Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

1…910121415…27

Comments

  • #332
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #333
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    I'll repeat the question. Would you advocate for your daughter over the age of 18 if she was mentally handicapped? What if she did not have you or her mother to advocate for her? She'd be left to market forces? Is there a huge market out there for mentally disabled people?


  • #334
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    And the worst thing about all this is that you dont even realise how callous and desrtuctive your ideology is.


  • #335
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    I have indeed. It's called the free market. (Cue scary horror music)

    The libertarian version apparently has swelling triumphant chords as the invisible hand descends from the clouds to set all to rights.

    The market is a good mechanism for matching needs and means, but it's just that, a mechanism. Like all mechanisms, it is a reasonable solution for a certain set of problems within certain specified limits, but it will not solve all problems, and requires safety features if it's going to be operated by humans in close proximity. Fetishising it is as silly as fetishising guns or cars....or unrestricted liberty. Interestingly enough, those often go together.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #336
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Tell her what exactly?

    That we should have switched to a Libertarian system where she would have died a lot quicker and with out "wasting" so much money?

    Susie Long's case cased out rage because the government had failed it's mandate. If we lived in a free market system no one would have blinked because no health provider would have a mandate to help anyone, only to make money. If Long wasn't going to make them money she would not be helped and no one would think that was wrong.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Has it occurred to you that there is no guarantee this will happen and in practice it often doesn't because other companies are very cautious about providing a service in an area where a company has already failed.

    Another company will only step in if it is profitable for them to do so. Which more often that not isn't the case. Compare the public bus routes (that run at a loss) to the private bus routes. Why are the private buses not serving all these low population areas? Because there is money in it. It doesn't matter which company it is, none of them would make money in it. So NONE of them cover these areas. Bus Eireannn does because it has to because its mandate is not to make money it is to serve the public even at a loss.

    You have yet to explain how Libertarianism solves this issue in a profit only system.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    No actually you won't because I imagine you don't have the funds to actually set up such a company. You would be relying on investment and investors are naturally cautious about entering into a field that has already failed companies.

    Again this is the myth of the free market, that there will always be another company to go to if you are unhappy with your current company. Which of course is nonsense in the real world.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    You have yet to explain how the free market solves these problems other than saying you go to another company.

    You haven't explained what you do if no such company exists, or if the other company does not provide the service to a level you require or can afford.


  • #338
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The libertarian version apparently has swelling triumphant chords as the invisible hand descends from the clouds to set all to rights.

    Outside of certain 'problems', the invisible hand isn't worth a **** :D


  • #339
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    If you can't afford private health care and need to go to the HSE you may not get properly looked after.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    I have indeed. It's called the free market. (Cue scary horror music)

    If you go to the free market you won't.


  • #340
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,699 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Laminations wrote: »
    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

    There but for the grace of god go I.

    Libertarians of the 'I'm alright jack' variety might not be so anti government if they were thrust in a desperate situation that they have no control over.

    the possibility of the birth of a disabled child is one that is real enough for so many people to realise just what a necessary comfort the safety net is.

    No insurance company would be prepared to cover the life long expenses of a severely disabled person. It would be impossible for one person to cover those expenses on an average wage, what would this family do in a libertarian 'society'?
    What horrible choices would they be 'free' to make?

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #341
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Akrasia wrote: »
    There but for the grace of god go I.

    Libertarians of the 'I'm alright jack' variety might not be so anti government if they were thrust in a desperate situation that they have no control over.

    the possibility of the birth of a disabled child is one that is real enough for so many people to realise just what a necessary comfort the safety net is.

    No insurance company would be prepared to cover the life long expenses of a severely disabled person. It would be impossible for one person to cover those expenses on an average wage, what would this family do in a libertarian 'society'?
    What horrible choices would they be 'free' to make?

    I'm still waiting to find out if DF would advocate for a mentally (or physically) disabled offspring that had reached 18yrs of age.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #343
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    There is always a supplier in a market where there is demand. But to have demand you need a means to purchase. Supply doesn't follow wants, it responds to means of purchase. Example, I want a flying car that can travel at mach 1, no one is going to go and invest to start a company that will supply that to me if there is not a hope that I can pay for it. You seem to think the poor can just purchase a less good service. The poor already do that with their welfare. Without their welfare they have no means of purchase, they carry no sway and no markets would respond to their needs let alone wants. Tesco does not provide food to the homeless or unemployed, not in any great quantity. They sell food for profit and poor people can buy that food based on the welfare they get.


  • #344
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Lack of funding for a health service she could use.

    The VdeP is the largest charity in Ireland and spent 50 million on its services in 2008. The HSE had a budget of 14.9 billion in the same period. Even with the inefficiencies of the HSE, I know who I'd take my chances with.


  • #345
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Laminations wrote: »
    There is always a supplier in a market where there is demand. But to have demand you need a means to purchase. Supply doesn't follow wants, it responds to means of purchase. Example, I want a flying car that can travel at mach 1, no one is going to go and invest to start a company that will supply that to me if there is not a hope that I can pay for it. You seem to think the poor can just purchase a less good service. The poor already do that with their welfare. Without their welfare they have no means of purchase, they carry no sway and no markets would respond to their needs let alone wants. Tesco does not provide food to the homeless or unemployed, not in any great quantity. They sell food for profit and poor people can buy that food based on the welfare they get.
    If we take away tax, PRSI and the minimum wage the number of employed people will raise to its max. After all no company is going to turn down the ability to raise more manpower at very low cost.

    Also companies will pop up to service these lower wage earners. Competition will ensure it, the popularity of Lidl proves this.


