How would Libertarianism work in an Irish context?

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote:

Yet I could equally accuse you of blind adherence to the ideology of the State (social contract?); which is as very real as the ideology behind libertarianism. However, this point is always swept under the carpet.

That's far from true though, because nobody 'believes' in the state, everyone sees the problems with the state and is open to acknowledging them.

With Libertarianism, it has not been tried in true form, and there is quite a lot to suggest it will have significant problems, but people seem to 'believe' it will work in the absence of evidence; that is an ideology (I'm not applying this to all Libertarian supporters now; I don't think all fully believe it will work, I think many believe it just might work).
I have explicitly asked before, what problems people may see in certain Libertarian principles, and gotten specific answers saying they do not believe there would be any (now, this was on a specific issue, not covering Libertarianism as a whole); in the absence of evidence, this is rather surprising.

The specific connotation of 'ideology' applied to Libertarianism is often that of a belief, not as the wider connotation as a philosophy of ideas.

I would greatly welcome Libertarian supporters pointing out the potential problems with the ideals they promote; not for the sake of attacking their arguments or anything, but because it would be an interesting discussion, to see exactly where people draw the line. It is very hard to get this discussion though.



A wider question: oscarBravo brought up the situation of an owner of a horse (the horse is his property) subjecting the horse to cruelty. Should the state have any right, to tell the owner of the horse, that he can not treat the animal cruelly? Is the owners property right absolute, or can the state tell him what he can or cannot do there?

It's very notable in this discussion, that (from a Libertarian point of view) people seem to be framed in either a perspective of Total Freedom or that of Complete Totalitarianism; so black and white, it is the usual "Us vs Them" stuff I've long been pointing out, no grey area or middle ground at all.


Does state control in promoting the "public good", and taking actions and regulation to that effect, inevitably drive the whole country towards totalitarianism? Is there any middle ground where some action, in the public interest, is justified by the state?
The very idea that the state should be responsible for protecting peoples property rights, is in itself something that is in the public interest; where do you draw the line?

A state with no regulation whatsoever, is simply going to be worse than what we have now; lets take complete deregulation of the markets for an example, there is enormous evidence all through the past of how this is exploited all of the time, and it is certain to lead to a very unequal society. You need regulations in order to deal with this.

Lets take pharmaceuticals: If there is no regulation for pharmaceuticals, companies can put whatever they like in them and don't have to tell their customers what is in the pills they are taking, and this can and has, and does harm people. How do you solve this without regulation?

So, the situation we are in, is that we must reach a compromise: We know how regulation can be harmful and bad, but we also know how intolerable conditions may be without some regulations. Naturally, a compromise must be reached, and we have to work with the current system to try and ameliorate the faults within it.


The Libertarian alternative seems to be to let the markets regulate everything, which we know doesn't work because of harm caused in the past which we have regulations for now.

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's far from true though, because nobody 'believes' in the state, everyone sees the problems with the state and is open to acknowledging them.

With Libertarianism, it has not been tried in true form, and there is quite a lot to suggest it will have significant problems, but people seem to 'believe' it will work in the absence of evidence; that is an ideology

I don't understand what you're trying to say here?

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I always find it frustrating to argue with an extremist, pointing out the fallacy of his extremism, only to have a non-extremist tell me I'm wrong to point out the fallacy of extremism because not everyone on the other side of the debate is an extremist.

I have trouble with a philosophy that thinks the world would be a better place if animal cruelty wasn't illegal, or that Ireland would be greatly improved by removing the requirement to apply for planning permission. I'll leave it there.

Valmont

oscarBravo wrote: »

I always find it frustrating to argue with an extremist, pointing out the fallacy of his extremism, only to have a non-extremist tell me I'm wrong to point out the fallacy of extremism because not everyone on the other side of the debate is an extremist.

Yet your statist extremism (paint your house blue or die!) is conveniently overlooked, of course. What does extremism even mean? It seems to be your catch-all term for anyone who isn't marching along to the fascist social-democratic sleepwalk.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have trouble with a philosophy that thinks the world would be a better place if animal cruelty wasn't illegal, or that Ireland would be greatly improved by removing the requirement to apply for planning permission. I'll leave it there.

And libertarians have trouble with a philosophy whose only solution to any problem is institutionalised coercion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

If posters have a problem with posts please report them, commenting on them just drags threads off topic.

KyussBishop

I don't know if this is too off topic for the thread after the mod note, so please feel free to delete if so:

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nobody has actually answered any of my questions on animal cruelty; it's pretty regular, that I ask a lot of important questions on stuff, then people ignore them and repeat same arguments that my questions show fault in.
It leads to a lot of circular debating.

