Libertarian "free cities" in Honduras

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Another Libertarian thread?

I guess we will, in 10 years be reading about the unmitigated disaster this effort was as well.

Dr Galen

karma_ wrote: »

Another Libertarian thread?

I guess we will, in 10 years be reading about the unmitigated disaster this effort was as well.

If you don't like it then don't post in the threads.

If you are going to post, then make sure it's something of value, whichever side of the argument you are on.

Cheers

DrG

RichieC

Yet the biggest hurdle for the libertarian start-ups may be that the transparency commission, which will oversee the development regions, is unlikely to give them free rein. The “constitutional statute” for the development zones, which the Honduran national congress passed in August, does not leave much wiggle room in key areas, not least when it comes to democracy: ultimately their citizens will vote.

Not even pretending to want democracy anymore :rolleyes:

Denerick

Was reading about this the other day. Seems slightly hare brained - but if you've got a couple of billion to play around with, why not. I only wish they'd put their money to good use and tried to build an intergalactic space travelling ship that attempted to circumnavigate the universe by exploiting Einsteins theory of time dilation somehow... Rather than, you know, creating a glorified party cruise.

daithimacgroin

at least they're trying something new

Lockstep

Well this should be entertaining. It could be a real life version of Bioshock .

cavedave

There is an interesting podcast on the idea here 'Romer on Charter Cities'.

Part of me thinks it would be interesting to see what would happen if a charter was sold for the area around Knock airport. If you sold an unpopulated area (you could pay for the people there to leave, or stay if they wanted to) in Mayo with access to the sea and to an airport what would someone do with it?

The IFSC and the Gaeltachts show Ireland is ok with having small areas with odd rules applied to them. Why not some 'special development zones' near our smaller airports like Shannon and Knock not under the sovereignty of the Irish government?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Lockstep wrote: »

Well this should be entertaining. It could be a real life version of Bioshock .

That's what I thought! But more in relation to Sea-Steading. But without the splicers...or so we think.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

Rather than, you know, creating a glorified party cruise.

This thread is on the proposed 'free cities' in Honduras. I think you're referring to Sea-Steading.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And who would regulate them? Themselves?

In the type of society you crave, corruption would be endemic, wealth would continue to trickle upward, cost of goods and services would increase.

It's a nightmare scenario.

Valmont

karma_ wrote: »

In the type of society you crave, corruption would be endemic, wealth would continue to trickle upward, cost of goods and services would increase.

I'd be interested to hear how you think these things would happen if some financial services centres were to be located off-shore.

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What makes you think Cameron will fail to get protection for the City of London?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

whatstherush

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can't see how this will happen. Say for instance you have 'new' New York located off long island and every financial operation that currently takes place in New York now takes place there. So the US looses tax revenue and regulation oversight, but 90% of the trading involves some physical asset in the US. Why wouldn't the US just say you want to operate in our country, you have to trade in our exchanges under our rules.

I suppose basically what I'm asking where would the Financial Islands get their power from to dictate terms to countries.

cavedave

Imagine it this way. Libertarians think western governments are not great and so want to set up something better then them elsewhere. But most would agree that these governments, bad as they are are, better then the really bad bandit governments. The ones that just rob from their citizens and do not provide any of the institutions like rule of law that free people need.

So what would non libertarians here say if Somalia agreed to sell 100 square miles to Sweden to set up Sweden 2? Swedish laws and other institutions would be put in place. Obviously overnight saying that someone is living in Sweden 2 does not make them culturally Swedish. But to switch the question away from libertarianism.

What country do you think could for a version 2 of itself and where would they do it that would be of great benefit to the local country and its people?

Suryavarman

cavedave wrote: »

Imagine it this way. Libertarians think western governments are not great and so want to set up something better then them elsewhere. But most would agree that these governments, bad as they are are, better then the really bad bandit governments. The ones that just rob from their citizens and do not provide any of the institutions like rule of law that free people need.

So what would non libertarians here say if Somalia agreed to sell 100 square miles to Sweden to set up Sweden 2? Swedish laws and other institutions would be put in place. Obviously overnight saying that someone is living in Sweden 2 does not make them culturally Swedish. But to switch the question away from libertarianism.

What country do you think could for a version 2 of itself and where would they do it that would be of great benefit to the local country and its people?

It's not just about having the system in place though. There is also differences in income and culture to consider.

Many libertarians highlight Hong Kong and Singapore as examples of first world countries with free economies. On the other hand they have different cultures to western countries, different social policies and many people wouldn't be able to adjust to the concept of living in an apartment for their entire lives.

Let's take this example of these proposed economies in Honduras. I did some rough calculations the other day and Honduras would have to grow at a rate of 10% a year for 24 years to reach the same income level that Ireland has now. In that time frame Ireland would have increased per capita income to around €80,000 by growing at 3% per annum. So for most people moving to Honduras, the extra freedoms wouldn't make up for a huge loss in income. There is also the cultural differences and need to learn a new language.

