Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Valmont wrote: »

What is the market good for from a social democratic perspective? How big should the state be? Is Ireland's state too big or just the right size?

Market mechanisms serve the same role in social democracy as in any other politico-economic system - that of matching supply and demand. As far as we know, although the market system has some well-known imperfections,there is no better mechanism for doing that particular job.

A mechanism, though, is just that - a mechanism, not an end in itself. That latter - the idea that a free market is some kind of justification for its own existence, and that good will automatically and naturally flow out of it as long as it is left to its own devices - is what I call market fetishism, which is an irrational position rarely espoused by those who study the deficiencies of markets.

As to the Irish state - as Laminations says, too big in parts, too small in others, pointing the wrong way in some places. How big should the state be? The answer depends on what you want from it, which is largely a matter of individual preference - the idea that there is a right answer is itself wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

As to the Irish state - as Laminations says, too big in parts, too small in others, pointing the wrong way in some places. How big should the state be? The answer depends on what you want from it, which is largely a matter of individual preference - the idea that there is a right answer is itself wrong.

I think this displays how relativism is ingrained in political thought. All that matters is that you get behind a strong lobby and squeeze as much out of the system as you can?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The beggar and the rich man, both free to starve or prosper...

amused,
Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok that's better.
It takes a lot of proding.

McElroy is contradicting "Mr.Libertarian" (Walter Block), in that she believes physical agression (does that include the odd hand on thigh or bum? It's not clear) should be punished (by the State i presume), but not the Verbal harassment. I suppose the same goes for workplace Bullying.

At least we can see that Libertarians would rather perform backflips of mental rationalisations than have the state put manners on these cretins.

Still though, she's allowing for State interference in the workplace, but then again it doesnt say what "phyisical aggression" is.
Should i presume Libertarians are OK with my saying: "listen if you want a raise you'll have to blow me" to some young one at my workplace?

Edit: i guess it does include "unwanted touching".
So i retract the above example of hand on thigh

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's a difference between legislating for taste and morality and legislating to protect people from the unwanted, potentially dangerous sexual advances of a stronger person. Such areas are ones in which state intervention is not only acceptable, but necessary and desirable.

If societal re-engineering means making sexual harassment illegal, then count me in.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, your wrong.
As i posted "Mr. Libertarian" (Walter Block) explained that: "the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept the job and especially when she agrees to keep the job. If she continues to patronize or work at a place where she is molested, it can only be voluntary."

Libertarians simply rationalise the abuse.

In your own example the "Libertarian Feminist" says it's only unwanted phyiscal touching that should be outlawed (by the State), but verbal abuse is accepted.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, not necessarily. Do I think it can be changed by means other than abolishing the state? Absolutely

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I didn't say condone, nor approve. I said Libertarians accept it.
Walter Block goes on in this paper to explain how such lewd behavior is normal human interaction.

When pressed for the Libertarian answer for this issue the only one they provide is that hopefully competition in the market will make such issues go away. They don't explain why that hasn't happened hereto.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

His wikipedia entry says this:

Lew Rockwell of the Mises Institute said this about Walter Block's active role in modern libertarianism:
Murray Rothbard, in his life, was known as Mr. Libertarian. We can make a solid case that the title now belongs to Walter Block, a student of Rothbard's whose own vita is as thick as a big-city phonebook, and as diverse as Wikipedia. Whether he is writing on economic theory, ethics, political secession, drugs, roads, education, monetary policy, social theory, unions, political language, or anything else, his prose burns with a passion for this single idea: if human problems are to be solved, the solution is to be found by permitting greater liberty.

Insofar as your other question, i explained in Post 566

Since Donegalfella won't provide us a Libertarian response to this i've had to revert to Google

My searching for the Libertarian answer led me to Walter Block whom appears quite a longstanding hero of Libertarianism and Anarcho Capitalism.

donegalfella wrote: »

Do you believe the state should regulate people's words, looks, and demeanor?

Yes, No, No