Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How would Libertarianism work in an Irish context?
Options
Comments
-
For every bit you quoted, you managed to give a completely out of context answer that doesn't address the quoted problem?0
-
The quoted problems you refer to are not real problems. People who believe they are real problems need to address their victim mentality. It is not healthy to constantly see yourself as a victim. True disadvantage is a state of mind. It is the notion that you need handouts or subsidies or equality to succeed. Poverty can be a wonderful advantage if it helps to motivate children to improve their lot. The challenge for adults is to instill confidence and a can do attitude in the children. The worst thing you can do to a child is to tell her that she has entitlements or rights. It is much better to tell kids that they can achieve anything they want through hard work. How can you impart this wisdom to your child if you do not possess it yourself. You must deal with your victim mentality.KyussBishop wrote: »For every bit you quoted, you managed to give a completely out of context answer that doesn't address the quoted problem?0 -
Ah, okey.0
-
Hawkeye123 wrote: »Poverty can be a wonderful advantage if it helps to motivate children to improve their lot.
That's a surprising statement from someone who has recently spent time in a country like Rwanda. I don't think that, or any other kind of poverty is the type of life that anyone would wish on a child.Hawkeye123 wrote: »The challenge for adults is to instill confidence and a can do attitude in the children. The worst thing you can do to a child is to tell her that she has entitlements or rights. It is much better to tell kids that they can achieve anything they want through hard work.
The idea that a can-do attitude is all anyone needs to succeed is alarmingly naive. There are real obstacles to success other than simple lack of belief, and there is absolutely no reason that anyone should be any more subject to those obstacles than anyone else - which is why we have rights.
By all means encourage kids to believe in the virtues of hard work and self-belief, but denying that they have rights and entitlements is a terrible idea. Not only does it expose them to being denied those rights, and so being unjustly disadvantaged, it also means that they do not have a real appreciation of the rights of others - the kind of appreciation which is pretty fundamental when it comes to functioning in a society
Believing that obstacles to success exist in the world, and believing that you yourself are a victim of them are two very different things.Hawkeye123 wrote: »People who believe they are real problems need to address their victim mentality0 -
Hawkeye123 wrote: »It is not beyond the wit of man to devise a purely profit orientated capitalist solution to these questions. As a capitalist, I begin by ruling out the notion of state subvention from the outset. That done - we are now free to consider the matter at hand.
To begin, people in rural areas subsidize urban services via their taxes while not benefiting from those urban services. Therefore, they should be taxed less. The money they save in taxes could then be used to pay the small, rural privately run school with 2 teachers.
This then raises a new question. How are the urban services to be funded without the usual subsidies from rural Ireland. Again the solution is privatization. Only the profit making services need be retained, whilst the wasteful self serving "services" can be dispensed with.
Can you provide any evidence that urban services are subsidised by rural taxpayers? I'm fairly sure it's rather the opposite with the Greater Dublin Area and Cork subsidizing pretty much every other county - from roads to electricity connections to school and hospitals, rural dwellers receive services in excess of what tax is generated in rural areas.0 -
Advertisement
-
Can you provide any evidence that urban services are subsidised by rural taxpayers? I'm fairly sure it's rather the opposite with the Greater Dublin Area and Cork subsidizing pretty much every other county - from roads to electricity connections to school and hospitals, rural dwellers receive services in excess of what tax is generated in rural areas.
That's a misconception. Money is transferred from Dublin to say Cavan, but that would be true in a insurance system if there were 100 people in Dublin and 10 in Cavan and people in both counties claimed at 10 percent of the population. If you pay in, you take out regardless of the population density around you.
To look at who benefits from tax, look at what services are received for someone on similar wages. Dubliers get more, per capita, from the national pot.0 -
It is precisely because I visited a primary school in Rwanda that I can say that poverty motivates children to improve their circumstances.That's a surprising statement from someone who has recently spent time in a country like Rwanda. I don't think that, or any other kind of poverty is the type of life that anyone would wish on a child.