Whereas if the UK of the US were to adopt a libertarian system it would be much easier to relocate to because of pretty comparable income levels and similar cultures. If we in Ireland decided to radically decentralise and allow counties to decide their own economic and social policies it could be a much better situation. Waterford could have a socialist system, Cork could be like Scandinavian nations, Limerick could have a libertarian system, Galway could become a fiscally responsible, socially liberal version of what we have now and maybe Dublin could continue the policies the country currently adopts.

So it's not just about enacting a set of laws and people will go there. They would need to have cultures and income levels that people find acceptable before they would move there.

cavedave

Suryavarman
Let's take this example of these proposed economies in Honduras. I did some rough calculations the other day and Honduras would have to grow at a rate of 10% a year for 24 years to reach the same income level that Ireland has now. In that time frame Ireland would have increased per capita income to around €80,000 by growing at 3% per annum. So for most people moving to Honduras, the extra freedoms wouldn't make up for a huge loss in income. There is also the cultural differences and need to learn a new language.

I think this calculation might have things slightly backwards though. The question isn't how long does Honduras have to grow really quickly at to be as good as Ireland it is how long before it is much better then areas near it. It does not have to get as good as Ireland it just has to get much better then nearby areas to be a huge success. It is the bottom billion who need to improve their livelihood most not the people living in Ireland.

Many libertarians highlight Hong Kong and Singapore as examples of first world countries with free economies. On the other hand they have different cultures to western countries, different social policies and many people wouldn't be able to adjust

This is key like I said i do not think just installing the Irish government and legal system in Somalia would bring the country up to our prosperity level overnight. But institutions are vitally important. North Korea is awful, South Korea quite nice. Haiti awful Dominican Republic quite nice. Hong Kong was OK, Mao's China not. There are loads of examples of very similar people with quite similar basic cultures where things we would find basic (rule of law, some freedom of enterprise etc) have made people much better off.

If you could move the institutions of a country to a third world nation? I say give Guantanimo to Canada . America would be better off. Cuba would be better off.

hoorsmelt

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What makes you think any business in its right mind would invest in an area with poor roads & infrastructure, low levels of education, and an aging population? They already get grants and tax breaks from the Údáras to set up in the Gaeltachtaí, and the EU has set aside plenty of structural funds for the West as part of the disadvantaged BMW region. There is no way such a pipe dream would work, to contend otherwise is pure ideology on your part. I pity the poor Hondurans who will have to live in these zones and don't get to choose what system their city will be governed by.

hoorsmelt

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

:rolleyes: FFS. The Labour Party were in government during the years when de-regulation of finance created the circumstances that lead to the current crisis, what makes you think they've changed? Miliband is a typical neo-liberal and New Labour has shown no signs of returning to its roots.

Suryavarman

cavedave wrote: »

I think this calculation might have things slightly backwards though. The question isn't how long does Honduras have to grow really quickly at to be as good as Ireland it is how long before it is much better then areas near it. It does not have to get as good as Ireland it just has to get much better then nearby areas to be a huge success. It is the bottom billion who need to improve their livelihood most not the people living in Ireland.

I agree with that fully, I was coming at it from the angle of whether a libertarian would suddenly move to a libertarian country. I am certain that if Honduras sets up these charter cities it will indeed start growing faster and will become a much better place to live than its neighbours or other third world countries.

This is key like I said i do not think just installing the Irish government and legal system in Somalia would bring the country up to our prosperity level overnight. But institutions are vitally important. North Korea is awful, South Korea quite nice. Haiti awful Dominican Republic quite nice. Hong Kong was OK, Mao's China not. There are loads of examples of very similar people with quite similar basic cultures where things we would find basic (rule of law, some freedom of enterprise etc) have made people much better off.

I agree that institutions are very important. Indeed the system something is based on is the most important thing. The difference between Hong Kong and China is the best example of this. 60 years ago Hong Kong was a third world rock with no resources apart from it's people and a harbour whereas China, despite being equally poor and the same culture, had massive amounts of resources. Then China became communist and Hong Kong freed up it's economy, now look were those countries are now. As for the two Koreas This picture says it all:

If you could move the institutions of a country to a third world nation? I say give Guantanimo to Canada . America would be better off. Cuba would be better off.

Indeed if that was done all three parties would benefit. If we gave Guantanomo to Switzerland it would be even better again. Also if the opposite was done and we turned Toronto into Havana it would be disastorous.

