What are your issues/thoughts for GE16?

Pepe LeFrits

I’ve recently moved to Dublin Central and I’m finding hard to get excited about any of the candidates. I’d consider myself a centrist on economic stuff and left wing socially, but to get left wing social views here you get pretty strongly left economic policies too by the looks of it. I really don’t want to vote for a pro-life candidate, but I don’t want to vote for a populist who deals in the language of class warfare and whose solution to everything is to tax the 'Other' into oblivion.

Then of course there’s the party dimension and the politics of coalition to be factored in. Argh.

I’m lost.

Wibbs

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I’m lost.

Meet your twin sir.

ancapailldorcha

I caught a few of the leaders' debates there on Youtube and to say the current offerings are bland is me being polite. I remember catching them before I emigrated back in 2011 and it looks like there's been no improvement. I'd probably just vote Fine Gael as I don't see a better option.

Pepe LeFrits

I’m leaning the same way at the moment. Well, I’m actually leaning towards voting for the Greens, but as I can’t see their candidate in my constituency having much of a chance, it’s my second preference that matters more. However In the next five years I’d like us to stop exporting our abortion needs to the UK, and I’d also like to see us take a sensible approach to cannabis, but does anyone really expect either of these things to happen with an FG-FF coalition?

Actually I mentioned the cannabis thing to a mate of mine who is pretty senior in FG and he gave me a “oh you silly hippies” type laugh. I don’t even like the stuff but my mam has MS and wants access to it, but is law-abiding. Never mind it provides almost half of all income to the illegal drug trade worldwide (gangland shootings topical, anyone?), but to FG (and probably FF) it’s just a mild inconvenience to a couple of college hippies. No votes in it so who cares.

Then I take all that pent up frustration and start leafing through the literature from the other candidates, and all my energy saps away. Giveaway, giveaway, giveaway. Stick your fingers in your ears, if you can’t hear about the deficit, it doesn’t exist.

mynameis905

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I’m leaning the same way at the moment. Well, I’m actually leaning towards voting for the Greens, but as I can’t see their candidate in my constituency having much of a chance, it’s my second preference that matters more. However In the next five years I’d like us to stop exporting our abortion needs to the UK, and I’d also like to see us take a sensible approach to cannabis, but does anyone really expect either of these things to happen with an FG-FF coalition?

Actually I mentioned the cannabis thing to a mate of mine who is pretty senior in FG and he gave me a “oh you silly hippies” type laugh. I don’t even like the stuff but my mam has MS and wants access to it, but is law-abiding. Never mind it provides almost half of all income to the illegal drug trade worldwide (gangland shootings topical, anyone?), but to FG (and probably FF) it’s just a mild inconvenience to a couple of college hippies. No votes in it so who cares.

Then I take all that pent up frustration and start leafing through the literature from the other candidates, and all my energy saps away. Giveaway, giveaway, giveaway. Stick your fingers in your ears, if you can’t hear about the deficit, it doesn’t exist.

Sativex is already available here on prescription for MS.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

OldRio

I know about our history. I know I should show an interest in how our country is governed and by whom. I should care.
but...................I am going to paint the living room today and watch it dry. I will find it much more engaging than listening to that bunch of self serving pricks. (all the same, no matter which flavour they purport to be)


(Its flavour not flavor, bloody american spell checker)

speedboatchase

I consider myself a libertarian, and there's no party that represents me. Fine Gael is probably closest, but they're the supposedly fiscally responsible political party who end up re-instating the social welfare 'Christmas bonus'. As OP says, unfortunately the parties who most want progressive social policies are quite extreme far-left, pre-occupied with Palestine, in thrall to unions and with pie-in-the-sky economic promises.

Considering it's impossible these days for any party to get a majority in Ireland, you end up with diluted policy no matter who you vote for. I sound awfully pessimistic but if you look at something like marriage equality, it's clear that things will only move forward in Ireland on topics once they've reached a stage where there are absolutely no political repercussions for all major parties to agree with each other on such 'controversial' issues.

lazybones32

Our local Chamber Alliance organised a Q/A session with all those seeking election and I was left apathetic after it. They spoke with vigour and conviction on exactly the same topics that they did 4 years ago and the time before that but failed to answer why they didn't achieve what they said they would (I'd love to only be held accountable in work once every 4 years!).

There seems to be a lot more political mudslinging happening this time around - FG local election posters here seem to focus on the failures of previous FF Govts. as being the main reason why we should vote for FG. Seeing Burton's puss on posters reinforces my will not to vote for Lab. and SF are SF. FF don't deserve to have any real responsibility yet and the Greens seem to think wind energy is the answer to everything.

I'm happy that the senior civil servants are the ones who keep the Country running because the crop of candidates here don't seem to deserve the position they seek.

ancapailldorcha

speedboatchase wrote: »

I consider myself a libertarian, and there's no party that represents me. Fine Gael is probably closest, but they're the supposedly fiscally responsible political party who end up re-instating the social welfare 'Christmas bonus'. As OP says, unfortunately the parties who most want progressive social policies are quite extreme far-left, pre-occupied with Palestine, in thrall to unions and with pie-in-the-sky economic promises.

They still need votes to get in at the end of the day. I don't agree with the "bonus" either but they're thinking about their chances on Friday, not ideology with this move.

Pepe LeFrits

speedboatchase wrote: »

I consider myself a libertarian, and there's no party that represents me. Fine Gael is probably closest, but they're the supposedly fiscally responsible political party who end up re-instating the social welfare 'Christmas bonus'. As OP says, unfortunately the parties who most want progressive social policies are quite extreme far-left, pre-occupied with Palestine, in thrall to unions and with pie-in-the-sky economic promises.

Considering it's impossible these days for any party to get a majority in Ireland, you end up with diluted policy no matter who you vote for. I sound awfully pessimistic but if you look at something like marriage equality, it's clear that things will only move forward in Ireland on topics once they've reached a stage where there are absolutely no political repercussions for all major parties to agree with each other on such 'controversial' issues.