We`ll agree to disagree on this. I fundamentally believe that true disadvantage is determined by the values and attitudes that a child is exposed to. I also believe that poverty combined with a positive mental attitude is the best possible formula for success. One of the problems with rights and entitlements is that they become the focus whereas without them the focus is set on success. This applies to adults as well as children. There are those in neighborhoods around the country who will not pick up rubbish on the road outside their house because if they do the council will not bother to clean the area. Rights and entitlements may seem beneficial but in many cases they are corrosive. The only rights and entitlements that are worth anything are those we personally earn.The idea that a can-do attitude is all anyone needs to succeed is alarmingly naive. There are real obstacles to success other than simple lack of belief, and there is absolutely no reason that anyone should be any more subject to those obstacles than anyone else - which is why we have rights.0 -
-
Hawkeye123 wrote: »We`ll agree to disagree on this. I fundamentally believe that true disadvantage is determined by the values and attitudes that a child is exposed to. I also believe that poverty combined with a positive mental attitude is the best possible formula for success.
Do you honestly believe that a child in that school in Rwanda who has a "positive mental attitude" (whatever that means) is in a better position to succeed than a child born to a wealthy family in Ireland or the UK or the US, who has the exact same same positive outlook?
If so, presuming that you yourself (a) would want your children to succeed and (b) would instill the correct "positive attitude", would you chose to bring up a family in poverty in Rwanda rather than in relative affluence in Ireland or the US or UK?Hawkeye123 wrote: »One of the problems with rights and entitlements is that they become the focus whereas without them the focus is set on success.
The focus is always on success. There are obstacles to success and rights are what ensure that no one is any more subject to those obstacles that anyone else. This applies to adults as well as children.Hawkeye123 wrote: »There are those in neighborhoods around the country who will not pick up rubbish on the road outside their house because if they do the council will not bother to clean the area. Rights and entitlements may seem beneficial but in many cases they are corrosive.
This is a misleading and ineffective example. A better example of a right is the right to a fair wage, or the right to not be discriminated against in the workplace, or the right to vote, or the right to a minimum acceptable standard of living.Hawkeye123 wrote: »The only rights and entitlements that are worth anything are those we personally earn.
If that is the case then where does anyone start from? From what basis do you develop your ability to know, and fight for your rights? From the moment you are born you are protected by the right to be cared for or raised in conditions suitable for a child. I don't think a newborn baby is capable of personally earning that right. Not everyone is in a position to fight for and earn their rights, and it is a measure of the worth of our society how we protect those people.0 -
You are not comparing like with like. Poverty is a major motivator. Therefore children who grow up in poverty are generally speaking more motivated than their wealthy counterparts - when exposed to the same positive influences. If you insist on selecting children of different backgrounds but of the same mental attitude - then you are artificially nullifying the motivating effect of poverty - hardly a realistic comparison.Do you honestly believe that a child in that school in Rwanda who has a "positive mental attitude" (whatever that means) is in a better position to succeed than a child born to a wealthy family in Ireland or the UK or the US, who has the exact same same positive outlook?
I suggest you look at the scenes of drunkenness and debauchery witnessed in the Phoenix Park during the week. For all the wealth in this country, for all the rights and entitlements people have - this is the result.
Universal rights and entitlements are an imposition on all free thinking hardworking individuals. Take national insurance for instance. Given a choice, I would not pay it. Given a choice, I would put that money aside myself so I could afford private healthcare if I ever needed it. Unfortunately I must pay national insurance - it is an imposed right I`d be better off without.
Rights must be earned. How is the minimum wage fair when it robs me of the opportunity of competing for employment by offering to work for less pay. Why should you have the right to a minimum standard of living? If you decide to sit back, put your feet up and wait to be served hand and foot - you would eventually die if someone did not help. The question though, is why should they help you when there a far more deserving people who are willing to make the effort to help themselves.This is a misleading and ineffective example. A better example of a right is the right to a fair wage, or the right to a minimum acceptable standard of living.