Fromthetrees

I can understand why poor countries might try out or adopt a new economic and social model in order to create more wealth. Anythings better than poverty right.
I can understand why some people in the US are looking for an alternative to the two party system. American foreign policy is demented and Ron Paul's one of the few people who rallies against interventionism, I get that, medical costs are outrageous in the US so I understand why people will look for other solutions that purport to bring costs down, the Patriot Act is seen by many as undermining the US constitution so seeing support for any politician or party who want it repealed is bound to get some supporters, this makes sense.
I can't understand how people in Ireland would advocate libertarianism, there's so many holes in the logic behind it that it actually beggars belief. Drugs are illegal for good and solid reasons, anyone who thinks all drugs should be legalised are either heavy drug users themselves or else don't fully understand the devastation that it causes. Anyone who thinks the nut job living across the way from me has a 'right' to own a gun clearly doesn't understand that many people are not stable enough to own a gun. Anyone who thinks alcohol should be sold 24/7 doesn't comprehend just how incapable many Irish people are of responsible drinking.
To me the dignity of the individual is more important than complete freedom, the right not be banned from a shop because of your skin colour far outweighs the freedom of the shop owner to ban a person for said reason.
I'll make one more point that illustrates that libertarianism has a massive logic deficit, the Moyross area of Limerick had an unemployment rate of 84% in the 1980s, if Ireland was to adopt libertarianism as policy this would have truly created a no go area, it can be safely assumed that the majority of people would not have been in a position to pay for a private police/security force, that would result in the police not going there meaning the power vacuum would literally be filled by gangsters, I can't see how it would be any different to the wild west, survival of the fittest, who was willing to use guns more. It is because of government intervention that unemployment in that area has been massively reduced, that the area is safer now than in the past, I for the life of me cannot see how an area like this could have gotten out of this rut without government intervention. In my opinion the state does have a role to play in society, the amount of control/power it posses should vary depending on what the issue is.
There is no such thing as absolute free will.

cavedave

Fromthetrees

Drugs are illegal for good and solid reasons, anyone who thinks all drugs should be legalised are either heavy drug users themselves or else don't fully understand the devastation that it causes. Anyone who thinks the nut job living across the way from me has a 'right' to own a gun clearly doesn't understand that many people are not stable enough to own a gun.

Well this is an argument about libertarianism in general rather then is it worth giving it a go in a small area of Honduras. Even those who dont believe in libertarianism may support tying it as a negative data point would aid their argument.

But to take your examples rather then the full libertarian solution how would you feel about a change at the margin? Something politics is much more likely to achieve. Do you think you should be able to buy a six pack if your do your weekly shopping at 11.55 on a Sunday morning? Do you think people should be locked up for cannabis? Does a cost of 25 euro a ear for a farmer to have a shotgun seem a bit high to you? After the first 30 years of owning one without being a nut job could we give him a yearly discount?

Suryavarman

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I can't understand how people in Ireland would advocate libertarianism, there's so many holes in the logic behind it that it actually beggars belief.

How about you point out some of the holes in the logic?

Drugs are illegal for good and solid reasons, anyone who thinks all drugs should be legalised are either heavy drug users themselves or else don't fully understand the devastation that it causes.

It's debatable whether telling people that they don't own their own bodies is a good reason for making drugs illegal. What is clear is that prohibition has been a complete failure that has made all social ills associated with drug use worse. The only people currently benefiting from drug prohibition are the drug dealers (well the ones that aren't murdered) that sell those drugs. Also did you ever think that people that advocate the legalisation of drugs understand the problems prohibition cause and want to bring an end to them.

Anyone who thinks the nut job living across the way from me has a 'right' to own a gun clearly doesn't understand that many people are not stable enough to own a gun.

Why shouldn't the 'nut' be allowed to have a gun?

Anyone who thinks alcohol should be sold 24/7 doesn't comprehend just how incapable many Irish people are of responsible drinking.

How does closing off licences at 10 o'clock, pubs at 12 and clubs at 2 make things better? Go into any town at 2 o'clock when everybody spills onto the streets at the same time and watch the fights start. If we allowed people to come out in their own time I'm sure there would be much less figthing and anti-social behaviour.

To me the dignity of the individual is more important than complete freedom, the right not be banned from a shop because of your skin colour far outweighs the freedom of the shop owner to ban a person for said reason.

Libertarians understand that if a society is to succeed it must allow people to have private property rights and to those rights must be respected. If people want to be racist idiots then allow them to be idiots.

I'll make one more point that illustrates that libertarianism has a massive logic deficit, the Moyross area of Limerick had an unemployment rate of 84% in the 1980s, if Ireland was to adopt libertarianism as policy this would have truly created a no go area, it can be safely assumed that the majority of people would not have been in a position to pay for a private police/security force, that would result in the police not going there meaning the power vacuum would literally be filled by gangsters, I can't see how it would be any different to the wild west, survival of the fittest, who was willing to use guns more. It is because of government intervention that unemployment in that area has been massively reduced, that the area is safer now than in the past, I for the life of me cannot see how an area like this could have gotten out of this rut without government intervention. In my opinion the state does have a role to play in society, the amount of control/power it posses should vary depending on what the issue is.
There is no such thing as absolute free will.

