost more than a house ? It was a result of supply and demand. Now there is a glut of taxi's precisely because low income workers can get them. How much does a nine year old car cost ??? (especially when you can rent a taxi) And you want to deregulate it further ?
If you devalue a currency it makes exports easier, ask USA , Italy, Japan. Most governments have external debt, in currencies they can't control. Printing money is counter productive so there is a balance between this and exports.

Please name a currency that is backed up by Gold and how the increase in the value of gold has caused deflations since people would hold off on buying stuff since their money would be worth more in a little while.
Please explain what would happen to such a currency if the US or Russia decided to sell Gold to destabilise it.
Please explain what would happen to a gold based currency if a new method of extraction is found , say for example a heavy metal accumulating algae, or even a new mine.

The American dream relies on you doinig well at the expense of others who don't. Bill Gates is worth more than 40% of the US population. Without taxation how can they ever attempt to catch up ? (Bill like most US millionares came from a weathly backgound )

No, the poor won't be going to the private schools that the elite go to. But I don't see your point? Money does not equal intelligence. And with no government curriculum to adhere to, what use is it to compare either schools? We all know about scholarships. The Americans love them. If a particular student from a disadvantaged background has the intellectual capacity to excel in one area of study or even physical ability, then he/she would be snatched up via scholarship from one of the big elite schools. In this case, the elite schools have an economic incentive to maintain their list ranking as the best performing to justify their price tag for the majority.

What you're disregarding is the hurdle in the form of the points system. I'm sure you'd agree that many students don't see the benefits of a good education until their twenties at least. If they had the disadvantage of completing a disappointing leaving certificate, then they have a huge ladder to climb. But of course, performance in the arts and crafts holds no addition to a law student so why must a failure in geography entirely setback a pupil with an eye on medicine? It's a ridiculous system we have in place. Money can be earned, loaned to or even provided in small repayments after the graduate is making money in later life - this avenue is already being explored in the real world. But this is a voluntary agreement between the school and the student, it does not come from any government interference.

But what about the schools for the poor that are not lucky enough to receive a proposal from an elite school? Private schools for the poor in developing countries might come as a surprise. In fact, this is a growing phenomenon throughout the developing world. Schools for the poor are commonplace across a range of countries, including India, where recent research has revealed a whole range of schools charging about €10 to €20 per year for each student, run on commercial principles and not dependent on any government subsidy or philanthropy. These fees are affordable by families. The point I'm trying to make is that, if there is a demand for something, the Free Market will provide that service. Are we to throw the entire book out the window by debating whether or not a low-income family have any interest in educating their children? Of course they do.

For an example, look no further than Brazil. Objetivo/UNIP has over half a million students from junior infants to university level across its 500 campuses throughout the country. There is a whole range of interesting examples of educational entrepreneurs who are creating innovative and effective private alternatives. This is just one example of for-profit education companies in developing countries that have created chains of schools and colleges, often operated on a franchise basis, with strict quality control and high standards. These companies invest in research and development to explore new ideas and creative ways to encourage the students individual talents - not a "one-size-fits-all" curriculum wrote up by a bureaucrat in an office somewhere. The franchises (the educational companies) are competing for your money so their priority is to maintain that high standard of education.

Having said that, education as a whole, is changing. Increasingly, more options to become educated are appearing which supports the debate of whether or not the government should be involved. Let's take a look at the future - the internet. Already we have literally thousands of online schools, most of which are extensions of their real world counter-parts. I need not explain the success of the Open University which provides solid and recognised certificates - all of which, are not learned from a conventional brick and mortar building, but an online class-room. Home education is becoming more popular as the years go by. As I have said before, the system we are working with is an old system, conjured up hundreds of years ago. A Libertarian society would provide unlimited idea's with regards to how our children are educated in the future. The government does not need to be involved in any of it. In all, I wouldn't worry if I was you about the poor and education in a stateless society.