True disadvantage comes from being indoctrinated with the belief that everything should be handed to you on a silver platter. True advantage therefore comes not from rights or entitlements but from exposure to positive influences to instill a positive mental attitude. The agenda behind rights and entitlements is very often to impose equality. It is this imposition which undermines the adversity people need. Without challenge, people are degraded in every way. They lack motivation and ultimately give up on themselves and life in general. Humanity survived perfectly well long before governments began to impose rights.If that is the case then where does anyone start from? From what basis do you develop your ability to know, and fight for your rights? From the moment you are born you are protected by the right to be cared for or raised in conditions suitable for a child. I don't think a newborn baby is capable of personally earning that right. Not everyone is in a position to fight for and earn their rights, and it is a measure of the worth of our society how we protect those people.0 -
Advertisement
-
This libertarianism is nothing but an ideology of selfishness, greed and rampant individualism. The world would fall apart in a week if it were implemented.0
-
Counterpoint: the current system as well as socialist(or esque) systems are built on an ideology of selfishness, greed and rampant individualism for those in charge; somehow convincing the middle and lower class workers that they are all equal.This libertarianism is nothing but an ideology of selfishness, greed and rampant individualism. The world would fall apart in a week if it were implemented.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »Counterpoint: the current system as well as socialist(or esque) systems are built on an ideology of selfishness, greed and rampant individualism for those in charge; somehow convincing the middle and lower class workers that they are all equal.
Thats just throwing words together. Selfishness by whom? Greed by whom? Individualism? Wha?
And the middle and lower class workers are pretty much equal compared to the rich.0 -
Why does socialism get so lumped together like that? The previous century has shown how attempts to put together 'pure' forms of socialism inevitably lead to corruption and oppressive centralization of power, but similar things can be said about the nature of 'pure' capitalism as well.FreudianSlippers wrote: »Counterpoint: the current system as well as socialist(or esque) systems are built on an ideology of selfishness, greed and rampant individualism for those in charge; somehow convincing the middle and lower class workers that they are all equal.
Generalizing about socialism is as inaccurate as similar generalizations about capitalism; it's something I pointed out in a different thread on US politics recently, that if one policy or viewpoint can be associated with socialism, it often gets attacked by generalization, associating the label 'socialism' and thus all of socialisms failed policies along with it, to knock down that one viewpoint.
There are a pretty wide range of viewpoints and individual policies (that can stand on their own merit, or fall on their own demerits) between socialism and capitalism, and a lot of consensus on politics views a mix of the two as being the most beneficial way forward for government, business and society.
Libertarian principals (in their original form, not the current US version) mixed with socialism, look to present a lot of interesting ways forward; the current US form of Libertarianism looks mainly like it would just reorient power from government into finance (I could say 'and business' as well, except finance will be the focal point of that too).0 -
If one can make such a clumping of libertarianism then why not of socialism.
Union heads make more money than most people in private enterprise heading the companies who actually employ the people they purportedly represent.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »If one can make such a clumping of libertarianism then why not of socialism.
Union heads make more money than most people in private enterprise heading the companies who actually employ the people they purportedly represent.
No they don't. CEO salaries run into the millions. There are few union bosses around in the private sector anyway, and what they earn is for them and their union members to agree on, the salaries can be curtailed democratically. Full disclosure: I have never joined a union.
Look, if "libertarians" are calling the opposition "individualists" and "greedy" its time to end the thread. Libertarians should support greed and individualism, and not use these terms as attacks on the opposition.
I didn't learn much from this thread. A lot of answers went unanswered. There was a lot of criticism of the present system. I still dont see how any of it would actually work.0 -
What clumping of Libertarian policies are there though? I don't self-identify as particularly socialist, but there are a fair number of posters on the forum who self-identify as Libertarian.FreudianSlippers wrote: »If one can make such a clumping of libertarianism then why not of socialism.