  • #346
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Because she was waiting for a public hospital to treat her. She wasn't turning up in the Blackrock clinic or the Beacon hospital and throwing money at the doctors.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I have, they are very impressive. If you have the money you are going to be fine.

    Now look at the survival rates in America for uninsured patients (all 40 million of them).

    http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/cancer_is_hitting_un.php

    "Uninsured cancer patients are nearly twice as likely to die within five years as those with private coverage, according to the first national study of its kind and one that sheds light on troubling healthcare obstacles"

    Compare that with the French system which have survival rates as high as America yet everyone received health care.

    Again I've no issue with the idea that when the free market works it works well. But you have yet to explain what you do with the people effected when it doesn't work. In America they slap half hearted and ineffective government programs on them. But would you even do this?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    It has escaped your notice, then, that even Bus Éireann has cut its routes? What happened to its mandate?

    It is still there, but because of things like the bank bail out the government has little money to fund it.

    Explain how Libertarianism solves this.

    I've asked you this a good few times and you seem to be refusing to answer.


  • #347
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    I'm still not sure about this concept of an individual being a "minor" and therefore does not have liberty.

    Today, it is done by state decree.
    The age of being a minor may vary from state to state.

    But how can this concept be done in a truly Libertarian society?


  • #348
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    I'm still not sure about this concept of an individual being a "minor" and therefore does not have liberty.

    Today, it is done by state decree.
    The age of being a minor may from state to state.

    But how can this concept be done in a truly Libertarian society?
    Libertarians do not want to compleat abolition of the government. Rather we want the government to be as minimal as possible. The government would still exist to publish legislation.


  • #349
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Libertarians do not want to compleat abolition of the government. Rather we want the government to be as minimal as possible. The government would still exist to publish legislation.
    Oh is that right?

    Slippery slope me thinks.

    Once u let the government in on one area, for example comprimising essential liberty (declaring such and such a "minor"), then you open the door for all manner of interference.
    For example, night-time curfew for those minors?
    Child labour laws, minium wage, holding parents to account for transgressions commited by those minors.


  • #350
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Oh is that right?

    Slippery slope me thinks.

    Once u let the government in on one area, for example comprimising essential liberty (declaring such and such a "minor"), then you open the door for all manner of interference.
    For example, night-time curfew for those minors?
    Child labour laws, minium wage, holding parents to account for transgressions commited by those minors.
    Don't be silly, when you include those things the ideology is no longer Libertarianism.


  • #351
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    If we take away tax, PRSI and the minimum wage the number of employed people will raise to its max. After all no company is going to turn down the ability to raise more manpower at very low cost.

    Also companies will pop up to service these lower wage earners. Competition will ensure it, the popularity of Lidl proves this.

    You dont seem to grasp the difference between 'low wage earners' and 'no wage earners'. The latter are at best a long term investment (for the state), some may never be productive. If I was poor, disabled, uneducated I could not go into Lidl and ask that they supply me with food for the next n years after which I may be in a position to contribute something back to them. The state is in place to provide people the equality of rights and opportunity (to a basic degree). Its why they speak of education as an investment for the future, we are investing our taxes/time/energy in educating the young. If education was privatised, the energy would go into educating those that would give the greatest yield - i.e. the intelligent that will succeed and pay and/or the wealthy who already have the means to pay. Why would a libertarian system concern itself with educating those that may not succeed, the risk is too great in that investment


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The libertarian version apparently has swelling triumphant chords as the invisible hand descends from the clouds to set all to rights.

    The market is a good mechanism for matching needs and means, but it's just that, a mechanism. Like all mechanisms, it is a reasonable solution for a certain set of problems within certain specified limits, but it will not solve all problems, and requires safety features if it's going to be operated by humans in close proximity. Fetishising it is as silly as fetishising guns or cars....or unrestricted liberty. Interestingly enough, those often go together.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I think you misunderstand or have setup a strawman. Apart from the Libertarian view of justice , the implicit assumptions about the economy or human relations is that there is inbuilt uncertainty. Its the statist that expects nirvana as the result of their inspired policies.


    I'll leave you with the well known Hayek quote

    "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design"

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #353
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    silverharp wrote: »
    I think you misunderstand or have setup a strawman. Apart from the Libertarian view of justice , the implicit assumptions about the economy or human relations is that there is inbuilt uncertainty. Its the statist that expects nirvana as the result of their inspired policies.


    I'll leave you with the well known Hayek quote

    "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design"

    Would you advocate for your child or (actually I dont want you arguing that a child is your direct responsibility so lets just say sibling) if they were mentally disabled and over the age of 18?


  • #354
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #355
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #356
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Rather ironic of you to be moaning about pot-holes in roads i think.

    Isn't it an opportunity for an libertarian entrepreneur to setup and mend stretches of road for a fee from it's users?


  • #357
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Why not highlight the essential liberty being denied a 16 year old one?


  • #358
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Rather ironic of you to be moaning about pot-holes in roads i think.

    Isn't it an opportunity for an libertarian entrepreneur to setup and mend stretches of road for a fee from it's users?
    That would be ilegal.

    Also that's not what irony means...


  • #359
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #360
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,699 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    If we take away tax, PRSI and the minimum wage the number of employed people will raise to its max. After all no company is going to turn down the ability to raise more manpower at very low cost.

    Also companies will pop up to service these lower wage earners. Competition will ensure it, the popularity of Lidl proves this.
    All of those are statements of blind faith.

    A shur it'll all be grand.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Advertisement
  • #361
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,699 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Don't be silly, when you include those things the ideology is no longer Libertarianism.
    exactly, you fool. you maroon, imagine suggesting to a libertarian that there may be anti child labour laws.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



Advertisement