As far as taxi's are concerned, we can't regulate. It's immoral to exclude some over others. The first thing we must ask is, who is regulating it? On what authority are they doing this? And who gave them that power? We must not secure or group people together. Taxi's in Ireland are extortionate compared to other countries. How much would a round trip cost from the airport to College Green? A fortune, I suspect. Libertarians want to get rid of it altogether. If there are more taxi's on the roads in Dublin than all of Britain put together, then people will understand that there is no money in it and be free to earn a living in another occupation. In this situation, I'd imagine there would be a lot of floating in between jobs. For example, if you're doing very well as a solicitor, then what is stopping you from getting into your car and doing a couple of hours as a taxi-man on the weekend? In ending, licenses block entry into occupations, so yes, I would deregulate it altogether.

In a Libertarian society, there would be no government involvement in the economy either. With no involvement or responsibilities, they would not devalue a currency to make exports more attractive. Devaluing a currency is evil. The gold standard was an international standard determining the value of a country’s currency in terms of other countries’ currencies. Because adherents to the standard maintained a fixed price for gold, rates of exchange between currencies tied to gold were necessarily fixed. Because exchange rates were fixed, the gold standard caused price levels around the world to move together.

Because the supply of the gold standard was essentially fixed in the short run, prices fell. Prices of American exports for example would then fall relative to the prices of imports. This caused other countries to buy more American exports and Americans to demand fewer imports. A balance-of-payments surplus was created, causing gold to flow from those other countries into America. The gold inflow increased the U.S. money supply, reversing the initial fall in prices. In the other countries, the gold outflow reduced the money supply and, hence, lowered the price level. The net result was balanced prices among countries. The California gold discovery in the 1800's is an example of a balance. The new gold increased the U.S. money supply and with it, raised domestic prices to where other countries received the outflow of American gold, which in turn, raised their money supply. The gold standard keeps a leash on the central banks from manipulating money.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to your comment "Tax is about the only way wealth gets transferred from rich to poor. In most other cases it's the other way around". I feel this comment is not for me to debate, it is the ideology of a Socialist in which I believe is an nonsensical argument. Here are the reasons why; after 15 pages of discussion, it truly is astonishing how we have arrived back at the number one Socialist question and secondly, a Socialist is a Socialist in that, it is difficult to persuade a Socialist that is loyal to their belief.

I don't advocate transferring wealth from rich to poor. I believe it is immoral to punish success. Because someone has had the initiative to create an idea, investment, hard physical work for the benefit of their families and friends, engaged in a constructive proposal with the determination and intelligence to succeed, why should they be penalised by those that have not? What I am trying to make you understand is that wealth should not be transferred to the poor by default. Instead, a Libertarian envisions breaking down the barriers of entry for the poor to create their own success. That is the moral way that does not infringe or steal anyone elses property in the process. In the case of the U.S and Bill Gates - America once had Libertarian principles. However, they abandoned those ideals long ago. I wouldn't look to America as the closest example of a Libertarian society in practice. I do believe, or have been convinced that debating you is a cul de sac, so to speak as I understand you're a Socialist. That is fine as everyone is quite rightly entitled to their opinion on how best to run society. I just happen to disagree with you. We will agree to disagree.

General Zod wrote: »

That's not an answer to the hospital question. It was said that burocracy has stopped the "hospitals for the poor" from springing up, yet plenty of private enterprise hospitals have started in the last 10 years. So what's stopping them from "springing up"?

How is anyone given an incentive, whether economic or charitable to start a hospital for the poor when the government are prepared to hand out medical cards?

philologos wrote: »

I've explained thoroughly on this thread the implications that this has for those in poverty, education and healthcare. As far as I'm concerned it is those who argue for economic libertarianism who have to convince us in respect to these three and more.

You have a warped view of the situation. It is precisely you who must explain to us the benefits of your views. Look around...financial institutions are collapsing, civil liberties are being destroyed and with each decade that passes, our freedom is being restrained, government power increasing and enlarging and the rich and privileged in bed with politicians lobbying to protect their interests and stop competition.