Union heads make more money than most people in private enterprise heading the companies who actually employ the people they purportedly represent.
Libertarian, in the context of this board, usually means US-centric Libertarianism centered around Austrian economics, with policies in favour of reduction of taxation, reduction of public services (with increased private services to account for that), and various ranges of opposition towards government regulation in many areas.
I don't assume every Libertarian poster is in favour of a completely privatized banking system, or a gold standard, or a completely privatized education system, absolute property rights etc. (neither do I associate those policies with general support of Libertarianism, except where that is self-identified); I recognize the variety in opinion there.
What is rare though, on discussions in this forum, is discussion of 'Lite' Libertarian policies; what I mean by that, is that it is rare for posters to point out their own personal limits on what Libertarian policies they recommend.
It is not often you get acknowledgment of the beneficial purpose of government regulation in some areas, or how privatization is damaging in some respects compared to public etc..
I don't know if Austro-Libertarianism leaves a lot of room for any 'Lite' version of its policies either, as much of the text I have read on Austrian economics is very heavily anti-government all-round (and the core principals behind it all are also extremely restrictive in that regard), without a huge amount of room for concession.0 -
It's no more or less a throwing of words together than the post I replied to.Duggys Housemate wrote: »Thats just throwing words together. Selfishness by whom? Greed by whom? Individualism? Wha?
Then why are all measures in this country aimed at damaging the middle class and preserving the lower class. The only aim of our current government and left policies in general is to ensure there is no middle class. The government and union bosses are upper class and everyone else is lower class.And the middle and lower class workers are pretty much equal compared to the rich.KyussBishop wrote: »What clumping of Libertarian policies are there though? I don't self-identify as particularly socialist, but there are a fair number of posters on the forum who self-identify as Libertarian.
Libertarian, in the context of this board, usually means US-centric Libertarianism centered around Austrian economics, with policies in favour of reduction of taxation, reduction of public services (with increased private services to account for that), and various ranges of opposition towards government regulation in many areas.
I don't assume every Libertarian poster is in favour of a completely privatized banking system, or a gold standard, or a completely privatized education system, absolute property rights etc. (neither do I associate those policies with general support of Libertarianism, except where that is self-identified); I recognize the variety in opinion there.
What is rare though, on discussions in this forum, is discussion of 'Lite' Libertarian policies; what I mean by that, is that it is rare for posters to point out their own personal limits on what Libertarian policies they recommend.
It is not often you get acknowledgment of the beneficial purpose of government regulation in some areas, or how privatization is damaging in some respects compared to public etc..
I don't know if Austro-Libertarianism leaves a lot of room for any 'Lite' version of its policies either, as much of the text I have read on Austrian economics is very heavily anti-government all-round (and the core principals behind it all are also extremely restrictive in that regard), without a huge amount of room for concession.
Because it's unfair to ask such an onerous question to people (many of whom are posting on their phones as I was in the last three posts in this thread) to go through hundreds of thousands of pieces of legislation and government policy to say what they agree with and what they don't. It would be the same if I asked someone who was a leftist to do the same.
I have stated many times in multiple threads what I consider libertarian-"lite"; people just choose to ignore it I guess.