Lets take my question from my previous post:
oscarBravo brought up the situation of an owner of a horse (the horse is his property) subjecting the horse to cruelty. Should the state have any right, to tell the owner of the horse, that he can not treat the animal cruelly? Is the owners property right absolute, or can the state tell him what he can or cannot do there?

K-9

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't know if this is too off topic for the thread after the mod note, so please feel free to delete if so:

Nobody has actually answered any of my questions on animal cruelty; it's pretty regular, that I ask a lot of important questions on stuff, then people ignore them and repeat same arguments that my questions show fault in.
It leads to a lot of circular debating.

Lets take my question from my previous post:
oscarBravo brought up the situation of an owner of a horse (the horse is his property) subjecting the horse to cruelty. Should the state have any right, to tell the owner of the horse, that he can not treat the animal cruelly? Is the owners property right absolute, or can the state tell him what he can or cannot do there?

I'd say the general question is off topic but given the OP, specific Irish examples would be on topic.

An example, the treatment of horses in certain areas of Dublin is a problem, how would a libertarian system help the welfare of horses in these situations?

oscarBravo

Valmont wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're doing it again. And again and again and again.

You have made it clear that there can never - ever, ever, EVER - be a justification for the state to in any way temper, moderate, qualify or otherwise impinge upon your right to do anything whatsoever you want with anything you own. That is an extreme position, in the literal sense of the word - I can't think of a position beyond it.

You respond by accusing me of extremism for suggesting that it's possible that there might be circumstances under which there may be a justification for introducing some qualifications on property rights. You caricature that position ("...or die!"), and I honestly don't know if you can tell the difference between my position and your caricature of it.

Do you actually know what the word "extreme" means?

What does extremism even mean? It seems to be your catch-all term for anyone who isn't marching along to the fascist social-democratic sleepwalk.

I guess that's a "no", so.

And libertarians have trouble with a philosophy whose only solution to any problem is institutionalised coercion.

But you're perfectly fine with coercion as long as it's done by actors other than the state, and as long as it falls on the right side of some arbitrary definition of "aggression". For example, it is unthinkable, unforgivable, monstrous! to suggest that someone who is wilfully cruel to an animal should be required to pay a fine as punishment for that behaviour, but it's absolutely acceptable to destroy his business in retaliation for it.

Permabear wrote: »

It's pure ad hominem simply to dismiss someone as an "extremist" rather than actually answer the arguments he raises. But that's been your tack in this debate: The more people have backed you into a corner with questions and with logic, the more vitriolic, aggressive, and dismissive you have become.

I'm not being vitriolic. I'm describing a position that is utterly uncompromising in any respect as an extremist position - with some justification, I feel - and in turn describing someone who adheres to that position as an extremist. If you feel that there is nothing extreme about someone who believes that a state by any useful definition is ipso facto fascistic, then - again - we quite simply don't have a common language to have this discussion.

It would be interesting to have an actual debate about animal cruelty — because advocates of regulation generally want to talk about protecting cute and fluffy animals such as puppies and kittens. Rarely do they want to discuss lab animals, rats, or the animals that wind up in their hamburger meat.

I don't believe in cruelty to puppies, kittens, lab animals, rats or cows. I don't subscribe to the view that it's always acceptable to harm any animal in any way whatsoever - that would be an extreme view - or that it's never OK to ever harm any animal in any way whatsoever - that would be another extreme view. I would describe adherents to either of those views as "extremists", and point out that society in general accepts that sometimes it is necessary to kill animals, but that it should be done in as humane a way as possible.

Assuming we can agree on that view, I'd still like to know how the world would be a better place if it was legal for someone to mistreat an animal that he owns, just because he owns it.

As for Ireland and planning permission ... honestly, I don't think you could have picked a worse example of dysfunctional state regulation if you tried.

I came up with a better one, and it was described as fascistic.

But it's really quite funny that you decry the result of poor regulation, while implying that the situation would automatically be much better in the absence of any regulation whatsoever. In other words, the reason Ireland's countryside is a shoddy mess is because planning regulations haven't been enforced properly, but if there hadn't been any regulations in place at all, everything would magically have been better in every possible way. I really can't get my head around it.

K-9

Permabear raised a fair point about Georgian houses and Government policy earlier, indeed I think Mary Robinson built (sorry!) a political career on the defence of Georgian Dublin in the 60/70's.

However I look around parts of Donegal today and over development has ruined parts of it, Dunfanaghy, Gweedore, Lough Swilly. I can't see where a Libertarian policy on planning would have stopped this over development, particularly the idea that nobody has a right to a view!