You're the one that must convince us, I'm afraid. However, those in power know all about Libertarianism. They hate it. That's why Ron Paul is continually shunned by the mainstream media - they do not want this guy running for President. So as you're yet to understand the significance of the ideology, those up top are all too aware of it.

philologos · 23-05-2011 6:34pm

RockinRolla wrote: »

You have a warped view of the situation. It is precisely you who must explain to us the benefits of your views. Look around...financial institutions are collapsing, civil liberties are being destroyed and with each decade that passes, our freedom is being restrained, government power increasing and enlarging and the rich and privileged in bed with politicians lobbying to protect their interests and stop competition.

How is it? You are proposing a political framework that offers no support to the poor and weak in our society. You are proposing a political framework in which the poor will be deprived of the same access to healthcare and education than the rest of the population. Your position is based on faith that private businesses will somehow hold the interests of the people at heart rather than being exclusively motivated by profit. It is your opinion that we should hand over essential services to private business.

There are no examples of economic libertarianism that work well. There are examples of social democracy working well, all I need to do is point you to the Swedish system or other democracies in Scandinavia that have the lowest income inequality in the world. It is also fair and levels the playing field for all rather than some. That's tangible evidence. What tangible evidence is there for economic libertarianism levelling the playing field for all? It seems as if libertarianism protects the wealth of the rich rather than the livelihoods of the poor.

Such an idea goes firmly against my beliefs about what is right for the world, therefore I can't support it.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-05-2011 9:40pm

But what about the schools for the poor that are not lucky enough to receive a proposal from an elite school? Private schools for the poor in developing countries might come as a surprise.

not really
considering the value placed on education and derth of public schools

In fact, this is a growing phenomenon throughout the developing world. Schools for the poor are commonplace across a range of countries, including India, where recent research has revealed a whole range of schools charging about €10 to €20 per year for each student, run on commercial principles and not dependent on any government subsidy or philanthropy. These fees are affordable by families. The point I'm trying to make is that, if there is a demand for something, the Free Market will provide that service. Are we to throw the entire book out the window by debating whether or not a low-income family have any interest in educating their children? Of course they do.

And those schools use the governtment curriculum and state exams

BTW
In Muslim areas you can be bloody sure philatropy is involved.

For an example, look no further than Brazil. Objetivo/UNIP has over half a million students from junior infants to university level across its 500 campuses throughout the country. There is a whole range of interesting examples of educational entrepreneurs who are creating innovative and effective private alternatives. This is just one example of for-profit education companies in developing countries that have created chains of schools and colleges, often operated on a franchise basis, with strict quality control and high standards. These companies invest in research and development to explore new ideas and creative ways to encourage the students individual talents - not a "one-size-fits-all" curriculum wrote up by a bureaucrat in an office somewhere. The franchises (the educational companies) are competing for your money so their priority is to maintain that high standard of education.

The UK universities are setting up camuses in Asia to attract money. There is suspision (ie. it hasn't been proven in a court of law yet AFAIK) that there is grade inflation to keep the money rolling in. In effect people who aren't allowed enter the UK are investing in certs from UK institutions.

Having said that, education as a whole, is changing. Increasingly, more options to become educated are appearing which supports the debate of whether or not the government should be involved. Let's take a look at the future - the internet. Already we have literally thousands of online schools, most of which are extensions of their real world counter-parts. I need not explain the success of the Open University which provides solid and recognised certificates - all of which, are not learned from a conventional brick and mortar building, but an online class-room.

Some courses on open uni are good, others aren't. But you have to meet your tutors at intervals , it's not all done remotely.

Also there is a huge problem with cheating and brain dumps with on line courses.

As far as taxi's are concerned, we can't regulate. It's immoral to exclude some over others.

maybe we should be like the Philipeens where at one stage a huge fraction of the economy depeded on the jeepnes. very inefficient transport , a bit like the matatu's in Africa Two people employed per microbus.

