Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
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.

Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

1…1920222425…27

Comments

  • #632
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,548 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Again, the straw man false dichotomy. Its not just a choice between no regulation at all, and excessive regulation of everything.

    Nobody in their right mind is in favour of excessive regulation, most people are in favour of sensible regulations that are balanced and realistic.

    The correct balance isn't always reached, but imperfect regulation is not an argument in favour of no regulation at all.
    The recent Muslim cartoons incident is a good example of this. Muslims demanded that states use their power to outlaw any derogatory representation of their prophet—and many on the statist left threw their weight behind them.
    Like who?
    It was libertarians who argued most forcefully that finding something offensive does not constitute a de facto rationale for banning it.
    Plenty of people who aren't right wing libertarians also argued that point. Banning or not banning something because it's offensive is a different issue entirely to protecting people against sexual harrassment in the workplace. Freedom of speech is different to freedom to use your position of power as an employer/manager to sexually intimidate your employees.

    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?"



  • #633
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,548 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    What are you, the script writer for Ally McBeal?

    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?"



  • #634
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,548 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I find inconsistency in the fact that you are comparing apples with oranges. it is the intent to harrass that is protected against by the state. Workplace bullying is not permitted, whether it is on the basis of sexual orientation, race,religion, or the colour of someone's hair.
    If the muslim employee was being targetted for harrassment by other employees who were pinning up offensive images (to him) where they knew they would offend him, then they would be breaking the law. If it was just an oversight and the other employees didn't realise that it was offensive then they would just take down the poster and leave it at that.
    These situations are decided on a case by case basis by a tribunal

    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?"



  • #635
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #636
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,714 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    DF, you're starting to sound like you feel that in cases of sexual harrasment, the offender's freedom of expression trumps the victims rights?..isn't this where the argument for freedom of expression gets muddy..if everyone went around doing whatever they pleased, with no concern for anyone but themselves, thats pretty much the breakdown of civility..


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #638
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Yet again it seems it has to be spelled out for you. There is a great difference between 'causing offence' and 'creating an offensive environment', the second constitutes harrassment


  • #639
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    What about those lads who bought a rocket launcher to blow up a rival gang should their property be protected or is the rocket launcher somehow a symptom of the welfare state :rolleyes:.


  • #640
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Yet each one of those things could be used as a means to intimidate, humiliate and sexually harass someone.

    I just don't understand why having the freedom to sexually harass someone is so important to you.


  • #641
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #643
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    That is for society to decide via elected representatives in government, who pass legislation. Under your state, the government wouldn't have the ability to pass legislation in this area.


  • #644
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #645
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Proposed state (Unless you are currently communicating from the Liberated Territory of Donegal :) )


  • #646
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #647
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Not just any poster of course, I mean if material is being circulated which is somehow designed to personally upset a person- like a doodle (serious point here) of someone in a compromising position - then this is harassment and bullying. Simply having offensive material around isn't harassing an individual. I incidentally think that public posters aimed at humiliating individuals shouldn't be allowed either- we can't have people running ads all over the place ridiculing someone they don't like.

    If a business decides it wants to keep porn on the walls, then no, that's their business and the employees can get used to it.


  • #648
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Not just any poster of course, I mean if material is being circulated which is somehow designed to personally upset a person- like a doodle (serious point here) of someone in a compromising position - then this is harassment and bullying. Simply having offensive material around isn't harassing an individual. I incidentally think that public posters aimed at humiliating individuals shouldn't be allowed either- we can't have people running ads all over the place ridiculing someone they don't like.

    If a business decides it wants to keep porn on the walls, then no, that's their business and the employees can get used to it.