True. There are a couple of TDs in FG that are left-wing socially but fiscally conservative but they’re in the minority. This is another problem for me; FF and FG describe themselves as ‘big tent parties’, which they intend to mean inclusive but to me means lacking coherent core beliefs. I suppose with FG they’re fairly consistent across the party on fiscal policies but their social policies largely depend internal politics and which grouping in the party holds the power at any given time. That FG rigidly maintain the whip on everything only makes it more confusing; who knows what you're really voting for in the social aspect.

speedboatchase

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They still need votes to get in at the end of the day. I don't agree with the "bonus" either but they're thinking about their chances on Friday, not ideology with this move.

Ah, I would vote for them if I could, but I'm living abroad these days. That's nothing something I blame FG for though!

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

speedboatchase wrote: »

Ah, I would vote for them if I could, but I'm living abroad these days. That's nothing something I blame FG for though!

Same as myself. I think I still have a vote but I'd have to go home to use it. I'd also be something of a moderate libertarian though I dislike labels.

The Black Oil

This is my fourth time voting in an Irish GE.

I'd like to see the eight amendment repealed and the church's role in schools reduced.

With health, a close family member is a health professional and has a number of bad stories about mismanagement, waste, incompetent senior staff and so forth. I won't repeat any here, but they are bad enough and well, we know at this stage, not exactly unusual for the HSE. Sometimes you read snippets of opinion polls where people say they'd pay more tax for a better service. I scratch my head at that a little because it's hard to see how throwing money will lead to much change. The other side of that equation is imo equally ill-thought out - the 'get rid of the administrators' mantra, and yet, it's rarely if ever specified where within the HSE they are causing blockages or problems. Mental health is a big one for me as it's my job. I'll avoid the details, but pretty much as above.

Economics, this is a tough one. The far left's judgement here is questionable at best. I don't expect that they will get into power, but if they do, likely the first thing on their agenda will be to have a row amongst each other. Tax the rich? Which ones are you talking about? This is not to say I particularly buy into FG's 'recovery' stuff, either. Or the sacred cow status of corporation tax. FF, I've had issues with them since the endless hyper of the Celtic Tiger, long before the 2008 collapse. The tax system appears to need a kick up the hole too. I'd probably lean towards the Social Democrats, but they've no one running in my neck of the woods.

Don't even get me started on the political system's default way of operating. Infrastructure, large projects, plans, visions...whatever you want to call them, far, far too often they are 5 year plans because they're so tied to the election cycle. They go over budget, under deliver or have to be revised. And on and on the merry-go-round goes.

The Black Oil

One other thing. The brass neck mentality and lack of a resigning culture in Irish politics. Every political leader should be asked whether they are willing to sack underperforming and incompetent members of cabinet. It should not be the case that it's left until a reshuffle. This is pretty much the status quo and is pathetic.

lazybones32

The Black Oil wrote: »

The far left's judgement here is questionable at best. I don't expect that they will get into power, but if they do, likely the first thing on their agenda will be to have a row amongst each other.

Definitely agree. They seem to hate each other intensely on the Left side of the field. I've attended many Public meetings/discussions and if there's ever trouble, it's between different factions of the Left; even when it's a topic they apparently agree on.

Pawwed Rig

Equality would be a big issue for me. Particularly around schooling and how that affects integration of non Catholics.
I like what I am hearing from the Social Democrats and would ideally like to see party like this replace either FF or FG as they have way too much baggage for me. The growth in SF vote terrifies me

Pepe LeFrits

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Equality would be a big issue for me. Particularly around schooling and how that affects integration of non Catholics.
I like what I am hearing from the Social Democrats and would ideally like to see party like this replace either FF or FG as they have way too much baggage for me. The growth in SF vote terrifies me

I have a lot of time for Stephen Donnelly but I'd have pretty serious reservations about Roisin Shortall. I don't really know anything about the SD candidate in my area, his literature is very thin and he hasn't called round.

Agreed on SF. I think there's a pretty hard ceiling on how high their support can rise though.

SoapyWashman

There are LOTS of domestic issues to worry about I know...but...whats been really grinding my gears is that there is no conversation about the wider world. We are a small open economy and we need to look outwards sometimes.

SOme examples that are close to my heart - until the leaders debate there was nothing on climate change, there has been nothing on TTIP, almost no discussion of Brexit. Even things that dont directly effect us should still be talked about, like Ireland and the EU's responibility towards refugees from Syria, or even stuff we can do towards Palestine.

I know Trocaire have been mentioning climate change a bit, and Sadaka have a campaign about Palestine - but I havent heard a word of either in the media or form the parties.

LostinBlanch

Last time I voted anyone but FF but I didn't realise that a vote for Fine Gael was a vote for corruption & dodgy dealings (Hello DOB, Moriarty Tribunal findings, Siteserv, Irish Water metering contract never mind getting the guts of a billion of taxpayers money in debt writedowns and sweetheart deals i.e. Siteserv, Independent News and Media, Topaz and Beacon Hospital writedowns). Along with cronyism - penalty points scandal, and with a supreme sense of entitlement and arrogance. Fine Gael have done exactly what Fianna Fail would have done, as it was the Troika that was calling the shots. Financially they have proved themselves to be illiterate and engaging in auction politics with wild promises that aren't going to be met.

Labour proved they will say and do anything to hold onto power and fatten up their pensions. I'm looking at the SDs as they seem to be the most honest in calling things as they are and not engaging in auction promises. I think a lot of SFs increase is because people are put off by everyone else and they may as well give them a go. Ditto with the independents.

Nobody has addressed anything like the sheer waste going on in the public service and quangos that overlap each other doing the same functions. But hey we gotta keep well connected snouts in the trough.

Sleepy

Like most others here I want a socially liberal, fiscally responsible government so in the absence of that my vote will most likely fall to Fine Gael on the second or third count. I'll probably vote for the Social Democrats as I think they could help drag a Fine Gael lead government slightly to the left on social issues and I like a lot of their policies.

I don't think Cian O’Callaghan stands a chance in Dublin Bay North however but I'd like to see him get his deposit back and see the party get enough public support to help it grow for the next election.