I look at the British system which does seem to preserve buildings of historical importance but also deems country barns as listed buildings! Seems to be another extreme. Looking at that logically, I see the solution as a balance between the Irish and British approach, I don't see the libertarian solution as a compromise whatsoever.

Another area closely linked is building control. We had lax regulation of building standards here and ended up with Priory Hall, Pyrite and other problems. The UK doesn't have near the same extent of problems due to strict regulations and inspections.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Thanks but not really an answer to my question.
If someone else's use of their property harms the value of mine how does that work out in Libertarianland?

SupaNova

K-9 wrote: »

However I look around parts of Donegal today and over development has ruined parts of it, Dunfanaghy, Gweedore, Lough Swilly. I can't see where a Libertarian policy on planning would have stopped this over development, particularly the idea that nobody has a right to a view!

This gets back to the question can you own a view?

I think you can't and you don't own it now either. Right now it is just whatever the state decides. I gave the example of a government building a dual carriageway. Then on the other side of it, not far from where I live, there is a countryside lake overlooked by a road on a hill where some nice big houses have been built. I know the owner of the land and how he has basically been blocked from selling any more sites along the road or opening up a new road to sell further sites. So in this case someone's view is protected but at the expense of someone else not having a house with a view. With this approach you could never have a nice town develop overlooking a lake but only a few houses who declare they have the sole right of viewing the lake.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The thread is about libertarianism.
Its a simple question.

If someone else's use of their property harms the value of mine how does that work out in Libertarianland?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you don't believe that Valmont's position is extreme, please outline a position that would be radically beyond his on the statist/anarchist spectrum.

don't see where he has argued that "a state by any useful definition is ipso facto fascistic." That appears to be a wanton distortion of his position, designed only to paint libertarians as fanatical extremists — which then allows you to dismiss them without further engagement.

Valmont defines any action by a state that impinges on private property rights as fascistic. That's equating statehood with fascism. I'm not distorting his position; I don't need to.

Nobody is trying to argue that the world would be a better place if animals were mistreated.

I'm not making that argument. You are making the argument that the world would be a better place if there were no law against animal cruelty.

There are only two ways in which that could be true, that I can see: either a market-based approach to preventing animal cruelty would be more effective than a legal deterrent; or you believe that whatever level of animal cruelty the market allowed to exist would be an acceptable tradeoff for the freedom inherent in not having the government telling you what to do.

It's a nice sleight-of-hand to suggest that libertarians, because they argue against government intervention, are arguing for animal cruelty — but it's also fallacious logic.

It's also not the argument I made, which - if you're honest - you'll admit to.

Corruption and cronyism prevailed at every level of the planning process...

Again with the argument that if something bad happens because of a failure of regulation, then the absence of regulation would automatically have prevented that bad thing from happening. And you accuse me of leaps of logic?

During the decade in question, Donegal County Council rezoned enough land to accommodate a population increase of 180,000, despite the current population of Donegal being only 160,927 (Census 2011). Moreover, half of the houses built in Donegal at the time were constructed on unzoned land. What would have been different had there been no planning regulations in place at all?

Let me see if I can follow your argument.

Land was rezoned that didn't need to be rezoned, allowing houses to be built on the newly rezoned land, leading to a plethora of houses in unsuitable locations. Worse, houses were built on unzoned land, leading to even more houses in unsuitable locations.

So the answer is to eliminate zoning, which will ensure that houses are only ever built in suitable, sustainable locations.

Sorry, not following.

People didn't build houses higgledy-piggledy all over Ireland because planning regulations were lax; they built them because the reckless actions of international central bankers left the Western world awash in cheap credit.

Broken logic. People built houses higgledy-piggledy because planning regulations were lax, and because the country was awash with cheap credit. If you had cheap credit and properly-enforced planning regulations, then the countryside would be in much better condition.

But then, it would be in better condition in the same way that Skagen is in better condition than Achill Island. And we've already concluded that that's a bad thing.

Valmont

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you don't believe that Valmont's position is extreme, please outline a position that would be radically beyond his on the statist/anarchist spectrum. Valmont defines any action by a state that impinges on private property rights as fascistic. That's equating statehood with fascism. I'm not distorting his position; I don't need to.

I think we need to take a few steps backward here.