If Ireland had adopted libertarian policies maybe Moyross wouldn't have been so bad and Ireland mightn't have had double digit unemployment for over 15 years. How much of the crime in Moyross is caused by drug prohibition? How much is caused by getting people stuck in the government welfare trap? By keeping young people out of the workforce through minimum wages?

feicim

cavedave wrote: »

Do you think you should be able to buy a six pack if your do your weekly shopping at 11.55 on a Sunday morning?

Do you think that having a 10 hour window of opportunity to buy alcohol on a sunday is not enough? Its hardly oppression.

Some boundaries are needed some aren't. Once they are not oppressive or harmful then what is the problem?

Libertarianism seems to me to be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it.

It wants to reap all the economic rewards - while separating itself from the other processes that led to the production of the economic rewards, and as such it is parasitic and a poor model for a society.

Its a form of utopia albeit an economic one, and as such will inevitably succumb to the same fate as all other utopian projects - failure.

feicim

Suryavarman wrote: »

How about you point out some of the holes in the logic?

Now for some holes in yours...

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why shouldn't the 'nut' be allowed to have a gun?

So you think a combination of legalising drugs and guns is a good idea? You wacky libertarians.:)

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's debatable whether telling people that they don't own their own bodies is a good reason for making drugs illegal. What is clear is that prohibition has been a complete failure that has made all social ills associated with drug use worse. The only people currently benefiting from drug prohibition are the drug dealers (well the ones that aren't murdered) that sell those drugs. Also did you ever think that people that advocate the legalisation of drugs understand the problems prohibition cause and want to bring an end to them.

Unfortunately drug users don't just harm their own bodies... or minds. And legalising drugs is not going to solve the problems that drug addicts cause to others. If libertarianism wasn't all hung up about individual rights - it might see that individuals are interconnected and unpredictable.

Libertarians bang on about rights? What about responsibilities?

Suryavarman

feicim wrote: »

Do you think that having a 10 hour window of opportunity to buy alcohol on a sunday is not enough? Its hardly oppression.

Some boundaries are needed some aren't. Once they are not oppressive or harmful then what is the problem?

Why does it just have to be a 10 hour window? What benefit does that have?

Libertarianism seems to me to be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it.

It wants to reap all the economic rewards - while separating itself from the other processes that led to the production of the economic rewards, and as such it is parasitic and a poor model for a society.

Its a form of utopia albeit an economic one, and as such will inevitably succumb to the same fate as all other utopian projects - failure.

You either don't understand libertarianism or you don't know what utopia means. I know of no libertarian that believes libertarianism will create a utopia. We realise there are problems with our system but we also understand that Government interventions to right these wrongs will fail and produce more negative consequences.

feicim

Suryavarman wrote: »

I know of no libertarian that believes libertarianism will create a utopia.

The impression i'm getting is that this space in honduras is some kind of libertarian promised land.

Personally I'm glad this project/experiment is being carried out, because no doubt it will fall on its arse. Then you can all move on with your lives.

Suryavarman

feicim wrote: »

So you think a combination of legalising drugs and guns is a good idea? You wacky libertarians.:)

Whats wrong with it?

Unfortunately drug users don't just harm their own bodies... or minds. And legalising drugs is not going to solve the problems that drug addicts cause to others. If libertarianism wasn't all hung up about individual rights - it might see that individuals are interconnected and unpredictable.

Libertarians bang on about rights? What about responsibilities?

SOMETIMES drug users harm others. SOMETIMES sober people harm others. You seem to get the impression that making drugs illegal somehow reduces the harm caused by drugs. You're wrong. Sometimes drunk people harm others, sometimes smokers harm others. Do you advocate making tobacco and alcohol illegal?

The impression i'm getting is that this space in honduras is some kind of libertarian promised land.

Personally I'm glad this project/experiment is being carried out, because no doubt it will fall on its arse. Then you can all move on with your lives.

We'll have to wait and see how it works out then.

matthew8

feicim wrote: »

Unfortunately drug users don't just harm their own bodies... or minds. And legalising drugs is not going to solve the problems that drug addicts cause to others. If libertarianism wasn't all hung up about individual rights - it might see that individuals are interconnected and unpredictable.

Libertarians bang on about rights? What about responsibilities?

If we legalise drugs, the drug dealers will by and large go out of business because people would rather buy their drugs from a decent person who they can trust. This means that drug crime almost ceases to exist, and there is a lot of drug crime, and it has turned many inner cities into wastelands. So legalising drugs will stop the inner cities being turned into wastelands.

feicim

matthew8 wrote: »

If we legalise drugs, the drug dealers will by and large go out of business because people would rather buy their drugs from a decent person who they can trust. This means that drug crime almost ceases to exist, and there is a lot of drug crime, and it has turned many inner cities into wastelands. So legalising drugs will stop the inner cities being turned into wastelands.

jesus wept... are you saying a drug dealer with no overheads - no staff - no tax - would be put out of a business by a shop - lol

Q: what happened to the head shop on capel st that was taking money out of drug dealers pockets?