Sinn Fein are a terrifying prospect imo and I just don't fathom why anyone would waste their vote on an Independent - there'll either be no kingmakers in this Dail or so many of them that they won't be able to get anything like the Gregory / Healy Rae deals of the past for their constituencies and the government will fall within 12 months.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RedJoker

Yeah, Renua's flat tax proposal has earned my vote. I think the current government has done a decent job so I'll be going FG second.

tommyboy2222

Its gonna be funny to see the outrage when whatever party or parties get into power start to roll back on their pre-election promises.

Like Groundhog day.

Sleepy

You think?

Only an idiot would believe the promises being made by most of the parties. Then again, idiots do like to be outraged...

lcwill

Wish I could vote, but I'm just another emigrant playing GE16 fantasy football.

Pleasantly surprised to see so many people here leaning towards Fine Gael as the best economically and socially liberal option - which is roughly where I stand, bleeding heart libertarian that I am.

My hope is that they come back in to lead the next government with a party that lets them keep going on roughly the same road economically speaking - though a fairer system for the self employed is much needed - but pulls them further left on social issues like getting religion out of education, some availability of abortions, and legalisation of cannabis.

Watching the news in Ireland and experiences during visits home make me think it wouldnt be a bad idea to get tougher on petty crime and violence and move the methadone clinics out of the city centre in Dublin.

The Black Oil

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Good luck with that one.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sadly, I have no idea which of these is the least unlikely, possibly a referendum on the 8th amendment.

El_Duderino 09

I can't get over how frightened people are about SF getting a role in government. If they get into government as a junior coalition partner they will behave the same as every junior partner behaves. They will sign off on 9 policies they don't agree with in order to get one policy through in watered down form. They will be neutered by the time the next election comes around.

Nothing to worry about.

Manach

I'd be looking at a libertarian/CDU European conservative leaning economic and conservative type social party/candidate.
But I'm reminded of a book I read, "The Dictator's Handbook" - in essence, most politicians have one aim (no matter their stripe, beliefs, gender, beliefs etc) to stay in power for as long as possible : so their core aim to pander to which ever stakeholder will aid them in this. As taxpayers are too diffuse to make a contribution to this, then they are the people who pay, and pay and pay for this behaviour.

Sleepy

lcwill wrote: »

Pleasantly surprised to see so many people here leaning towards Fine Gael as the best economically and socially liberal option - which is roughly where I stand, bleeding heart libertarian that I am.

They're the best economic option on the table but they're far from socially liberal IME. Fianna Fail would probably be less conservative but their tolerance of corruption and fast and loose economic policy makes them unelectable imho.

OldRio

Still watching my paint dry. Only one more day, thank the Lord.

Just read back through the thread. It seems my politics are very very different to most of the posters.
Whatever government we elect, the plight of the homeless should be given the highest priority. If my taxes increase because of this I would not complain. A society should look after its most vulnerable.

This pinko commie goes back to his paintbrush.

Pawwed Rig

Sleepy wrote: »

They're the best economic option on the table but they're far from socially liberal IME. Fianna Fail would probably be less conservative but their tolerance of corruption and fast and loose economic policy makes them unelectable imho.

FF solution has always been to throw money at problems until they go away.
It astonishes me that they are getting any votes in this election after bankrupting the country in the so recent past. It really has me scratching my head.
I can understand the attraction with Sinn Fein as they are in an easy position where they can shout and criticise everything without having to come up with solutions. They have charismatic personalities that can make a show of another candidate in a head to head debate. For a voter that does not bother to scrutinise their candidate SF look good. It is just when you scratch the surface that you can see that they really have no sound policies. This along with the murkiness and links to criminality means they should not be a viable option for a civic minded person.

RedJoker

OldRio wrote: »

Still watching my paint dry. Only one more day, thank the Lord.

Just read back through the thread. It seems my politics are very very different to most of the posters.
Whatever government we elect, the plight of the homeless should be given the highest priority. If my taxes increase because of this I would not complain. A society should look after its most vulnerable.

This pinko commie goes back to his paintbrush.

I don't think that the posters here don't care about the plight of the homeless, I'm guessing they understand that giving more money to the government isn't the way to solve the problem.

If your highest priority is to reduce the suffering of the homeless then you can give your money to a homelessness charity. If other people care more about climate change they can give money to that cause. Why not reduce taxes and let people decide which causes to give to?

Even better yet, people can use the extra money to create businesses or invest in companies to help solve these issues. Tesla has done more to tackle climate change than any carbon tax; they've created new battery technology, made electric cars that aren't embarrassing, built huge solar power farms, etc. They even gave away all of their patents to help other companies catch up. Why not invest in Tesla stock or buy one of their cars? You're putting your money in the hands of people who can actually solve the problem by creating new technology as well as earning a return on your money or having a high performance car that's cheap to run. Or you could invest in solar companies or use your extra money to install solar panels on your roof. The hyperloop project in California is an amazing demonstration of the inefficiency of government.

In your case you could invest in companies that are creating cheaper housing alternatives; cheaper building materials, inventing more efficient building practices, new architectural designs, etc. Or create and fund your own business idea if you have knowledge of or interest in the area. Higher taxes are probably the worst way to end homelessness. For example, the poor who emigrate from China to Hong Kong remain in poverty for an average of only two years. Hong Kong has:

No import or export duties.
No restrictions on investments coming in, or limits on profits going out.
No capital-gains tax, no interest tax, no sales tax.
17 percent corporate income tax.
16 percent income tax on individuals.
No minimum wage.
No unemployment benefits.
No social security, no national health program.

Pepe LeFrits

Have looked at a couple of projections this morning, and it still looks to me like there are only two options; the left is just far too fragmented.

- FG & FF coalition
- FG minority government

An FG & SF coalition, probably helped over the line by a few independents/minority party is mathematically possible, but there's pretty much of zero chance of it happening imo. FG absolutely loathe SF and won't legitimise them by putting them in government.

I doubt FG would object to coalition with FF though, as long as they are the senior partner. Question is, would FF go for it? Leave FG to govern alone and hope they sink in popularity, or join them in government and try to take credit for giveaways as the economy rises?