    All of that, though, seems like it's just a question of where you draw the line. Presumably, the libertarian perspective is that on principle you do not regulate such things at all, whatever their effect. Anything else is just hanging out on the fringes of social democracy.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #649
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Indeed. That is probably the reason I would be so in favour of the free market. For example, Amhran Nua suggested earlier that if I wasn't happy with the education system I should vote for different policies. I think this misses the point. Why should there be a one-size-fits-all model, where we all have to accept the prevailing opinion? Why should we all have to learn, say, Irish? And there's also the issue that when voting at elections we vote for a wide range of issues, and it's necessary to prioritize some concerns over others.


    Still though, this thread has been interesting (if a little hard to follow when one doesn't constantly check up on it). I think the libertarian position on regulation (in the sense being discussed the last few pages) is a little harder to defend than freedom of enterprise.

    I'm not entirely satisfied that one can argue everything from "first principles, for example.
    Anonymous1987 wrote: »
    What about those lads who bought a rocket launcher to blow up a rival gang should their property be protected or is the rocket launcher somehow a symptom of the welfare state.

    The government banned head shop products the other day, handing a sizable chunk of the drugs market to the kind of people who do wield rocket launchers. As I've always said, we had a choice between head shops and the kind of people who burn down head shops, and this "nanny state" ban is clearly in favour of the latter. In a liberalized drugs market, undercutting gangsters who spend so much money on smuggling and weaponry wouldn't exactly be rocket science.


  • #650
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #651
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    The government banned head shop products the other day, handing a sizable chunk of the drugs market to the kind of people who do wield rocket launchers. As I've always said, we had a choice between head shops and the kind of people who burn down head shops, and this "nanny state" ban is clearly in favour of the latter. In a liberalized drugs market, undercutting gangsters who spend so much money on smuggling and weaponry wouldn't exactly be rocket science.
    While the gangs were indeed drug dealers I wasn't arguing for banning drugs or head shops, my point was that the kind of libertarianism supported here on boards argues for the protection of property from the state which it considers violent. This line of thought it seems to me is the reverse of the labour exploitation that Marxism preaches i.e. in libertarianism the government exploits the owners of capital rather than the capitalist exploiting the worker.

    If an individual can own property such as rocket launchers that can be used to coerce others through threat or use of violence then what is there to stop a libertarian society returning to tyranny in the same way as an overbearing government leads to tyranny?


  • Advertisement
  • #652
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #653
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Actually David Cameron is attempting to introduce a level of choice into the education system across the water. Basically parents will receive a voucher equivalent to the cost of attending a public school and can chose to use to attend either public or private schools. Apparently its in operation in Sweden but I haven't looked into it. I'll give a look around and post the article if I can remember where I saw it.

    Here it is

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm


  • #654
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Anonymous1987 wrote: »
    Actually David Cameron is attempting to introduce a level of choice into the education system across the water. Basically parents will receive a voucher equivalent to the cost of attending a public school and can chose to use to attend either public or private schools. Apparently its in operation in Sweden but I haven't looked into it. I'll give a look around and post the article if I can remember where I saw it.

    Here it is

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm
    You could have just linked to your article without posting the entire thing in the forum.


  • #655
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    You could have just linked to your article without posting the entire thing in the forum.
    What? I don't recall doing that ;).


  • #656
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    All of that, though, seems like it's just a question of where you draw the line. Presumably, the libertarian perspective is that on principle you do not regulate such things at all, whatever their effect. Anything else is just hanging out on the fringes of social democracy.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Seems to be. The enigmatic question, when to regulate? I'm not in the "never ever" camp...which makes things more complicated certainly, but I think also, if regulation is done properly, there can be an overall better outcome than if regulation is not done at all. I'd be wary of over-regulation of course!
    donegalfella wrote:
    What about the caricatures of Brian Cowen that appeared last year in the National Gallery? Do you think that those were legitimate, even if they were designed to humiliate and ridicule? Can posters that humiliate and ridicule an individual serve an important social and political function?

    Certainly a good point. It seems to me that being a public figure by one's own free will goes hand in hand with surrendering the right not to be cartooned. Although cartoons tend to lampoon a person's actions and speeches as opposed to their personal lives, which is a worthwhile distinction.
    If facial expressions in the workplace fall under the purview of the state, porn on corporate walls would almost certainly be the government's business!