In a nutshell:- Remove all religious legislation and reference from the Constitution;
- Do not allow the government to own or run any companies;
- Privatise education, health and infrastructure;
- The government runs the military, police and civil defence;
- Scrap the current social protection system and implement a German style system;
- Maintain European standards for fisheries quotas, livestock standards and other farming policies;
- End farming subsidies;
- Legalise and tax "soft" drugs such as Marijuana (Government will regulate this and allow certain farmers to grow under strict conditions. Dispensaries will operate in much the same way as chemists do presently);
- Government will regulate a purely private banking sector and refuse to interfere with failing banks;
That's all I could really think of off the top of my head, but there are thousands more. I don't see how public ownership and control of anything but the military and police (maybe not even the police?) helps in any way. If I was presented with a rational opinion on why certain services should be public then I'd have to consider them.0 -
Libertarians should support high wage packets for public sector union bosses. Really Duggy?Duggys Housemate wrote: »Libertarians should support greed and individualism, and not use these terms as attacks on the opposition.0 -
I don't ask people to lay out each and every policy they support, what I was talking about is the often inability of some posters to point out where they place the limits of their views (during part of a debate, when facing problems with their proposed policies) and inability to acknowledge potential problems with their own policies (again, as part of debate, when facing problems presented).FreudianSlippers wrote:Because it's unfair to ask such an onerous question to people (many of whom are posting on their phones as I was in the last three posts in this thread) to go through hundreds of thousands of pieces of legislation and government policy to say what they agree with and what they don't. It would be the same if I asked someone who was a leftist to do the same.
That's not directly applied at you, as I don't remember when I last engaged you in debate here; it's what I frequently encounter in Libertarian debates here in general.
With regards to your take on Libertarianism:
The social side of your presented views are mostly uncontroversial (as goes with most of Libertarianism), whereas the anti-government privatization (including of public sector) and anti-government running of any business arguments, are still pretty wide ranging, and are some of the policies that gather significant criticism.
With education being a significant point of debate in this thread, all-private schooling has some big enough unresolved problems in this thread, which I outlined here.
Not completely clear what the banking/economic policies are, i.e. if getting rid of central bank and such, or if there are more wide ranging changes.
There isn't the opposition to basic welfare or necessary regulation I don't think, which does make it somewhat more 'lite', but the public/private policies counteract that somewhat.
On the topic of unions:
What would Libertarian policies actually do about unions?
Assuming people have a right to gather and form a group, and collectively agree to protest/strike, there doesn't seem a huge amount you can do to stop it.
If you allow companies to discriminate based on membership of a union, I don't see how you can't also allow them to discriminate based on religion, or race, or anything really.
Also (just as a starting point, this is usually a tough one to get agreement on) do people agree that companies sometimes exploit their workers?0 -
Advertisement
-
Duggys Housemate wrote: »That's a misconception. Money is transferred from Dublin to say Cavan, but that would be true in a insurance system if there were 100 people in Dublin and 10 in Cavan and people in both counties claimed at 10 percent of the population. If you pay in, you take out regardless of the population density around you.
To look at who benefits from tax, look at what services are received for someone on similar wages. Dubliers get more, per capita, from the national pot.
All that would show is how inefficient it is to provide services in rural areas currently.
For example, someone who earns 30k and pays tax in the GDA gets X level of services but someone who earns 30k and pays tax in a non-GDA county AND gets hundreds or thousands of euro in fiscal transfers (depending on county) gets less than X services.
Dubliners don't receive from the national pot, what with Dublin generating €7.8b in taxes and only receiving back €5.4b in 2007 (or put another way, transferring more than €2000 per person out of the city/county to the national pot).Hawkeye123 wrote: »Certainly.
Fact: Rural taxpayers are taxpayers. (Sorry if I`m going too fast)
Fact: Dublin bus is subsidized by the taxpayer.
Therefore, urban services are subsidized by rural taxpayers. Q.E.D.
Only 8 counties generate a surplus to subsidise anyone and that drops to 4 if you include the cost of CAP - all 4 are GDA counties.
Dublin Bus may be subsidised by the taxpayer but it's really subsidised by the people of Dublin, Kildare, Wicklow and Meath who then go on to subsidise Bus Eireann for the rest of the country.0 -
Wrong on all counts cossax. Most counties receive next to nothing back from the collector general. All the money goes to prop up the pale and the greedy people who live in and around it. And its not just the top paid jobs that the Dubs keep for themselves, it is all the quangos, the Bertie Bowls, the infrastructure spending. Do you seriously think the 4 counties you mention could support themselves without subvention from the rest of the country? If so, I respectfully suggest you seek medication for your delusions.Only 8 counties generate a surplus to subsidise anyone and that drops to 4 if you include the cost of CAP - all 4 are GDA counties.