If there are more taxi's on the roads in Dublin than all of Britain put together, then people will understand that there is no money in it and be free to earn a living in another occupation. In this situation, I'd imagine there would be a lot of floating in between jobs. For example, if you're doing very well as a solicitor, then what is stopping you from getting into your car and doing a couple of hours as a taxi-man on the weekend? In ending, licenses block entry into occupations, so yes, I would deregulate it altogether.

bad money drives out good
the honest ethical taxi driver will be driven out in the race to the bottom as people cut corners to undercut each other, pretty soon no one invests in good equipment or training. You end up with 9 year old Toyota Corollas or worse compared to the Contenantal standard of Mercs.
It's already happened to the transport industry.

The gold standard was an international standard determining the value of a country’s currency in terms of other countries’ currencies. Because adherents to the standard maintained a fixed price for gold, rates of exchange between currencies tied to gold were necessarily fixed. Because exchange rates were fixed, the gold standard caused price levels around the world to move together.

Because the supply of the gold standard was essentially fixed in the short run, prices fell. Prices of American exports for example would then fall relative to the prices of imports. This caused other countries to buy more American exports and Americans to demand fewer imports. A balance-of-payments surplus was created, causing gold to flow from those other countries into America. The gold inflow increased the U.S. money supply, reversing the initial fall in prices. In the other countries, the gold outflow reduced the money supply and, hence, lowered the price level. The net result was balanced prices among countries. The California gold discovery in the 1800's is an example of a balance. The new gold increased the U.S. money supply and with it, raised domestic prices to where other countries received the outflow of American gold, which in turn, raised their money supply. The gold standard keeps a leash on the central banks from manipulating money.

The great depression killed off the gold in the 1930's. Did you understand my comments about devaluing helping exports ?
Did you read my comments about how new decoveries of cheap gold would affect it ?
Back in the middle ages gold was worth three times what silver was worth. The the Spanish silver from south america changed that balance forever.

The chinese used silver more than gold. There is nothing special about Gold.
Diamonds were only found in India it was thought, but during the 20th centry DeBeers managed to take an ordinary gem and through clever advertising and ruthless domination of the market manupilated the price.
How many mining companies control the price of gold, and how do you stop them having fun and games with the gold standard.

maybe you could link gold to oil 50 Barrels an Ounce isn't it ??

I don't advocate transferring wealth from rich to poor. I believe it is immoral to punish success.

From the evidence I believe that a large proportion of weath was accumulated through illegal practices.

Because someone has had the initiative to create an idea,

Don't get me started on IP, only a few have benefited from their intellectal property. Most IP is held by weatly corporations

America once had Libertarian principles.

When ?

In your answer please explain how law and order were maintaned.

We will agree to disagree.

If you accept that my views are different you yours then you have to accept that I can't accept Complete Libertaranism in ireland on moral grounds. Put simply I feel too many people will die or suffer ill health never mind their wallets. No one has shown that it isn't just another bunch of "mé feinners" looking for special exemptions.

How is anyone given an incentive, whether economic or charitable to start a hospital for the poor when the government are prepared to hand out medical cards?

Here in Ireland we have people running public hospitals setting up private hospitals on the public hospital grounds , you have the same consultants working in both

DubTony · 23-05-2011 10:29pm

Before I read through the latest posts here I'll just throw this in on medical licenses thing.

Michael Neary carried out 188 peripartum hysterectomies in 25 years. The average consultant obstetrician carries out 5 or 6 of these operations in their entire career. (source: Wikipedia)

cosmicfart · 23-05-2011 10:34pm

Dean0088 wrote: »

Would you support a new constitution and laws that ensure you can do whatever the fcuk you want so long as it doesn't interfere with others?

Take drugs. Use prostitutes. Gay marraige. Sleep in a hammock on top of a mountain etc... etc...

I'm not saying I support the guy 100% on his policies - but he has the right idea when it comes to libertarianism in my opinion....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6a9549ZeqQ

Do you think we should adopt libertarianism here in Ireland??

Im sick of ISMS people already do whatever the fúck they want to do in this country but no one takes responsibility, thats the foooking problemism, accountability, ism.