    Best to let people leer away. As I said above, I see it as a question of when as opposed to if. I wouldn't presume to claim to know "when" is best btw.


  • #657
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Seems to be. The enigmatic question, when to regulate? I'm not in the "never ever" camp...which makes things more complicated certainly, but I think also, if regulation is done properly, there can be an overall better outcome than if regulation is not done at all. I'd be wary of over-regulation of course!

    I'm pretty certain you won't find anyone who is in favour of bad regulation or over-regulation - it's only that we don't necessarily recognise it.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #658
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    DF although there may be regulation in place, the cases you outline still involve individual decision making. Now although I will argue against the libertarian supposition that humans are perfectly rational I do think we can exercise a modicum of common sense. Hence although there might be legislation about dirty looks or gestures it is unlikely that someone would bring a case against another simply because they didn't like how they looked at them and even more unlikely that a judge would entertain such nonsense. So even though the state may regulate in many areas it still leaves things up to the discretion of individuals, individuals that you can't very well claim are rational if you can't even afford them common sense.

    And yes, governments get it wrong quite a bit, we can all admit that, it is not a perfect system. Meanwhile you argue on every point, you do not concede one bit that libertarianism may not be the answer to everything. The Market is moral; liberty above all else. Some of you may claim your position is akin to atheism but all I see is fundamentalism. You cannot see anything wrong with your ideology. Newsflash, no ideology is perfect.

    I am glad to see that in the face of much criticism you revealed the cold face of libertarianism and supported peoples freedom to sexually harrass amongst other abuses of power in the workplace. I wonder will the fact that on this even your closest allies are distancing themselves from you, will that change your position at all?
    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

    I think the libertarian position on regulation (in the sense being discussed the last few pages) is a little harder to defend than freedom of enterprise.

    .

    It seems at least that other libertarians are realising that liberty cannot trump all else. Can one remain a libertarian with this realisation or do they become a liberal to which some libertarian ideals appeal, like me.

    so you can keep trotting out ridiculous examples of things people might get offended by and try to use these extremes as a stick with which to beat the state but it remains individuals who get offended by these things, the state empowers them to do something about it, libertarianism disempowers people on this front with it's 'like it or lump it' approach.


  • #659
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    If people don't think facial expressions and gestures can construe sexual harassment then they are not using their imagination.
    Or just being willfully ignorant.

    (warning, rather offensive images below)
    http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/wanker.jpg
    http://home.comcast.net/~kenandariel/bjface4.jpg

    Imagine such actions as part of a pattern of behavior directed toward you or one of your loved ones by some low life idiot in your/their workplace.

    It would be totally inappropriate and if the management didn't put a stop to it straight way, or was the one doing it, they totally deserve to be brought before a judge or an employment tribunal.


  • #660
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    so let me get this straight, people are embracing a Libertarian position because they are coming to the realisation that big government has brought the economy to the point where it could potentially bring everyone down. And the reason why they are wrong is that someone might have their bottom pinched and there may not be recourse?
    ok you've won me over, carry on wrecking the economy while I step out and convert the rest of my savings to gold. We'll all watch the coming economic dislocation safe in the knowledgre there was no alternative course of action.:D

    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



  • Advertisement
  • #661
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    silverharp wrote: »
    so let me get this straight, people are embracing a Libertarian position because they are coming to the realisation that big government has brought the economy to the point where it could potentially bring everyone down. And the reason why they are wrong is that someone might have their bottom pinched and there may not be recourse?
    ok you've won me over, carry on wrecking the economy while I step out and convert the rest of my savings to gold. We'll all watch the coming economic dislocation safe in the knowledgre there was no alternative course of action.:D

    "Do something different; anything, so long as it is different". That's the feeblest case one could make, tantamount to amputating a leg to cure breast cancer.


Advertisement