Dublin Bus may be subsidised by the taxpayer but it's really subsidised by the people of Dublin, Kildare, Wicklow and Meath who then go on to subsidise Bus Eireann for the rest of the country.0 -
I'm afraid you're mistaken, here's the stats. Those 4 counties are the sole net contributers per capita head.Hawkeye123 wrote: »Wrong on all counts cossax. Most counties receive next to nothing back from the collector general. All the money goes to prop up the pale and the greedy people who live in and around it. And its not just the top paid jobs that the Dubs keep for themselves, it is all the quangos, the Bertie Bowls, the infrastructure spending. Do you seriously think the 4 counties you mention could support themselves without subvention from the rest of the country? If so, I respectfully suggest you seek medication for your delusions.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »It's no more or less a throwing of words together than the post I replied to.
Then why are all measures in this country aimed at damaging the middle class and preserving the lower class. The only aim of our current government and left policies in general is to ensure there is no middle class. The government and union bosses are upper class and everyone else is lower class.
Because it's unfair to ask such an onerous question to people (many of whom are posting on their phones as I was in the last three posts in this thread) to go through hundreds of thousands of pieces of legislation and government policy to say what they agree with and what they don't. It would be the same if I asked someone who was a leftist to do the same.
I have stated many times in multiple threads what I consider libertarian-"lite"; people just choose to ignore it I guess.
In a nutshell:- Remove all religious legislation and reference from the Constitution;
- Do not allow the government to own or run any companies;
- Privatise education, health and infrastructure;
- The government runs the military, police and civil defence;
- Scrap the current social protection system and implement a German style system;
- Maintain European standards for fisheries quotas, livestock standards and other farming policies;
- End farming subsidies;
- Legalise and tax "soft" drugs such as Marijuana (Government will regulate this and allow certain farmers to grow under strict conditions. Dispensaries will operate in much the same way as chemists do presently);
- Government will regulate a purely private banking sector and refuse to interfere with failing banks;
Privatise health, education and infrastructure? Lunatic stuff. Within a decade Ireland would be ignorant, have the lowest life expectancy in europe and be without a single train or rural road. Libertarians are dangerous people.0 -
Do you have any evidence to support this, or are you just throwing out random accusations again?Privatise health, education and infrastructure? Lunatic stuff. Within a decade Ireland would be ignorant, have the lowest life expectancy in europe and be without a single train or rural road. Libertarians are dangerous people.0 -
Do you have any evidence to support this, or are you just throwing out random accusations again?
Of course there's evidence. Large numbers of people could not afford education for their kids or healthcare if it were all privatised especially if there was no welfare system. And who would fund rural roads and rural bus routes? They would obviously not be profitable. And what about footpaths? Would you libertarians charge everyone a fee to walk on a footpath or sit on a park bench? Would every beach be privatised and people charged to enter? Would there be any communitity and social workers in disadvantaged areas?0 -
Hawkeye123 wrote: »The public sector are greedy. The trade unionists are selfish. The quangos are all out for themselves.
I get an infraction for pointing out the truth while this sort of worthless contribution is well received in the political "theory" forum. Perhaps there is a tiny right wing bias from the mods?0 -
I get an infraction for pointing out the truth while this sort of worthless contribution is well received in the political "theory" forum. Perhaps there is a tiny right wing bias from the mods?
If you've a problem with a post, report it, don't bring it up on thread. Any problems with infractions can be discussed over pm with the mod.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »Counterpoint: the current system as well as socialist(or esque) systems are built on an ideology of selfishness, greed and rampant individualism for those in charge; somehow convincing the middle and lower class workers that they are all equal.
Those people are the ones in charge....it's called democracy.