What’s it gonna be?

Wibbs

RedJoker wrote: »

I don't think that the posters here don't care about the plight of the homeless, I'm guessing they understand that giving more money to the government isn't the way to solve the problem.

And I'm guessing most people don't then automatically and daftly take the libertarian baby and bathwater route of thinking getting rid of government input is the way to solve the problem either. I'd bet the farm that most favour a middle ground of more focussed and efficient spending of our public monies for the betterment of wider society. Only the truly daft would want the homelessness levels of the US for example. Show me nations with lower government involvement in housing that have lower homelessness?

Your Hong Kong example, the go to poster boy and claim dump for the libertarians? The HK government owns pretty much all of the land and for decades over half the HK population lived in rent subsidised accommodation and today just under half of all HK residents still do.

Oh and the "no national healthcare" trotted out by the Libs in search of their utopia is a complete nonsense too. The HK healthcare system was taken lock stock and barrel from the British NHS - for obvious reasons as they were a British colony for over a century- though it is far more efficiently run than the parent. There's that word again; efficient. The majority of HK citizens avail of their public healthcare and said public healthcare spending by the local government has gone up by a third in the last five years.

No minimum wage in HK? Nope, sorry for you, wrong again. They brought it in in 2011.

No social security? Nope, another one bites the dust. *cue Queen song*

So at least half of your claims are wrong and we could go back and forth in agreement and disagreement on the rest.

Tesla has done more to tackle climate change than any carbon tax;

Hahaha… oh wait, you're serious? I realise Mr Musk is the new poster boy for those who miss Steve Jobs, or wanted a cuddlier version, but c'mon. The "new battery technology" is anything but. Ask any actual engineer. Their wall mounted battery units are a practical joke and have a long look at Musk's projections and wild claims and showboating and then look at his actual achievements. Don't get me wrong he's out there doing stuff, but try not to believe the hype too much.

The hyperloop project in California is an amazing demonstration of the inefficiency of government.

Eh how? You do realise that A) it's a concept, one that has been a concept for decades(actually similar ideas were around since the 19th century) and C) Tesla wouldn't even be still trading without government bailouts. Oh and that nasty "big" government has quite the record in providing public transport, not least in your Hong Kong example.

Seriously man, step back a little from the Libertarian bumper book of wonderful solutions and actually look around. Lesson one of the interwebs and at the hustings; never buy anything from anyone who bangs a radical drum of any hue, as one usually finds with little enough digging a rich seam of bull poo just below the surface.

RedJoker

Wibbs wrote: »

And I'm guessing most people don't then automatically and daftly take the libertarian baby and bathwater route of thinking getting rid of government input is the way to solve the problem either.

Sure, I was talking more about the benefits of capitalism, I wasn't suggesting a switch to a libertarian system. I don't know if we're ready for that as a culture. I am in favour of smaller government though. That said, I hope that it is tried at some stage, if not here then elsewhere. Until the last few hundred years you could have argued that a democratic system had never worked. I don't think the U.S. approach of going into the middle east and attempting to install democracy is a great idea because their cultures aren't ready for it yet. A change in culture so we can get to that stage starts with discussions such as this one though.

Most people base their politics on their ethics which come as a result of their view of metaphysics/epistemology, whether consciously or not. People are unlikely to agree politically until there's a move away from Platonist (Christian) and Marxist philosophies.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd bet the farm that most favour a middle ground of more focussed and efficient spending of our public monies for the betterment of wider society.

Sure and one of the things I really like about our current government is that they're privatizing and funding so much of the work they could have kept public, I think efficient funding is a better solution when it's possible.

Wibbs wrote: »

Only the truly daft would want the homelessness levels of the US for example. Show me nations with lower government involvement in housing that have lower homelessness?

Your Hong Kong example, the go to poster boy and claim dump for the libertarians? The HK government owns pretty much all of the land and for decades over half the HK population lived in rent subsidised accommodation and today just under half of all HK residents still do.

Oh and the "no national healthcare" trotted out by the Libs in search of their utopia is a complete nonsense too. The HK healthcare system was taken lock stock and barrel from the British NHS - for obvious reasons as they were a British colony for over a century- though it is far more efficiently run than the parent. There's that word again; efficient. The majority of HK citizens avail of their public healthcare and said public healthcare spending by the local government has gone up by a third in the last five years.

No minimum wage in HK? Nope, sorry for you, wrong again. They brought it in in 2011.

No social security? Nope, another one bites the dust. *cue Queen song*

So at least half of your claims are wrong and we could go back and forth in agreement and disagreement on the rest.

I was using it as a poster boy of capitalism, I'm not aware of any examples of libertarian governments. Thanks for the clarifications and links.

Wibbs wrote: »

Hahaha… oh wait, you're serious? I realise Mr Musk is the new poster boy for those who miss Steve Jobs, or wanted a cuddlier version, but c'mon. The "new battery technology" is anything but. Ask any actual engineer. Their wall mounted battery units are a practical joke and have a long look at Musk's projections and wild claims and showboating and then look at his actual achievements. Don't get me wrong he's out there doing stuff, but try not to believe the hype too much.

He has quite a list of achievements but you could be right that some of them are exaggerated, SpaceX is particularly impressive though IMO. I have a lot of respect for Jobs but I'm personally not a fan of apple products.

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh how? You do realise that A) it's a concept, one that has been a concept for decades(actually similar ideas were around since the 19th century) and C) Tesla wouldn't even be still trading without government bailouts. Oh and that nasty "big" government has quite the record in providing public transport, not least in your Hong Kong example.

Musk's position (all of your caveats duly noted) was:
"When the California “high speed” rail was approved, I was quite disappointed, as I know many others were too. How could it be that the home of Silicon Valley and JPL—doing incredible things like indexing all the world’s knowledge and putting rovers on Mars—would build a bullet train that is both one of the most expensive per mile and one of the slowest in the world?"

Not that I blame the Californian government for taking the approach they did, I don't think they're really in a position to attempt something radically different or innovative.

