Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

BluePlanet · 11-05-2010 12:59PM

Oh i know the answer!
It's FINLAND, they have the best education in world with a very high rate of union membership among staff.

But I already know the Libertarian retort too!

You see it's like this: in cases where socialist systems out perform private ones, it is due to the "character" of that society doing well in spite of the system.

But when socialist systems fail, it's a failure of the system not the character of that society.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 01:02PM

Sorry, private roads to where? To the end of your garden? or would you pay for roads from your house to Dublin, Limerick and Cork? Because if the road network was private, at some point there would be someone who didn't want to upgrade their bit. And would others be able to drive on the bit of road you paid for? As per usual, ludicrously unworkable

Laminations · 11-05-2010 01:07PM

And without trivialising my point, do you now admit that your position of 'liberty trumps all else' is flawed?? Sometimes short term liberty needs to be curtailed to protect or enhance long term liberty. Sometimes liberty is not the most important priority.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 01:09PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 01:15PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 01:17PM

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex · 11-05-2010 01:40PM

Umm, that wasn't quite the point of my post

No parents actually don't place their children in other schools because the other schools tend to be full (why would a school be half empty on the off chance that a neighboring school might fail)

Life doesn't go on, life stops. Or at least stops long enough to cause harm.

This is the problem with things that are too big to fail.

BluePlanet · 11-05-2010 01:43PM

So you see where these anarcho-capitalists are going.

Basically, if ever there is a private entity outperforming a state-run equivalent, it automatically means that it's true right across the board.

It's also an automatic WIN for Libertarianism.
:rolleyes:

It's probably the easiest, lazy-est pov to argue tbh.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 01:45PM

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 11-05-2010 01:49PM

Not really

Permabear · 11-05-2010 01:50PM

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798 · 11-05-2010 02:05PM

Locking up the arsonist is a metaphor for regulating financial markets, df.

The thing you know is necessary but can't bring yourself to admit out loud.

Zombrex · 11-05-2010 02:08PM

Lucky for them. I have, and I've read about it happening as well.

This is the my biggest issue with libertarianism in its purest sense, it is faith that bad things won't happen with no recognition that if they do there is no system in place to help anyone because we can't have government interfering.

If all the roads are private, and all the schools are private, and all the water systems are private etc etc when things fail nothing happens. You are on your own.

If the company who grits your roads doesn't want to grit your roads there is nothing you can do about it except hire another company and that company may not exist.

If your school closes down there is nothing you can do about it except send your kids to another school that may not exist or may be miles away.

Faith in the market is misplaced because the market doesn't care about you. It cares about itself and if your interests don't align with the the interests of the service providers you are screwed.

We don't notice that that much precisely because we live in a country where the government takes the slack when this happens. We don't have poor people dying the streets because private health care companies refuse to treat them because they can't pay. We don't have people denied access to roads because they don't pay the management free to the company that owns the road.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 02:31PM

Nice quick answer. There obviously exist instances where liberty is not greater than xyz. So why doesn't liberty trump your daughters security or education??

Permabear · 11-05-2010 02:34PM

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 02:35PM

Another point regarding private schools. Why bother educating the dim or poor? I mean I'll get a better return with my school that has an entrance exam and only tutors the intelligent and rich. You think other private schools will pop out of the ether to educate the financially and intellectually less well off in a society??

Laminations · 11-05-2010 02:38PM

No one is arguing for a public/state-only solution. We are NOT statists although you'd like to strawman us as such. I think we are arguing for the coexistence of public and private services - you on the other hand are advocating private-only institutions.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 02:41PM

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 02:46PM

Excellently stepped into my trap. So rights and liberty go hand in hand with ability and responsibility? You advocate for your baby....who is vulnerable. Are there not other classes of people (even adults) in society who are vulnerable? what about the poor? the disabled? orphans? addicts?

Permabear · 11-05-2010 02:52PM

This post has been deleted.

Taxipete29 · 11-05-2010 02:57PM

I personally have no issue with private schools. I do have an issue with the state paying the salaries of the teachers. Is it any wonder that private schools can provide better facilities when they charge large fees and dont have to pay for their staff.