InTheTrees · 23-05-2011 10:38pm

"libertarianism" makes complete sense when you're sitting in a bar at 3am and dont have anything left to talk about...

Its for drunks to ramble on about thats all. There's no depth to it.

DubTony · 23-05-2011 10:48pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Were you here when Taxi plates cost more than a house ? It was a result of supply and demand. Now there is a glut of taxi's precisely because low income workers can get them. How much does a nine year old car cost ??? (especially when you can rent a taxi) And you want to deregulate it further ?

While the taxi business in Ireland was technically de-regulated, taxi drivers must still bear the costs of effective regulation in their business. Any authority can decide when enough is enough. Ours decided not to (quite rightly) but still held taxi drivers up to the same standards as before. Many people would feel that is the correct course of action. Taxis should be clean and in good working order. As a result of these rules the customer thinks that becasue there's a yellow sign on the roof, it must be ok. The result of the regulations are that we, as consumers, forget to think. If I see a cab at the rank, and the thing is in bits, worn out on the inside and the guy smells of bacon, I'm not getting in it. Simple. The problem is that people don't put their own welfare (or even self respect) first.
Too much regulation leads to nanny statism, which leads to people not bothering to think for themselves.

My brother has a 21 year old car that is in pristine condition. It goes better than, and looks better than, and is cleaner than a good percentage of taxis on the road. Yet he wouldn't be allowed use it as a taxi because the regulations of this supposedly de-regulated market say so. If people refused to get into filthy, banged up taxis most of the cowboys in that business would be gone.
[/quote]

The American dream relies on you doinig well at the expense of others who don't. Bill Gates is worth more than 40% of the US population. Without taxation how can they ever attempt to catch up ? (Bill like most US millionares came from a weathly backgound )

Surely you aren't saying that in order for Gates to earn his billions, millions of people across the world are worse off?

DubTony · 23-05-2011 11:02pm

General Zod wrote: »

That's not an answer to the hospital question. It was said that burocracy has stopped the "hospitals for the poor" from springing up, yet plenty of private enterprise hospitals have started in the last 10 years. So what's stopping them from "springing up"?

I think you missed the point. I'm talking about crony capitalism. The easiest way to get anything done in this country has always been to "do someone a favour". Anyone who wanted to build a hospital "for the poor" wouldn't necessarily have the resources to "donate" to politicians.

Having said that, why would anyone build anything specifically for the poor. The freedom to build a hospital anywhere would allow more hospitals to be built. IMO these would simply be very well equipped clinics. And the more that are built, the cheaper the price would be for patients. And when something is cheap, the insurance to cover it is cheap as well. And so even the lowest paid employee would have some deal with his employer (who wouldn't be paying PRSI contributions in a libertarian society. Minimum wage is just under €18K a year. PRSI contributions by employers on that is over a grand a year.)

RockinRolla · 24-05-2011 1:15am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And those schools use the governtment curriculum and state exams

First of all, thanks for reading through that piece. I understand it was quite lengthy. Moving on...Brazil is not a Free Market. The example I have used was to define what educational opportunities would be open to the poor in Libertarian Ireland by describing what communities and entrepreneurs are quite capable of doing as opposed to government.

The UK universities are setting up camuses in Asia to attract money. There is suspision (ie. it hasn't been proven in a court of law yet AFAIK) that there is grade inflation to keep the money rolling in. In effect people who aren't allowed enter the UK are investing in certs from UK institutions.

And therein lays the beauty of it. Firstly though, I would be worried, as a Libertarian, about the fact that people were not allowed enter the UK. Secondly, there would be no occupational licences and lastly, the fact you have got wind of this proves that the Free Market works! As in, are people willing to regard their certificates with as much prestige now knowing they higher results artificially? If they did that for economic reasons, that is fraud. But don't the parents have a say in their childrens education too? Wouldn't education really be regulated by the parents in this case? They have the power to crush the business if they don't believe that company is satisfying their standards by going elsewhere.

Some courses on open uni are good, others aren't. But you have to meet your tutors at intervals , it's not all done remotely.