Wibbs wrote: »

Seriously man, step back a little from the Libertarian bumper book of wonderful solutions and actually look around. Lesson one of the interwebs and at the hustings; never buy anything from anyone who bangs a radical drum of any hue, as one usually finds with little enough digging a rich seam of bull poo just below the surface.

I don't think my stance of being against increasing taxation to fund homelessness and climate change is that extreme.

However, just because an idea is radical doesn't mean it's wrong, the U.S. constitution was extreme for it's time and could only have come about after the philosophies of the enlightenment. Sometimes we get ideas wrong, the communism of Russia, based on Marxism, was a huge disaster but it probably needed to happen given where they were culturally at the time. Libertarianism could be an unmitigated disaster at this stage although I hope some form of it (there are a lot of different versions) is tested somewhere eventually.

Wibbs

RedJoker wrote: »

Most people base their politics on their ethics which come as a result of their view of metaphysics/epistemology, whether consciously or not. People are unlikely to agree politically until there's a move away from Platonist (Christian) and Marxist philosophies.

Oh I'd agree with that and the idea of exporting one system based on one set of philosophies to somewhere else based on another. The Middle East meddling would be a good example as you note. They've had over a thousand years of a "god given" philosophy based on anointed kings. The oft quoted factoid that "Islam" means "Peace" in Arabic, leaves out that it also means "Submission" which says much. In English it comes from the Latin which means agreement. Subtly different tack. There's more wriggle room for "I don't agree with you you prick, but let's agree to disagree and chill".

That said it's not so long ago where many countries in the Middle East were quite western in setup and were liberalising. Afghanistan in the 50's was a very different place and Iraq even had a communist party(and factions of the PLO were Marxist). These things aren't quite set in stone as much as some commentators may suggest. I would also believe that democracy was less the issue and more not wanting their culture becoming American.

The anointed king stuff was very similar in Europe, but European philosophies were more multi tiered(and were less likely to throw out old notions in favour of new), as was the rule of government. For a start pre the Reformation you had state and church to varying degrees of separation, then there was the growth of the law almost as yet another separate rule and after the Reformation you had a multitude of churches. Europe has had an incredibly fluid philosophical history of myriad ideas fighting for airtime.

I would argue however that Marxism was a brief flash in the pan, given succour as you noted in a Russia that badly needed something other than a nation of serfs lorded over by the unimaginably wealthy. An extreme society gave birth to another. Marxism is also very much bound up in the old philosophies(that old saw of "Jesus was a socialist" is simplistic but not that inaccurate), but being extreme, buggers up the society it attempts to save.

China another culture where the innate philosophies tend to drive under the surface. Confucius promoted servility to king and family as a virtue which can be one helluva double edged sword.

I don't think my stance of being against increasing taxation to fund homelessness and climate change is that extreme.

My issues are less about the increase or decrease, but much more about more efficient use of the public monies that are already collected. The waste in the Irish public world is farcical at times and even the merest tightening up would reduce expenditure, get better value for money and ultimately reduce the taxes required.

Libertarianism could be an unmitigated disaster at this stage although I hope some form of it (there are a lot of different versions) is tested somewhere eventually.

If and when it does, I'll bet the farm it'll give rise to financial and then social stratification and extreme inequality in society. Great if you're inside the gates, not so great if you're outside. It appeals in abstract to those who would already be inside the gates, or are convinced they would be in such a future.

But don't get me started on Musk. :pac:. Yeah he's OK, but it's a helluva lot of style over substance. Jobs was accused of that, the difference being he actually brought substance that came much closer to the style. I'll lay a bet now that instead of a promised man on Mars in the mid 2020's, at least one of his companies will be bankrupt, or sheepishly sold on. In this case the car ain't the star.

RedJoker

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I'd agree with that and the idea of exporting one system based on one set of philosophies to somewhere else based on another. The Middle East meddling would be a good example as you note. They've had over a thousand years of a "god given" philosophy based on anointed kings. The oft quoted factoid that "Islam" means "Peace" in Arabic, leaves out that it also means "Submission" which says much. In English it comes from the Latin which means agreement. Subtly different tack. There's more wriggle room for "I don't agree with you you prick, but let's agree to disagree and chill".

That said it's not so long ago where many countries in the Middle East were quite western in setup and were liberalising. Afghanistan in the 50's was a very different place and Iraq even had a communist party(and factions of the PLO were Marxist). These things aren't quite set in stone as much as some commentators may suggest. I would also believe that democracy was less the issue and more not wanting their culture becoming American.

The anointed king stuff was very similar in Europe, but European philosophies were more multi tiered(and were less likely to throw out old notions in favour of new), as was the rule of government. For a start pre the Reformation you had state and church to varying degrees of separation, then there was the growth of the law almost as yet another separate rule and after the Reformation you had a multitude of churches. Europe has had an incredibly fluid philosophical history of myriad ideas fighting for airtime.

I would argue however that Marxism was a brief flash in the pan, given succour as you noted in a Russia that badly needed something other than a nation of serfs lorded over by the unimaginably wealthy. An extreme society gave birth to another. Marxism is also very much bound up in the old philosophies(that old saw of "Jesus was a socialist" is simplistic but not that inaccurate), but being extreme, buggers up the society it attempts to save.

China another culture where the innate philosophies tend to drive under the surface. Confucius promoted servility to king and family as a virtue which can be one helluva double edged sword.

Absolutely, Iran is another example. The princesses used to dress in a very Western European style and campaigned for women's rights before the 1979 Islamic Revolution occurred.

The idea of Islam being a religion of peace is obviously false since the Koran is a war manual. While the Bible contains violence the Koran is explicitly about how to go about war. Although technically it says only to kill infidels in self defense, the definitions of infidels and self defense are given in previous sections and require a chain of reasoning which the average goat herder is not going to be able to follow. It also says that if you don't follow everything written in the Koran then you're not a Muslim, making it difficult to be a moderate Muslim in the same sense as a moderate Christian.

I don't think Marxism was a flash in the pan, it's one of the dominant philosophies after the decline of Christianity. Subjectivism would be another popular one.

