Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Akrasia wrote: »

I find there is always a point in any conversation with Libertarians where they get all defensive and willfully disengage from meaningful comment.

Meaningful comment? Are you kidding? This thread has been little more than a platform for people to rant about some group of policies they call "libertarianism", which rarely equaled the accepted thing. As has been said, libertarians have been compared with Nazis, Scientologists and conspiracy theorists. We've been described as a group of people "feeding" off each other. Is that your definition of meaningful?

Akrasia wrote: »

Do you, or any of the other libertarians on here at least acknowledge that a significant number of self described libertarians on the internet are as I described?

Not on boards.ie. I can't comment on anywhere else. All the libertarians I know here - donegalfella, ei.sdroab (I think), silverharp, Soldie etc, are miles from that conspiratorial image people here have tainted us with.

sron wrote: »

Perhaps it isn't. I suppose children living in poverty have the right to a good education, but when capitalism ensures a tiered society, the right is useless without the means to use it.

And here, at last, we have a genuine criticism of libertarianism.

Theres maybe 3 or 4 posters heavily influenced by libertarian thought, some of whom post only the odd time. Hardly an explosion.

Theres certainly a wider, dawning appreciation that perhaps neither a self interested civil service/public sector aristocracy, nor the latest inbred progeny of the last generation of TDs is indisputably the best people to trust with running....everything.

The common thread in the Irish and global economic downturn was that it was preceded by a period when the politicians gave us exactly what we wanted: low taxes, high spending, easy credit, no accountablility or enforcement, public wage increases for little or no return in productivity. Something for everyone in the audience. Rewarded in votes.

If Bertie had ever stood up in the Dail and announced back in 2004 that he was going to ban 100% mortgages, reverse benchmarking pay awards, remove property tax breaks, cut spending back in line with sustainable revenues and so on he would have been dragged from the Dail chamber and lynched on Stephens Green. Or he would have lost the election to whatever party was promising more tax cuts, more spending, more help to get young people on the property ladder.

Populist politics was part of the problem, and populist politics drives the state and its priorities. All of this economic mismanagement was done under the watchful eyes of the civil service and economic planners of our state who were very responsive to the political needs and demands of the people, but with no foresight or independance to justify their existence. Giving them *more* influence hardly seems to be the answer. It will just lead to more populist driven pro-cyclical economic planning with more disastrous results. Teachers and publicans and county councillors whove never ran a serious business in their lives cannot be expected to know the first thing about an innovation economy, let alone how to bring one about.

Instinctively, people grasp that - hence the deep distrust of the state and the complete lack of confidence in the ability of the same civil service that sleepwalked into this mess dragging us out of it.

In that, libertarian thought has some value in that it first challenges the state as to why it should exist at all which is a good starting point for the debate thats needed. This more than anything else explains why libertarian thought is more public these days. However, one needs to be aware that "libertarian" is a description which is probably as bandied about as ignorantly as "Sinn Feinner" was in 1916 and "neo-liberal" is today. Indeed, "libertarian" might be in danger of replacing "neo-liberal" in the vocabulary of some posters when it comes to describing any and all views that dont involve support of the SWP.

There isnt and wont be a sudden mass conversion to libertarianism in Ireland - in a country where the primary concern of every voter is getting *their* potholes filled above and beyond any wider issue it simply isnt possible. Id seriously doubt we will even see much change in the makeup of the Dail - look at Labours rise to popularity, based on little more than hype and populism, promising everyone something and guaranteeing everyone no pain, no reform, all the insiders protected. The easy, populist option patented by Bertie Ahern all over again.

Its good politics for Ireland, and it works. It wont stop working until Irish people stop rewarding it. No sign of that yet. So, in the meantime, lets try insulate the economy from the baneful effects of populist politics leading to disaster. Thats not libertarianism, its common sense.

Akrasia wrote: »

It's a selection of viewpoints of how your politics are perceived by others.

I'm quite aware of that. I posted the above to counter a claim you made: that there was meaningful discussion on this thread. Statements that libertarians come from "Ideological nutcase land" offer nothing meaningful. This thread was saturated by that kind of thing, as well as a trend of libertarian opposer's telling the libertarian supporters what libertarianism is.

Against this backdrop, any semblance of rational discourse is lost. Even though I disagree profusely with him, I have to at least thank Amhran Nua for communicating his position respectfully. It's only a pity I couldn't talk with him properly what with all the fud being thrown about.