A: drug dealers burnt it down

matthew8

feicim wrote: »

jesus wept... are you saying a drug dealer with no overheads - no staff - no tax - would be put out of a business by a shop - lol

If they're not put out of business remove tax on drugs. I'd be very surprised if we had to do that.

If black market trade would just keep on dominating when drugs are legalised then I guess it's a mystery why people like to buy beer off anyone but black marketeers in Chicago.

Suryavarman

feicim wrote: »

jesus wept... are you saying a drug dealer with no overheads - no staff - no tax - would be put out of a business by a shop - lol

Speakeasies and gangsters were put out of business by legitimate business people in the US. The same will happen when we legalise other drugs.

Q: what happened to the head shop on capel st that was taking money out of drug dealers pockets?

A: drug dealers burnt it down

I'd imagine those drug dealers were caught and put in prison.

Fromthetrees

cavedave wrote: »

Well this is an argument about libertarianism in general rather then is it worth giving it a go in a small area of Honduras. Even those who dont believe in libertarianism may support tying it as a negative data point would aid their argument.

But to take your examples rather then the full libertarian solution how would you feel about a change at the margin? Something politics is much more likely to achieve. Do you think you should be able to buy a six pack if your do your weekly shopping at 11.55 on a Sunday morning? Do you think people should be locked up for cannabis? Does a cost of 25 euro a ear for a farmer to have a shotgun seem a bit high to you? After the first 30 years of owning one without being a nut job could we give him a yearly discount?

Well the thing is, I can agree in theory that our lives should have minimal interference from the government, but that's in theory.
Are you saying, to give an example, that when the greens were a minor party in the previous government that a libertarian party in a similar position might give us a lite version of the philosophy? If so, this could actually slightly improve the way things are run, but, in my opinion, much like the same as if the greens were in full control of the government, an ideological driven party in charge of the country I think would be disastrous.
My own personnel view on when drink in the off license should and shouldn't be served would be between 9am and 12am, that's just my view, I have a few reasons why. I don't think people should be locked up for cannabis possession unless they have a massive quantity of the stuff for sale. I'm anti drugs but I don't think criminalising someone who smokes a few joints at the weekend is a good system, I also think that complete legalisation would be a very dangerous social experiment that could cause irreparable damage to the whole country, when looking at the current system and the position put forward by libertarians I would pick the current system hands down. The 25 euro for the farmer, I don't know, maybe that's the cost to annually review him as a citizen responsible enough to carry a gun, if he still has a genuine need for it, that it's been used for said purpose, to investigate any complaints that may have been made over the use of his gun, I don't know, maybe that's just what it costs to administer the system.

Fromthetrees

Suryavarman;75988895]How about you point out some of the holes in the logic?

How do unemployed people live without an adequate social security net? How do people that are disabled live? How do people with mental health issues live? How can a single mother (an actual single mother) who lives on the minimum wage (or less than the minimum wage in a libertarian world) afford childcare? What happens in deprived areas (like Moyross) where people can't afford to pay for a private police force? Do they simply become lawless no go areas? What happens to people who can't afford private healthcare? Who looks after the drug addicts we already have? Who looks after drug addicts if the numbers increase when we legalise all drugs?

It's debatable whether telling people that they don't own their own bodies is a good reason for making drugs illegal. What is clear is that prohibition has been a complete failure that has made all social ills associated with drug use worse. The only people currently benefiting from drug prohibition are the drug dealers (well the ones that aren't murdered) that sell those drugs. Also did you ever think that people that advocate the legalisation of drugs understand the problems prohibition cause and want to bring an end to them.

Okay, I understand what your saying, but you must understand, drugs are really bad, they destroy lives and families, I much prefer a system that legislates against their devastating effects than a laissez faire system. Many people in deprived areas simply don't have the education to realise how dangerous drugs really are. Take this for example, on the 9th of May 2010, the Health Service Executive (HSE) issued an emergency warning about Whack, as in the preceding 10 days, 40 people attended emergency departments or general practitioners suffering side-effects from the drug. These were legal drugs at the time, if you want me to go looking for stats that proves since making this drug Whack illegal that less people have attended emergency departments or gps since it's prohibition I'll look, but I can guarantee you that there is less people effected.

Why shouldn't the 'nut' be allowed to have a gun?

Because I don't want nut jobs walking around with guns they have gotten legally.

How does closing off licences at 10 o'clock, pubs at 12 and clubs at 2 make things better? Go into any town at 2 o'clock when everybody spills onto the streets at the same time and watch the fights start. If we allowed people to come out in their own time I'm sure there would be much less figthing and anti-social behaviour.