Wibbs wrote: »

My issues are less about the increase or decrease, but much more about more efficient use of the public monies that are already collected. The waste in the Irish public world is farcical at times and even the merest tightening up would reduce expenditure, get better value for money and ultimately reduce the taxes required.

Absolutely which is why I like that the government is privatising so much.

Wibbs wrote: »

If and when it does, I'll bet the farm it'll give rise to financial and then social stratification and extreme inequality in society. Great if you're inside the gates, not so great if you're outside. It appeals in abstract to those who would already be inside the gates, or are convinced they would be in such a future.

I’d imagine a lot of the posters on this forum would have autodidactic tendencies and would naturally expect to do well in a libertarian society.

However, stratification can still happen in a democracy. The Jewish control of German banks and media lead to the rise of the Nazi party as a recent example. It may be that a libertarian system increases the risks of something like that repeating and we might not be at the stage culturally to deal with it yet. The current refugee crisis could potentially tip over into something similar; there have already been outbreaks of violence.


The idea of reducing inequality follows from the same philosophies though. Taken to its logical conclusion the goal of reducing inequality ends up at communism. How much inequality are you willing to accept, is the amount we have now too much or not enough? Where in the spectrum do you want to leave it?

Either inequalities exist because the rich are exploiting the poor (Marxism) therefore ethically the rich should give money back to the poor and the politics of reducing inequality naturally follows. Or we accept Christian doctrine that God created the world and that ethically we have to take care of the weak because God said so and the politics of reducing inequality naturally follow.

Since I don’t accept either Marxist or Christian metaphysics/epistemology I don’t agree with the ethics and hence disagree with the politics of reducing inequality. I realise that for most people reducing inequality just feels like the right thing to do and isn’t consciously based on their philosophies, although that's really just following a philosophy of subjectivism.

The main problem with these philosophies is that the logical conclusion always results in totalitarianism. Communism would work if man wasn’t evil but because he is we have to force him to be good.

The alternative explanation is that inequalities exist because people make different choices about how to live. The obvious example is the gender pay gap myth (again a form of Marxism, Patriarchy took advantage of women) but it applies outside of gender. A person who chooses a lifestyle of less work will naturally tend to have less money than the person who works 100 hour weeks and studies in their spare time. Inequalities exist because people are unequal.

I also disagree that reducing inequality should be the goal just on economic principles. If one person has 1000 and another has 50 that's a better situation than one person having 100 and the other having 10, even though the first represents a bigger inequality. Given human nature it might feel worse but the second person is better off in absolute terms.

Wibbs wrote: »

But don't get me started on Musk. :pac:. Yeah he's OK, but it's a helluva lot of style over substance. Jobs was accused of that, the difference being he actually brought substance that came much closer to the style. I'll lay a bet now that instead of a promised man on Mars in the mid 2020's, at least one of his companies will be bankrupt, or sheepishly sold on. In this case the car ain't the star.

I don't find Musk particularly stylish, if anything he seems socially awkward bordering on autistic. He does take aggressive risks so he may end up bankrupting one or more of his companies, SpaceX was close to bankruptcy at the start. Even if he doesn't get a man on Mars he's already drastically reduced the costs of space travel, relanding the shuttle was quite an achievement and they're still trying to do it on water.

LostinBlanch

Sleepy wrote: »

They're the best economic option on the table but they're far from socially liberal IME. Fianna Fail would probably be less conservative but their tolerance of corruption and fast and loose economic policy makes them unelectable imho.

I'm sorry Sleepy but I have to disagree with you there. They just did what the Troika told them to do, like FF would have done if they managed to stay in power. It's not just me who says that Ashoka Mody the head of the IMF program in Ireland at the time said so. We have benefitted from the decrease in Euro excahnage rate and US and UK doing relatively well. That was absolutely nothing that FG had any control over. Unless of course you read any of the shills economists writing in the indo etc. The days of FG being financially responsible are long gone and just exist as a tired meme at this stage.

This last FG government have been every bit as corrupt as Charlie Haugheys FF ever were, if not more. So IMO the only difference between FG and FF is the different personalities and FGs authoritarian streak.

A plague on both their houses.

SarahMollie

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I’ve recently moved to Dublin Central and I’m finding hard to get excited about any of the candidates. I’d consider myself a centrist on economic stuff and left wing socially, but to get left wing social views here you get pretty strongly left economic policies too by the looks of it. I really don’t want to vote for a pro-life candidate, but I don’t want to vote for a populist who deals in the language of class warfare and whose solution to everything is to tax the 'Other' into oblivion.

Then of course there’s the party dimension and the politics of coalition to be factored in. Argh.

I’m lost.

Hi OP,

Social Democrats? I used to be Dublin Central but have moved due to the boundry change.

Have you looked at smartvote.ie to help you evaluate?

Sleepy

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I'm sorry Sleepy but I have to disagree with you there. They just did what the Troika told them to do, like FF would have done if they managed to stay in power. It's not just me who says that Ashoka Mody the head of the IMF program in Ireland at the time said so. We have benefitted from the decrease in Euro excahnage rate and US and UK doing relatively well. That was absolutely nothing that FG had any control over. Unless of course you read any of the shills economists writing in the indo etc. The days of FG being financially responsible are long gone and just exist as a tired meme at this stage.

This last FG government have been every bit as corrupt as Charlie Haugheys FF ever were, if not more. So IMO the only difference between FG and FF is the different personalities and FGs authoritarian streak.

A plague on both their houses.

But that's exactly what makes them economically responsible at the moment: they're (largely) doing what they're told by the experts instead of pledging massive increases in public spending, cutting taxation and abolishing water charges etc. (i.e. economic suicide)

Yes, I'm sure Fianna Fail would have done the same but I'd have to disagree on the tolerance for corruption between the parties: had Michael Lowry been a Fianna Fail TD, they wouldn't have kicked him out of the party (in fact, based on how they treated Bertie Ahern, it's likely they'd have made him party leader!).

Wibbs

RedJoker wrote: »

Absolutely, Iran is another example. The princesses used to dress in a very Western European style and campaigned for women's rights before the 1979 Islamic Revolution occurred.