Later on in the thread sron posed the problem of opportunity. As someone interested in libertarianism I'd like to discuss these things, to inform myself better, but such discussion is impossible with all the aforementioned fud thrown about.

Akrasia wrote: »

Again, acting offended and using that to shut down discussion is not going to make your position any more popular.

I'm not offended: I've long become accustomed to my views being dismissed before they're even explained. But you're beginning to spin this myth that I'm the one who shut down the discussion; on the contrary, it was those who offered nothing but rhetoric and sloganeering that smothered the debate.

northwest100 wrote: »

I don't know if a libertarian system would work, but the one we have at the moment seems to favour the lawless corrupt and incompetent scum of the earth.

Of course, in a completely libertarian society these words would be effectively meaningless.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

The Universal Declaration outlines the rights of human beings. This is why it is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not the Universal Declaration of Individual Rights. This is also why it consistently refers to everyone's rights, and only once refers to individuals, only to recognize individuals responsibility to uphold human rights. You're beginning from a position where rights originate within the individual, where collective rights do not exist, and where the idea of collective rights is a paradox.

The UDHR on the other hand begins from a position where your rights stem from your status as a human being, as a member of a human family, not from your individual rights. These are rights that apply to everyone, equally, because we are all members of a human family. It justifies human rights through the collective membership of a group. The Declaration grants the rights of members of a collective group, of a human family, and does not find rights in the individual, and certaintly not in the Libertarian individual.

This is where you are getting it wrong. The UDHR is a piece of legislation that upholds the position of individual rights, the UDHR ensures that each individual human being achieves a minimum standered of living.

This idea of inividual rights is self-evident in the wording of the legislation take Article four for example:

Article four wrote:

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

This Article ensures no person is sold into slavery and no person can be the property of another.

Similerly we can take another article, article eighteen which states:

Article eighteen wrote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Again we see this piece of legislation is specifically designed to meet the needs of the individual human being.

Article eighteen wrote:

Equally, if you are a child, a woman, a refugee, or a military combatant you have specific collective rights based on your membership of a group. As a citizen of a nation state you have specific rights as a citizen of that state that non-citizens do not have. Above all of these collective rights you have rights, not as an individual, but as a human being in the UDHR.

Again you confuse rights with abilities. If we take your example of a citizen being aable to vote while a non-citizen cannot. That is true. However it is a Human right that the non-citizen is a citizen of some country. Thus they do not have the ability to vote in their home country but they have the right to call some country home.

Article eighteen wrote:

Ignoring Godwin's Law, the status of rights as human rights cannot be understood outside of the context of their origin in the aftermath of WWII and the discovery of the concentration camps. Throughout the inter-war period states consistently repealed certain groups status as citizens, and as a result, denied them any rights that they might have had, and opened them up to abuse by the state.

Exactly, had the individual rights of Jews and other minorities in concentration camps been respected we would never have had the Holocaust.

It's possible that there isn't actually an explosion in the number of libertarians, but rather that a smallish number of libertarians are prolific, and more importantly that they never change their opinions in the face of debate - leading to endless threads arguing pointlessly with libertarians.

Just a suggestion.

mischievously,
Scofflaw

Maine Republicans Adopt Tea Party Platform

An overwhelming majority of delegates to the Maine Republican convention tonight voted to scrap the the proposed party platform and replace it with a document created by a group of Tea Party Activists.

The official platform for the Republican Party of Maine is now a mix of right-wing fringe policies, libertarian buzzwords and outright conspiracy theories.

The document calls for the elimination of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve, demands an investigation of "collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth," suggests the adoption of "Austrian Economics," declares that "'Freedom of Religion' does not mean 'freedom from religion'" (which I guess makes atheism illegal), insists that "healthcare is not a right," calls for the abrogation of the "UN Treaty on Rights of the Child" and the "Law Of The Sea Treaty" and declares that we must resist "efforts to create a one world government."

PDF here:
http://www.mainepolitics.net/sites/default/files/Maine_GOP_platform.pdf

Welcome to Hell.
Wasn't somebody saying something about conspiracy theorists among Libertarians?

northwest100, please don't post random Youtube videos.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Oh and just on your point re Harvard, I've been to Harvard. It cost me 300 dollars, the rest was funded by the American state (NIH). Under your regime that'd be another opportunity lost for many.