Many courses don't require you to do exams in an agreed location. Having said that, it's a non-argument. Whether students would need to meet up or not is irrelevant. However, OU proves that there are alternatives and that we shouldn't look solely to government for this service.

maybe we should be like the Philipeens where at one stage a huge fraction of the economy depeded on the jeepnes. very inefficient transport , a bit like the matatu's in Africa Two people employed per microbus.

This has been explained by DubTony.

bad money drives out good
the honest ethical taxi driver will be driven out in the race to the bottom as people cut corners to undercut each other, pretty soon no one invests in good equipment or training. You end up with 9 year old Toyota Corollas or worse compared to the Contenantal standard of Mercs.
It's already happened to the transport industry.

Quite the opposite. By deregulating the industry and with no licences to obtain, taxi's have money to set themselves apart from the others which in effect, goes towards investing in better cars, on the road entertainment and luxurious features. Why? Because it is precisely a cause of outdoing each other. Who benefits? Us.

Who in their right mind would get into a 9 year old Corolla if it was the same price as the '11 Porsche behind it? Judging by your Merc comment, it seems you want to regulate the industry further! You want to exclude MORE people from the business. You may think my opinion is extreme, but you've gone to the opposite extreme totally.

The great depression killed off the gold in the 1930's. Did you understand my comments about devaluing helping exports ?

I did.

Did you read my comments about how new decoveries of cheap gold would affect it ?

I did and I explained it in the case of California.

Back in the middle ages gold was worth three times what silver was worth. The the Spanish silver from south america changed that balance forever.
The chinese used silver more than gold. There is nothing special about Gold.

Silver is abundant compared to gold.

Diamonds were only found in India it was thought, but during the 20th centry DeBeers managed to take an ordinary gem and through clever advertising and ruthless domination of the market manupilated the price.
How many mining companies control the price of gold, and how do you stop them having fun and games with the gold standard.maybe you could link gold to oil 50 Barrels an Ounce isn't it ??

Gold has a fixed price. It is a weight, not the price of a service or product. For example, it is nonsensical to allow the market to decide how many inches make up a foot on any given day. How could the answer fluctuate on the market?

From the evidence I believe that a large proportion of weath was accumulated through illegal practices.

At the expense of others that are not engaging in illegal activities.

Don't get me started on IP, only a few have benefited from their intellectal property. Most IP is held by weatly corporations

Do tell....

When ? In your answer please explain how law and order were maintaned.

Sure.....

The Founding Fathers of the U.S Constitution held Libertarian principles. Some where more so than others. Slavery is a terrible stain in the history of our species, granted, but even though they may not have been the true embodiment of a modern Libertarian, many of those men understood liberty and freedom. Jefferson once wrote that those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. The man died completely broke.

If you accept that my views are different you yours then you have to accept that I can't accept Complete Libertaranism in ireland on moral grounds. Put simply I feel too many people will die or suffer ill health never mind their wallets. No one has shown that it isn't just another bunch of "mé feinners" looking for special exemptions.

Oh, I accept that your views are different than mine and I respect that. But you must also respect that I don't believe your allegations that we are "me feinners" looking for special exemptions. We've gone through licences, Free Markets, healthcare and education - nobody is excluded from anything.

If it is a moral issue with you then I would have you know that giving someone liberty is the moral answer.

Here in Ireland we have people running public hospitals setting up private hospitals on the public hospital grounds , you have the same consultants working in both

Medical cards don't cover everything. The patients must still pay standard prices set by a monopoly power regardless of wherever they are. The point is, a charitable organisation or even a private business cannot set up a hospital without clear specifications from that monopoly power.

See bold.

philologos wrote: »

Such an idea goes firmly against my beliefs about what is right for the world, therefore I can't support it.

And that's quite alright. Again, you're entitled to your opinion but you must not call it faith. I've provided over the last number of pages, specific circumstances as to where and how needs have been met by private businesses the world over. I am not trying to convince you otherwise, I am merely providing some of literally thousands of examples as to these problems. I am providing facts. You have not given me one. Several pages back, I asked you to look them up if you're interested. These are not idea's out of thin air, they are real world alternatives to an inadequate system.