True. Iran stands out in the region for a few reasons mind you and I suspect they'll go back to a more liberal society faster because of it.

The idea of Islam being a religion of peace is obviously false since the Koran is a war manual. While the Bible contains violence the Koran is explicitly about how to go about war. Although technically it says only to kill infidels in self defense, the definitions of infidels and self defense are given in previous sections and require a chain of reasoning which the average goat herder is not going to be able to follow. It also says that if you don't follow everything written in the Koran then you're not a Muslim, making it difficult to be a moderate Muslim in the same sense as a moderate Christian.

Yes and no. Islam as a faith is more than the Quran. The Sunna/Hadith and Sharia are much of the "problem" when it comes to being a moderate. A Quran only faith would be quite different and much more open to moderate thought and society.

I don't think Marxism was a flash in the pan, it's one of the dominant philosophies after the decline of Christianity.

Again yes and no. It would be the extreme of a long history of collectivism and socialism and one which would have pretty minority level adherents today.

Absolutely which is why I like that the government is privatising so much.

I wouldn't as I don't worship the market, just because it's the market. It's not always a one or the other game.

I’d imagine a lot of the posters on this forum would have autodidactic tendencies and would naturally expect to do well in a libertarian society.

and more posters on such a forum would be seen as "nerds" and libertarianism seems to go over big in that demographic, as does far leftism. It also seems to be a somehow "cleaner" more "logical" setup, unfortunately people are more messy. I think of it as the PUA of politics, a mildly autistic extreme "male brained" philosophy that tries to apply a system onto a real world that some can't quite grasp, a real world that doesn't quite work like that. And like the PUA stuff it appears very logical and yep it will get some results but it's hardly a way to live a life or build a society.

However, stratification can still happen in a democracy. The Jewish control of German banks and media lead to the rise of the Nazi party as a recent example.

Only in the realms of Zionist conspiracy theories. The Nazi's were bastards with many mothers and fathers. Non Jewish big business and german multinationals, the "Market" among them. Question, if Jewish control of banks was such an issue, why did Hitler privatise the main ones?

The idea of reducing inequality follows from the same philosophies though. Taken to its logical conclusion the goal of reducing inequality ends up at communism.

Only if one thinks in extremes of black and white.

Since I don’t accept either Marxist or Christian metaphysics/epistemology I don’t agree with the ethics and hence disagree with the politics of reducing inequality. I realise that for most people reducing inequality just feels like the right thing to do and isn’t consciously based on their philosophies, although that's really just following a philosophy of subjectivism.

Most people aren't robots. Most feel empathy for wider society. It's what makes us human and when absent is seen as a fault even a pathology. The vast majority of political philosophies from Communism to Nazism at least come from the angle of creating a better society. It's one reason why the extremes of Libertarianism are quite repellent to me. If sociopaths had a politic it would be up there as one of the top choices.

The alternative explanation is that inequalities exist because people make different choices about how to live.

Do people choose where and to whom they're born and what genetic advantages they may have that are advantageous to the time and place they're born? That would be a no. Put it another way if either of us had been born in a Nigerian slum we'd not be having this conversation.

I don't find Musk particularly stylish, if anything he seems socially awkward bordering on autistic.

You'r taking things a little too literal here RJ. I wasn't referring to his personal style. Style over substance in business and showboating.

Wibbs

LostinBlanch wrote: »

This last FG government have been every bit as corrupt as Charlie Haugheys FF ever were, if not more. So IMO the only difference between FG and FF is the different personalities and FGs authoritarian streak.

A plague on both their houses.

That would be my take too TBH.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RedJoker

Wibbs wrote: »

and more posters on such a forum would be seen as "nerds" and libertarianism seems to go over big in that demographic, as does far leftism. It also seems to be a somehow "cleaner" more "logical" setup, unfortunately people are more messy. I think of it as the PUA of politics, a mildly autistic extreme "male brained" philosophy that tries to apply a system onto a real world that some can't quite grasp, a real world that doesn't quite work like that. And like the PUA stuff it appears very logical and yep it will get some results but it's hardly a way to live a life or build a society.

Fair points. It's based on an epistemology of reason and logic so it's not that surprising.

Wibbs wrote: »

Only in the realms of Zionist conspiracy theories. The Nazi's were bastards with many mothers and fathers. Non Jewish big business and german multinationals, the "Market" among them. Question, if Jewish control of banks was such an issue, why did Hitler privatise the main ones?

If he'd removed Jews from the country I don't see why he'd have an issue with privatising banks.

My point was only to agree with you that stratification can be a dangerous issue and may be more likely in a libertarian society. The Nazi's were a workers party and it only took 10% of the population to cause those atrocities.

We're currently seeing an increase in white nationalism across the U.S. and Europe, Trump for example has talked about 35% import tariffs to move manufacturing back to the U.S. and is gaining support. The culture needs to change before the politics will work.

Wibbs wrote: »

Only if one thinks in extremes of black and white.

Yeah, I said "taken to it's logical conclusion", as in black and white, which was why I asked "How much inequality are you willing to accept, is the amount we have now too much or not enough? Where in the spectrum do you want to leave it?" I was asking where in the grey you think is the best solution. Although you only said that you're against extreme inequality so you may not have a view on it.

For example, the gun control issue in the U.S. and Australia has two sides arguing opposite extremes. However, I don't think anybody wants nuclear weapons in the hands of private citizens so we all agree that there needs to be some form of gun control. Likewise nobody wants to ban kitchen knives, baseball bats or the sharpening of sticks into points so some potential weapons are clearly ok. A reasonable position I heard put forth is that it should be left up to the experts; if the police feel they need certain types of weapons to do their jobs in a particular country then citizens should also have access to those weapons. If they don't need guns then citizens shouldn't either. Military or special tactical units of the police such as the ERU would be exceptions.

I wonder if there's a similar position that could be taken on the inequality issue rather than just being for or against it.