I think that closing times of licensed premises should be staggered, having 24 hour drinking isn't the answer to fighting in town. On the flip side, do you think there would be a massive reduction in drink related incidences with 24 hour drinking?

Libertarians understand that if a society is to succeed it must allow people to have private property rights and to those rights must be respected. If people want to be racist idiots then allow them to be idiots.

So if my black friend gets stopped from entering a pub because of the colour of his skin and we kick up a fuss over it and the guards arrive, are we in the wrong in this situation? If so, that's ****ing madness.

If Ireland had adopted libertarian policies maybe Moyross wouldn't have been so bad and Ireland mightn't have had double digit unemployment for over 15 years. How much of the crime in Moyross is caused by drug prohibition? How much is caused by getting people stuck in the government welfare trap? By keeping young people out of the workforce through minimum wages?

I don't know, do you? Post some links if you can to show that libertarianism would have improved the situation there more than central government intervention.

Suryavarman

Fromthetrees wrote: »

How do unemployed people live without an adequate social security net? How do people that are disabled live? How do people with mental health issues live? How can a single mother (an actual single mother) who lives on the minimum wage (or less than the minimum wage in a libertarian world) afford childcare? What happens in deprived areas (like Moyross) where people can't afford to pay for a private police force? Do they simply become lawless no go areas? What happens to people who can't afford private healthcare? Who looks after the drug addicts we already have? Who looks after drug addicts if the numbers increase when we legalise all drugs?

Many of these problems could be overcome with private charity.

For the record I have never advocated privatising the police nor have most of the libertarians on this forum. Saying that I fail to see how a private police force could do much worse in Moyross than what we have now. If drugs were legalised most of the violent behaviour that occurs between the various gangs would disappear.

I'm sure that much of the antisocial behaviour among teenagers is caused by people being bored because they don't have jobs. If for instance I own a shop in Limerick and I am hiring somebody at the minimum wage and I have a choice between someone from Moyross and somebody from a nicer area of Limerick there isn't a hope in hell I'm hiring the person from Moyross. Whereas if the Moyross person could work for less than the other person then the person from Moyross has a chance.

Okay, I understand what your saying, but you must understand, drugs are really bad, they destroy lives and families, I much prefer a system that legislates against their devastating effects than a laissez faire system. Many people in deprived areas simply don't have the education to realise how dangerous drugs really are. Take this for example, on the 9th of May 2010, the Health Service Executive (HSE) issued an emergency warning about Whack, as in the preceding 10 days, 40 people attended emergency departments or general practitioners suffering side-effects from the drug. These were legal drugs at the time, if you want me to go looking for stats that proves since making this drug Whack illegal that less people have attended emergency departments or gps since it's prohibition I'll look, but I can guarantee you that there is less people effected.

The Government has tried prohibition with these drugs and it hasn't worked. The Government has tried to stop the drinking problem and it hasn't worked. The Government has constantly proved itself to be incompetent at minimising these problems. It's about time that people took some responsibility for their actions and stop blaming it on everyone else because they didn't know what they were doing.

First of all, what the hell is Whack? Secondly maybe the fall in A&E visits was because people saw the harm of these drugs.

Because I don't want nut jobs walking around with guns they have gotten legally.

If they don't harm anyone else I see no problem with them having guns.

I think that closing times of licensed premises should be staggered, having 24 hour drinking isn't the answer to fighting in town. On the flip side, do you think there would be a massive reduction in drink related incidences with 24 hour drinking?

I believe there would be a large reduction in the number of fights involving drunk people. Some people will always be plonkers with drink in them and there will still be people that do stupid things.

If drink was cheaper in night clubs we could also less drink related crime. I know myself from talking to people that as the price of drink in night clubs fell they ended up drinking less because they no longer had to sneak in a nagin as they could afford the drink in nightclubs.

So if my black friend gets stopped from entering a pub because of the colour of his skin and we kick up a fuss over it and the guards arrive, are we in the wrong in this situation? If so, that's ****ing madness.

If you're refused entry go to another pub. Then the bar owner is out of money. In a free market it costs money to be a racist.

I don't know, do you? Post some links if you can to show that libertarianism would have improved the situation there more than central government intervention.

I cannot do this as I don't have links to an alternate universe.

Fromthetrees

Suryavarman wrote: »

Many of these problems could be overcome with private charity.

Really? You do know that as things stand today charities like SVP are short of funds. Could you provide any information that shows that lowering taxes drastically increase peoples amount of charitable donation because without an enormous rise in charitable donations there will not be enough money to keep large numbers of our population out of poverty and depredation.

For the record I have never advocated privatising the police nor have most of the libertarians on this forum. Saying that I fail to see how a private police force could do much worse in Moyross than what we have now. If drugs were legalised most of the violent behaviour that occurs between the various gangs would disappear.