What is your definition of extremism? If I'm a libertarian 'extremist', why aren't you a mixed-economy 'extremist'? From where I stand, your definition of extremism is applied when someone has a political opinion (1) outside of what you perceive as standard or prevalent and (2) is consistent in its application of general principles i.e. theft is theft, whether it's a mugger with a knife or the state armed with a 'social contract'. For example, I've taken a key textbook feature of fascism and demonstrated that it is alive and well in the western world yet somehow that makes me an 'extremist'; even though I'm just looking at various aspects of fascist states and drawing parallels. So what if something is 'extreme'? Not only have you failed to define 'extremism' but -- crucially -- you have failed to explain why it is undesirable -- in short, you're all over the place.

Another key issue before we debate further would be: what is your definition of private property rights?

What, to you, constitutes private ownership of a house? Specifically what actions should one be allowed to engage in before their right to the property is withdrawn by the state? Crucially, is there a line the state may not cross, under any circumstances? It may be that you fully support the current system and I'm not arguing against that here; but I would ask you to acknowledge its proper name: nominal ownership.

The argument is very clear: if your 'ownership' of a property is based on paying whatever tax rates (or conditions of use) the state imposes on you then it logically follows that it is really the state who has the sovereign right to that property. It's an exact replica of an arrangement between a tenant and a landlord. But again, I'm not arguing about what is the most desirable arrangement, merely trying to describe them accurately.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Valmont wrote: »

What is your definition of extremism?

Before we go there, answer me this: name one state that is not fascist, by your definition.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Valmont is not the only person who would complain about fascism if the government started telling them what color to paint their walls. I don't believe that most Irish householders are fanatical extremist anarchists. So something is wrong with your argument here. [/quote] You can't think of a position more extreme than Valmont's, so you try to paint my position as being as extreme as that of a "property is theft" communist (the true other extreme).

I think I've made my point.

Valmont

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think I've made my point.

That I am an 'extremist'? That's your grand contribution? A label for one poster which you refuse to define or even explain, but simply use pejoratively?

Really?

oscarBravo

Valmont wrote: »

That I am an 'extremist'? That's your grand contribution? A label for one poster which you refuse to define or even explain, but simply use pejoratively?

Really?

Yes. Yes, that's the sum total of my entire contribution to the thread. Thank you for noticing.

Nice talking with you.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coffee_cake

Valmont wrote: »

That I am an 'extremist'? That's your grand contribution? A label for one poster which you refuse to define or even explain, but simply use pejoratively?

Really?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. Yes, that's the sum total of my entire contribution to the thread. Thank you for noticing.

Nice talking with you.

I don't care who's an extremist, give it a rest

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm well aware of the problems with the current system don't see anyone saying its perfect. Thing is you seem to be arguing that anyone can do whatever they like with their property but also that one shouldn't harm others. These two positions seem contradictory. Unless you think that reducing the value of someone else's property doesn't constitute harming them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You seem to be arguing that a libertarian system is superior because people can do whatever they want with their own property. But if you can be sued for anything that reduces the value of others property then that sounds like it would be even more restrictive than the current system. You couldn't actually paint your house whatever colour you wanted or knock down a historic house. One would have even less freedom to live whatever way they want to then they do now. Unless the person lives in some isolated location away from others.

Duggys Housemate

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are engaging in whataboutary here, in any case you cant do anything in "Stateland" not because it is Stateland, but because of the right of people to buy private property, which would not be a belief uncommon to any free society.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The "Government sponsoring" of the credit bubble is because of lack of regulation. Blaming the government for a market led bubble is like an anti-police anarchist blaming the riots in London on lack of policing.

Valmont wrote: »

I think we need to take a few steps backward here.

What is your definition of extremism? If I'm a libertarian 'extremist', why aren't you a mixed-economy 'extremist'? From where I stand, your definition of extremism is applied when someone has a political opinion (1) outside of what you perceive as standard or prevalent and (2) is consistent in its application of general principles i.e. theft is theft, whether it's a mugger with a knife or the state armed with a 'social contract'.

You are an extremist because your argument is extreme. That is a mathematical fact.

For example, I've taken a key textbook feature of fascism and demonstrated that it is alive and well in the western world yet somehow that makes me an 'extremist'; even though I'm just looking at various aspects of fascist states and drawing parallels. So what if something is 'extreme'? Not only have you failed to define 'extremism' but -- crucially -- you have failed to explain why it is undesirable -- in short, you're all over the place.

No, you've confused fascism with statism, democracy and social democracy from an extreme point of view. The democratic state is bigger than it would be in libertarianism,and the fascist State would also be bigger than a libertarian state, this is the sum of the argument. Everything else which differentiates democracy from fascism, due process, voting rights, a free press, the rule of law are forgotten. A marxist would say, and they did, that fascism is a form of capitalism.


Why so much talk about the present system. We are asking about libertarianism on this thread- there is far too much blowback and whataboutary from libertarians.