I am sick and tired of the majority having to justify itself to the cranks. Who are a minority we vote the Govt in. We are in charge in the end.
I agree with all Cavasser has said.
Except for his suspicion that modshave libertarian leanings....erm not really.
In a libertarian society i would be better off finanially purely because of my family and my socio-economic position (the one i was born into ) nothing to do with the work i do now ( i do work but financially i do not have to ) .
I am glad of the CAO and free education from a selfish point of view ...i was challenged by the competition....i have friends who did little work in the leaving only to waltz into an Ivy league College or an Oxford college simply beause families throw money at it.
I was told not to worry to much about exams 'We can send you to the UK' ...but the competitivve enviroment the CAO produces actually helped me do really well and i felt i had EARNED my place in University just like everyone else. People couldn't say i did not earn it. And education is a right.
Without education i submit to libertarians you would find your behind on the throng of the pitchfork of the radicalised morons from time to time.
Libertarians lack the basic savy.
The changes are aimed at protecting the upper class.....the middle class has become the lower class.....there are no starving proletariat ...it is just offensive to suggest to 'middle class' people that the class divide has widened and that they are now the vulnerable lower class.
Anyway South Africans experienced this kind of system...even libertarianism has to be enforced ..how do you stop people setting up state like insstitutions or forming those political ideologies and parties.
Libertarians are not themselves dangerous...they tend to be middle achievers who moan for years about the state holding them back ...it is the equivalent of lower orking class resentment and wasting your life moaning about upper class unfairness. All libertarians is whinge on behalf of 'the middle class'.
The parents of a friend of mine moaned for years about the CAO system....because their daughter could not get the points to study medicine after repeating the leaving three times....even going to st Columba's college and then later a leaving cert specialist college. She ended up going to the UK and dropped out in the Uk after failing her first year exams ....twice...she is now studying somewhere in Scotland..she wants to graduate and never practise...she is sick of medicine
Privitise education...honestly it would not benefit the middle classes ....because they are no middle class they cannot afford the prices that the upper class can push even the lower price ranges up to...seriously a lot of my friends parents have spent more money on their kids education around the world than the middle classes paid for their house or two houses....and they have influence.
My parents would have loved Trinity to have been private as it was in my father's day. You qued up in a line on your first admissions day and they asked you if you would prefer Maths or Medicine? Ask any doctor over 50..they let everyone in who applied..standards in the profession and in research benefitted...
In America getting into a college is a joke it is that easy compared to here.
How would you fnd projects like finding the Higgs Boson??
How woul you fight the Nazi's in WW2?? Libertarians may argue without the state no nazi's , not every state is going to go libertarian..you really expect people to go into the military to defend all classes in an emergency if it is laisse faire when it's all over??
That was how the welfare state too off in the UK after WW2 people had had to band together to survive and could not have defended themselves had they not. They realized poorly fed lower classes could not mount a defense due to malnutrition. The 'middle classes' were confronted with the fact that an agressive force warranted a united defence.
Libertarianism is not rational nor realistic and the 'middle classes' would not exist with it...think pre magna carta...
If you think you have more than a right than anyone else and you are not equal to all and all equal to you ..then 'middle' is a long way down from where i am looking ..be careful what you wish for.
It is not the states fault that you are not as rich as you would like to be ...get over the chip on your shoulder.0 -
Advertisement
-
Stats are invariably selected to support arguments and not to represent truth. For example, if I gave you the co-ordinates to the worlds highest mountain you could reasonably assume that location to be in the Himalayas but of of course you would be mistaken since the worlds highest mountain is in fact underwater.I'm afraid you're mistaken, here's the stats. Those 4 counties are the sole net contributers per capita head.
Dublin and its crony counties cannot support themselves without subvention from the rest of the country. Furthermore, unless the Dublin government reverses its policy of hoarding the nations wealth in and around the pale - you will see a groundswell of disaffected regions demanding total autonomy for themselves.0
Advertisement