If all drugs were legalised it would cause more problems than it would solve, in fact, I believe that more government intervention is needed, more garda resources should be allocated, harsher sentences for people selling heroin, more education for people. Legalising all drugs is not a good idea, it would be the most dangerous social experiment that Ireland if not the world has ever seen.

I'm sure that much of the antisocial behaviour among teenagers is caused by people being bored because they don't have jobs. If for instance I own a shop in Limerick and I am hiring somebody at the minimum wage and I have a choice between someone from Moyross and somebody from a nicer area of Limerick there isn't a hope in hell I'm hiring the person from Moyross. Whereas if the Moyross person could work for less than the other person then the person from Moyross has a chance

.

Fair enough but young people who engage in antisocial behaviour are not exactly the best type of people you would employ or trust. If I owned a shop in Limerick I would rather one trustworthy and dependable employee than two for the same cost who I didn't.

The Government has tried prohibition with these drugs and it hasn't worked. The Government has tried to stop the drinking problem and it hasn't worked. The Government has constantly proved itself to be incompetent at minimising these problems. It's about time that people took some responsibility for their actions and stop blaming it on everyone else because they didn't know what they were doing

.

I disagree with you saying that prohibition simply hasn't worked, I agree it hasn't solved the problem but I think it is minimising the the problem, legalisation would solve the problem of people taking drugs how? I agree that Ireland has a serious drink problem and I think that lies with a cultural thing, how would libertarianism solve that?
Look, I'll give a really simple example, the majority of underage people in Ireland have drank, why, because it's legal and freely available, if you make all drugs legal and freely available what in the name of god is going stop loads of idiot children in thier early teens from giving these insanely addictive drugs 'a go', 'for the craic', 'for the laugh' or 'cause their buds are doing it', to believe otherwise is extremely naive.

First of all, what the hell is Whack? Secondly maybe the fall in A&E visits was because people saw the harm of these drugs.

Maybe it was, or maybe it was because these drugs were harder to obtain because of them becoming illegal. http://hrb.newsweaver.ie/drugnet/12iz8suzbyp

If they don't harm anyone else I see no problem with them having guns.

Guns are designed to kill people, giving nut jobs easy access to guns is a recipe for disaster.

I believe there would be a large reduction in the number of fights involving drunk people. Some people will always be plonkers with drink in them and there will still be people that do stupid things.

Okay, like I said, staggering closing times of pubs and clubs will reduce everyone spilling out into town at the same time with nowhere to go. Will 24 hour drinking reduce violence, I don't think so.

If drink was cheaper in night clubs we could also less drink related crime. I know myself from talking to people that as the price of drink in night clubs fell they ended up drinking less because they no longer had to sneak in a nagin as they could afford the drink in nightclubs.

I agree.

If you're refused entry go to another pub. Then the bar owner is out of money. In a free market it costs money to be a racist.

I don't agree that racists should be given protection, they should be treated like the ****s that they are, if 'freedom' means my black bud can't get into nightclubs, I don't want it.

I cannot do this as I don't have links to an alternate universe.

To me, from what I've read and heard, libertarianism belongs to an alternate universe.

cavedave

feicim

Do you think that having a 10 hour window of opportunity to buy alcohol on a sunday is not enough? Its hardly oppression.

Fromthetrees

Well the thing is, I can agree in theory that our lives should have minimal interference from the government, but that's in theory.

My own personnel view on when drink in the off license should and shouldn't be served would be between 9am and 12am, that's just my view, I have a few reasons why.

Currently in Ireland off-licences can open from 12.30-10pm on a Sunday so you both think that licencing laws should be more libertarian then they currently are. :cool:

p

As so often with enthusiasts, divisions within the cause run deep. The two firms hail from different parts of the libertarian spectrum. Mr Friedman is an outspoken critic of democracy. It is “ill-suited for a libertarian state”, he wrote in an essay in 2009—because it is “rigged against libertarians” (they would always lose) and inefficient. Rather than giving its citizens a voice, he argues, they should be free to exit; cities should compete for them by offering the best services.

This quote from the original article is interesting. It seems based on an assumption that you can apply the same logic as choosing which brand to buy, as which city to live it. What's that term again, the "elasticity of demand" - that would be very very low for 'city choice' - and also, it implies that for a city to be successful it would continue to grow, but often the best thing for a city's own population is for it to remain relatively stable. Extreme growth usually causes lots of problems to citizens that doesn't necessarily result in better quality of life.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Many of these problems could be overcome with private charity.

I don't buy this libertarian argument. They don't now, they never have before. You'd just end up with a Dickens-esque state with ghettos, workhouses and slums.

At least be honest about it, no state social safety net, means people will fall through it.