If you're a Socialist, perhaps you can make a claim at explaining your views on particular issues discussed here. I'd genuinely like to hear them.

K-9 · 24-05-2011 1:29am

RockinRolla, was there ever a free market?

Or even something as close as?

RockinRolla · 24-05-2011 2:43am

K-9 wrote: »

RockinRolla, was there ever a free market?

Or even something as close as?

The Black Market.

philologos · 24-05-2011 9:06am

RockinRolla wrote: »

And that's quite alright. Again, you're entitled to your opinion but you must not call it faith. I've provided over the last number of pages, specific circumstances as to where and how needs have been met by private businesses the world over. I am not trying to convince you otherwise, I am merely providing some of literally thousands of examples as to these problems. I am providing facts. You have not given me one. Several pages back, I asked you to look them up if you're interested. These are not idea's out of thin air, they are real world alternatives to an inadequate system.

If you're a Socialist, perhaps you can make a claim at explaining your views on particular issues discussed here. I'd genuinely like to hear them.

You've not answered any of the questions that I've given you adequately thus far about poverty, education, or health.

I wouldn't call myself a socialist but I do think that the social democratic route is best and I've explained why already.

Social democracy is a political ideology of the center-left on the political spectrum. The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system.

Freddie59 · 24-05-2011 9:11am

Dean0088 wrote: »

Would you support a new constitution and laws that ensure you can do whatever the fcuk you want so long as it doesn't interfere with others?

Take drugs. Use prostitutes. Gay marraige. Sleep in a hammock on top of a mountain etc... etc...

Do you think we should adopt libertarianism here in Ireland??

Absolutely not. I'm the complete opposite to you. Bring on ID cards/CCTV/fingerprinting/DNA/whatever. if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. And the majority of citizens who are law abiding can sleep easy.

A simple example was the recent Prime Time Investigates report on Taxis. It was an eye-opener. One in 7 with a criminal record. Car thieves, rapists, drug dealers. It's nuts. Fingerprinting all applicants would solve a lot of it.

They moved responsibility from the Gardai to civil servants and the whole thing is on the verge of collapse.

But you have to go even further in that scenario.

philologos · 24-05-2011 9:13am

Freddie59 wrote: »

Absolutely not. I'm the complete opposite to you. Bring on ID cards/CCTV/fingerprinting/DNA/whatever. if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. And the majority of citizens who are law abiding can sleep easy.

Why are these necessary? Even if I'm not a criminal I don't see why I should have to give this data to anyone.

Freddie59 · 24-05-2011 9:17am

philologos wrote: »

Why are these necessary? Even if I'm not a criminal I don't see why I should have to give this data to anyone.

Why not? I gave the example of the taxi drivers. Just fingerprinting the applicants would have avoided scumbags from getting a licence. As I said - I have nothing to hide. And if it helps someone else then I'm for it.

philologos · 24-05-2011 9:18am

Data can also be misused. That's my problem with it. I'd rather live in a free society than a police state.

meditraitor · 24-05-2011 10:17am

Libertarianism is a bullshit political philosophy for bullshitters of the highest order.

coffee_cake · 24-05-2011 10:19am

philologos wrote: »

Data can also be misused. That's my problem with it. I'd rather live in a free society than a police state.

Jaysus jak, we agree on something.

I'm waiting to hear the bank account details of the "nothing to hide" people...

philologos · 24-05-2011 10:48am

I hope I can be sane sometimes

HavingCrack · 24-05-2011 10:50am

Freddie59 wrote: »

Why not? I gave the example of the taxi drivers. Just fingerprinting the applicants would have avoided scumbags from getting a licence. As I said - I have nothing to hide. And if it helps someone else then I'm for it.

No thanks, I doubt many people want to live in an authoritarian police state. It is up to the guards to catch criminals not the rest of us.

Support Complete Libertarianism in Ireland?

Comments