The vast majority of people in this country could not afford private education under a libertarian system. There must be a public alternative.

People in general will never accept the idea that if it suddenly all goes wrong they are f***ed and that is it, end of. Libertarianism really is the pervue of those who are well off and doing well. Some have worked for it, many others are just born into it. Its not their fault and they shouldnt be punished for it, but to expect people to accept the fact that simply cos little Tarquin was born in the right suburb that they can be educated.Yet someone who works just as hard for their family but would not be considered affleunt, cant afford to send their child to school.

Its nonsense and unworkable in the same way as any other purist society. The human spirit will never accept absolutes. Fair, balanced, mixed societies are the only way it will work in a sustainable manner.

Permabear · 11-05-2010 02:59PM

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 11-05-2010 03:07PM

huh?
What kinda Libertarian thinking is that?
Who decides one is a "minor" and how? Other than some sort of government decree?

Permabear · 11-05-2010 03:08PM

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 03:10PM

Wrong. A minor is descriptive, and includes anyone below the age of majority. You do not advocate for her simply because she fits the criterion on minor, you do so because she cannot advocate for herself, she is vulnerable. She is vulnerable BECAUSE she is a minor. Would you advocate for your child above the age of 18 if she was mentally disabled? she is no longer a minor then, but she remains vulnerable.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 03:13PM

Exactly, its a consesus among the society, in fact it refers to the age of majority which differs from country to country.

I could be similarly obtuse

What if I have a different definition of minor than you?

Zombrex · 11-05-2010 03:21PM

Well firstly that isn't a solution. If all those things failed we would be in bad shape. And the more vital the service the more necessary that it doesn't fail. I have endless trouble with my phone company. Imagine if my water services or medical services were run like my phone company. I would probably be dead by now. I was six months waiting for Eircom and BT to sort out a problem with my line. Neither of them cared enough about it because it my bill wasn't worth the hassle of fixing the problem. Imagine if that was our health service.

Again that isn't a solution . Governments have their faults but they have a mandate to help the people. A private company doesn't.

This is my other issue with libertarianism, when ever the major flaws in the ideology are pointed out the discussion just turns to how bad governments are.

Governments aren't perfect, but that doesn't explain how the problems with Libertarianism aren't really problems.

You haven't explained what happens when the companies that provide you with a vital service fail and there is no company willing to take its place.

And Michael O'Leary will leave you at the drop of a hat if you become unprofitable for him.

If the passport office was a private company it would have gone bust by now and no one would be getting passports.

Again this is not a solution. You are just saying public governments are just a bad. Ok, if they are just as bad why don't we just keep public governments since they are just as bad in some places and better in others?

You have provided no solutions here to these problems, you have just done what in my experience Libertarians always do, fail back on giving out about public government.

That bit is easy. The hard bit is showing how your solution actually improves things.

Laminations · 11-05-2010 03:23PM

The state is there to advocate for the vulnerable. It is there to ensure their rights are maintained. That is not to say that it precludes a family memberor friend advocating on your behalf, it just means that when all other supports are gone, it will be a safety net in terms of education, welfare, health etc.

This does not stop you sending your child to a private school or getting private health cover. It does mean you have to pay into an insurance scheme that acts as a safety net for you if you need it or for others that are vulnerable due to birth or unfortunate circumstance. Yes I agree it could and should cost less to maintain this safety net but your proposal to scrap it is callous and selfish

Zombrex · 11-05-2010 03:29PM

Exactly.

It doesn't even mean that government will do a particular good job at this, but it is better than having nothing looking out for you with the Libertarian option.

If tomorrow my TV company decide that it is not profitable to supply my area with TV I'm annoyed and I wait until hopefully another company decides to have a go at it.

If tomorrow my hospital decides that it is not profitable to supply my area with health services I die. It may annoy me to wait in an A&E room for 9 hours. If the government is particularly inept people may die waiting in A&E. But the alternative is no A&E at all. My question to the Libertarians is how is that better?

BluePlanet · 11-05-2010 03:30PM

A play on words is it?

Those downtrodden and oppressed have consistantly agitaged for government interference - the "40 hour work week", the right to unionise, safer working conditions, child labour laws, tenancy laws etc.

Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Comments