Personally, I feel that extreme side of libertarianism is the result of people not willing or able to look at the complexities of life. They want a nice, simple, pure model that will naturally handle all the ills of the world, while ignoring the ugly details that mean it isn't so straight-forward.

Hayte

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You've got it the wrong way around. The UK financial services sector doesn't need protection from the EU. The EU needs protection from UK financial services predators like Jonny Cameron and Fred "The Shred" Goodwin. I note that Cameron agreed to be banned from the City of London in exchange for the FSA dropping disciplinary action. And this is the FSA we are talking about here - the UK's milquetoast equivalent of the SEC, which gives you an idea of how light touch and ineffectual they are.

Dr Galen

Thread is going OT lads and lasses.

While I'm aware that such an OP will provoke a range of debate, going off into tangents about specific Irish laws, or discussing the "City of London" and the FSA are veering too far down a sidetrack.

Please also be advised that this is the Political Theory sub-forum, so posts have to based around that way of thinking. It is not a forum for the general discussion of political issues.

Cheers

DrG

cavedave

I take it my plan to give Carnsore Point to the French to build a nuclear power plant and abortion clinic wouldn't win me many votes?

Other than libertarian chartered cities what other experiments in government rules would people like to see run in a small area? Direct democracy, futarchy, technocracy and many other forms of government have never been really tried.

Belfast

Libertarian "free cities" are a nice idea.
It depends on how Libertarian there are.
with different laws in side the cities and out side it sound like there could be a smuggling problem.
I do not think any country will in the long run allow a truly libertarian cities on their land.
Not sure sure how well a Libertarian could survive surrounded by a non Libertarian country.

Libertarian island sounds like a better idea.

Belfast

Unofficial translation of the constitutional statute that defines the governance structure for the REDs: Statute
http://coredhn.squarespace.com/storage/documents/Constitutional%20Statute%20RED%20Unofficial%20Translation.pdf

Unofficial translation of the constitutional amendment that gives the Honduran government the power to create "Regionales Especiales de Desarrollo" (REDs), or Special Development
http://coredhn.squarespace.com/storage/documents/Constitutional%20Amendement%20REDs%20Unofficial%20Translation.pdf

Belfast

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Great idea. We need to come up with a better idea than one-person, one-vote democracy.
one-person, one-vote democracy is an idea that has run it course.
Democracy is only a system of choosing a government, it does not stop a government taking away your liberty.

Democracies tend to be taken over by vested interest groups.

Sand

@Belfast

with different laws in side the cities and out side it sound like there could be a smuggling problem.

I dont think libertarians can have smuggling problems.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

people smuggling?

but i'd imagine he meant for honduras..

Belfast

Smuggling problem would be for the Hondurans.
Libertarian cities would allow things not allowed outside them.

krd

Suryavarman wrote: »

Many libertarians highlight Hong Kong and Singapore as examples of first world countries with free economies.

You know. They're free economies in the sense that those with access to capital (cronies, friends and relatives of those in power etc) can do what they want. Other agents in the economy have their hands tied behind their backs.

The Singapore government are quite authoritarian. They also own about 90% of the property in the country. And they don't like letting foreigners purchase property there. Companies can go there and be relatively "free" - but it's a rigged system that allows local potentates to collect rents - they don't even need to be corrupt, since they have everything in the bag already. This is the same in every country - in the countries of North Africa is was more blatant...you'd find yourself always having to deal with a niece, nephew, son or daughter of someone politically powerful.

On the other hand they have different cultures to western countries, different social policies and many people wouldn't be able to adjust to the concept of living in an apartment for their entire lives.

Yes, a life in a tiny little apartment. Much like the tiny little apartments most people in the Soviet Union were forced to live in.

The standard of living for the average citizen of Singapore is actually quite low. They work long hours, for low pay, and then return to their tiny apartments. Wealthy people who go there think it's a paradise - which it is, for wealthy people.

Ireland is already a pretty libertarian country. Ernst & Young in their globalisation report now rank Ireland ahead of Singapore, for economic "liberalisation". The ranking is now, Hong Kong 1. Ireland 2. Singapore 3.

http://www.ey.com/IE/en/Newsroom/News-releases/Press-release-2011---Ireland-overtakes-Singapore-to-become-the-worlds-second-most-globalised-nation

Honduras is an underdeveloped economy, because for a very long time it was effectively libertarian. There was very little law - and not much to enforce it. The UK and the US are highly developed because they paid for the same social structures the libertarians would like to see abolished.


Libertarians are ultimately authoritarian extremists. They believe authority should be derived through money alone. That everyone should be free to do as they please, as long as they have money. And if you don't have money in a libertarian system, you're only free to do as you're told. And ultimately that's what they want, the power to force people to do whatever they want. They wouldn't shove you into a gas chamber (at least they say they wouldn't) but they would kick you out into a field and let you starve to death.

Libertarians should really call themselves something else. Like capitalist authoritarians.