Wibbs wrote: »

Most people aren't robots. Most feel empathy for wider society. It's what makes us human and when absent is seen as a fault even a pathology. The vast majority of political philosophies from Communism to Nazism at least come from the angle of creating a better society. It's one reason why the extremes of Libertarianism are quite repellent to me. If sociopaths had a politic it would be up there as one of the top choices.

Sure, which is what Libertarianism is based on. They're relying on people's empathy, altruism and knowledge that helping others is in their own best interest to make the system work. If Libertarians believed that people would automatically try to harm anybody and step on their own mother to get ahead then they'd never go for it as a system. I think the belief is that people are generally good and try not to hurt others. Maybe that's naive though.

I wouldn't be a fan of the more extreme approaches to Libertarianism either, I think government should be in charge of military, police, enforcing of contracts and infrastructure. I'd be of the view that funding of education, healthcare, etc. is fine as well.

Wibbs wrote: »

Do people choose where and to whom they're born and what genetic advantages they may have that are advantageous to the time and place they're born? That would be a no. Put it another way if either of us had been born in a Nigerian slum we'd not be having this conversation.

Agreed, people are unequal as I said. That doesn't imply I have a moral obligation to them or that people born into better situations have a moral obligation to me. I don't believe Musk owes me anything for being born with the genetic gifts he has.

I don't see why increasing another person's happiness is somehow more ethical than increasing my own happiness.

If increasing another person's happiness improves my life also (for example, taking care of family or community) then it's in my own self interest to do so. Likewise if ending homelessness or climate change or taking care of the poor in Africa gave me a positive feeling then I could choose to work on those issues. There are sites where you can give loans directly to people in the third world so they can create businesses to help them improve their lives, a positive solution for everybody.

I believe that increasing my happiness at the expense of another person's happiness is unethical (e.g. stealing). They have the same right to their own happiness that I do.

My sister visited Malawi to help kids over there. Unfortunately, they can't give support directly to the people (which is what volunteers did initially) as it's considered ethical to sell or steal things given by whites but not if it's given by blacks. Since they were under British rule for so long they're also conditioned not to do anything for themselves. Instead of giving them money and telling them how to do things they need to change the culture to get them to work for themselves and come up with their own solutions. Very difficult work but it's extremely rewarding for my sister so she pursues that.

Wibbs wrote: »

You'r taking things a little too literal here RJ. I wasn't referring to his personal style. Style over substance in business and showboating.

Ah ok. You're right, he is aiming for some extreme achievements like you said and discusses a lot of his dreams and concepts which may never be achieved but he has also achieved a lot. The Tesla roadster has a 244 mile range on a single charge and can do 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. Nasa recently awarded SpaceX and another company contracts and paid SpaceX a billion dollars less for the exact same work.

The Black Oil

There's a part of me that wishes Labour had pulled the plug, on more than one occasion, particularly around the time of Alan Shatter and the AGS Commissioner. There would have been spin and headlines and them not putting the country first, letting down Ireland, blah blah. I'm not particularly anti-Enda for the sake of it, but Labour should have said enough was enough. I felt similarly a few times when the Greens were in office. I'd rather a junior party occasionally just had some balls and walked. Ethics and principle rather than just endlessly propping up a government in the name of commitment and stability. But alas, this is Irish politics and common sense is in short supply.

LostinBlanch

The Black Oil wrote: »

There's a part of me that wishes Labour had pulled the plug, on more than one occasion, particularly around the time of Alan Shatter and the AGS Commissioner. There would have been spin and headlines and them not putting the country first, letting down Ireland, blah blah. I'm not particularly anti-Enda for the sake of it, but Labour should have said enough was enough. I felt similarly a few times when the Greens were in office. I'd rather a junior party occasionally just had some balls and walked. Ethics and principle rather than just endlessly propping up a government in the name of commitment and stability. But alas, this is Irish politics and common sense is in short supply.

But then they wouldn't have padded out their pensions and iPhone Joan wouldn't have upgraded hers to a leader's pension.

As for the Greens, they could have pulled the plug whenever they wanted, but the lure of ministerial percs was too much. Remember their plan to rotate ministers so they could all get shiny upgraded pensions? For all their cant about ending corruption and a new way of governance and extending the Freedom of Information Act* etc, they stood in lock step with Cowen and FF when they brought in the most draconian legislation (Lenihan's words) to set up NAMA. Draconian? Well the penalties for revealing anything that the powers that be don't want known are more serious than revealing state secrets! This is the same NAMA that is in no way involved in dodgy dealings like Project Eagle. Or the same NAMA that sold Battersea Power Station for €600 million, leaving the new developers to make a profit of €10 billion.

So the day I take lectures from Eamon Ryan or any Green who supported Cowen and his FF regime is the day that hell freezes over.

TLDR: Snouts go in troughs.

*A Swedish idea from the mid 1700's, introduced as a way of combatting corruption and shining a light on dodgy dealings in dark corners.

The Black Oil

I'm surprised by the lack of post-election mud slinging, or perhaps I've not been paying attention.

ACD, as someone living in the UK, do you notice if the far left/protest politics gets as much air time compared to their equivalent here? Seems like it's largely a 2 horse race in the UK media, most of the time.

ancapailldorcha

The Black Oil wrote: »

I'm surprised by the lack of post-election mud slinging, or perhaps I've not been paying attention.

ACD, as someone living in the UK, do you notice if the far left/protest politics gets as much air time compared to their equivalent here? Seems like it's largely a 2 horse race in the UK media, most of the time.

I'm living in south-east England, Black Oil and so, speaking for England, the main parties judging by media coverage were the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP. UKIP would be classified as far right while the Green Party (along with Plaid Cymru in Wales and the Scottish National Party) would be far left. However, I noticed that UKIP seemed to receive a disproportionate amount of coverage from the BBC as opposed to the Green Party though Nigel Farage is quite a confident speaker compared to Natalie Bennett who embarrassed herself somewhat on an interview with Andrew Neil, editor of the Spectator, a right wing newspaper. I don't want to derail the thread with talk of editorial bias on the part of the BBC but it was my main source of debate and coverage of the election and I did feel that UKIP was getting a lot more coverage, not too far short of the Liberal Democrats in my opinion but that's just my opinion.