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…2123252627

Comments

  • #662
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    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?
    None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
    It wasn't "Big Government" that crashed the financial system, it was the unregulated financial sector.


  • #663
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    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
    Firstly Libertarianism is naive in its belief that in the absence of social legislation that sexual harassment won't happen instead they point to their freedoms being oppressed but there is a clear balancing act to made between the freedom of one individual versus another, that should be obvious. Libertarianism ignores this and gives no solution to these inherent struggles in society and in essence libertarianism in this aspect is fundamentally anarchy/tyranny with property rights.

    Secondly while I agree economies and governments worldwide are desperately overleveraged and government has contributed substantially to this, economic collapse is not inevitable unless of course we follow the Libertarian approach which is guaranteed to result in immediate economic and most likely political chaos. I'll agree both choices are terrible but I was of the opinion that "there is no alternative action" was a slogan of Libertarians such that there is no alternative action to the market?


  • #664
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
    It wasn't "Big Government" that crashed the financial system, it was the unregulated financial sector.
    In fairness though it was both. Poor regulation and low interest rates for too long.


  • #665
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    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

    Yes big government has made huge mistakeS, we all recognise that (I say we because all of us are unhappy with the current failure! But big government being bad is not an argument for the libertarian minimal to no government (again a false dichotomy), there are many permutations in between with various balances of individual and economic freedoms and protective regulation and legislation. We've all agreed that government is too big in some areas and too ineffective in others. You have completely failed to prove that libertarianism is the best option. Finaaly do you support peoples freedom to sexually harrass and otherwise abuse their position?


  • #666
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Laminations wrote: »
    Yes big government has made huge mistakeS, we all recognise that (I say we because all of us are unhappy with the current failure! But big government being bad is not an argument for the libertarian minimal to no government (again a false dichotomy), there are many permutations in between with various balances of individual and economic freedoms and protective regulation and legislation. We've all agreed that government is too big in some areas and too ineffective in others. You have completely failed to prove that libertarianism is the best option. Finaaly do you support peoples freedom to sexually harrass and otherwise abuse their position?

    who said no government? I want a government with strict limits on what it does and doesnt do

    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
  • #667
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    silverharp wrote: »
    who said no government? I want a government with strict limits on what it does and doesnt do
    Where do you see governments position? Would you not agree that it makes sense to legislate for a social issue which most people agree is wrong rather than pushing everyone through our sluggish and costly courts system? There is always the option to appeal against legislation through the courts system.


  • #668
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Anonymous1987 wrote: »
    Where do you see governments position? Would you not agree that it makes sense to legislate for a social issue which most people agree is wrong rather than pushing everyone through our sluggish and costly courts system? There is always the option to appeal against legislation through the courts system.


    The argument would be that there are different ways to regulate. For instance I am member of a professional organisation. There are a book of rules I have to follow, some are professional some are ethical etc. As the work place keeps coming up there could be mechanisms to regulate via trade associations. Potential employees could have mechanisms via some form of insurance that might have an arbitration sytem built in. That's only off the top of my head.

    I have no problem with a central government and a central or state run court system, and wrt the state I would want their mechanisms for funding limited. Broadly speaking any "services" that the central authority and any regional structures underneath could only be funded via reasonable indirect taxation and maybe corporation tax and any forms of ad hoc funding like minerals rights etc.
    Otherwsie Its completely unjust that any government can conscript an individual into their army, tax a person at any rate they feel like and where wealth can be transferred and monies borrowed based on backroom meetings between government or business and government.

    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



  • #669
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #670
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Anonymous1987 wrote: »
    In fairness though it was both. Poor regulation and low interest rates for too long.
    A recent paper by UCD economist Morgan Kelly has clearly demonstrated that low interest rates had a minimal effect on Ireland's housing bubble. The real kicker was the relaxed lending policies, ie poor regulation and business practices.

    Moreover, if interest rates are low, government can act to mitigate the effect by taxing mortgages and giving tax relief for savings. Under the liberal system proposed here, government would not have the power to take such steps.


  • #671
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    You don't think there were looser inter-bank lending practices?


  • #673
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    taconnol wrote: »
    Moreover, if interest rates are low, government can act to mitigate the effect by taxing mortgages and giving tax relief for savings. Under the liberal system proposed here, government would not have the power to take such steps.


    ha ha, I'd love to have seen anyone from the Labour, the Greens or FF/FG put that forward as a serious suggestion in the late 90's. The point is that the politics of the mainstream parties and the structures are incapable of foreseeing the moral hazzard. Being wise after the fact is no good to me as there will not be a new property bubble for a generation.
    Will we have to wait for the Euro to fall apart and states to go bankrupt for your future self to say that "well governments shouldn't be allowed to run structural deficits" due to the risks to the system as a whole.

    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



  • #674
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #675
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    sorry, the bit in bold, is that evidence that it's not the best societal order or evidence that it is unworkable? Because you've been presented with many reasons why it's unworkable (behavioural psychology deems it unworkable e.g. Tragedy of the commons and prisoners dilemma). And anyway it's not up to us to provide evidence that it's wrong it is up to you to provide something (other than speculation) that it is right. It again shows inconsistency or hypocrisy that you 'believe' in libertarianism without much demonstration of it's existence in reality (humans aren't rational); not exactly the same way you say that you'll remain an atheist until you get evidence of the existence of god. The Market is ammoral and it is definitely coercive, or at least those who hold power in a Market can be coercive.

    You don't believe in god, I don't believe in libertarianism. It's up to believers to prove their beliefs are not a fairytale utopian hope. All we've gotten so far is supposition after supposition. 'If people were rational, if people were respectful of property rights etc'. People aren't these things and you have been given evidence that proves that. And funnily you said yourself that people aren't respectful of others property, who washes a rental car after all?


  • #676
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    You've mentioned that before; do you've a source I could read? :)
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I'd be more inclined to call it amoral myself, insofar as the morals are left up to individuals (someone morally opposed to condoms doesn't have to buy condoms you know!).

    I don't think people are arguing with the fact that it offers the greatest individual liberty. It's just that the others here feel that some of that liberty is worth sacrificing for a greater good.

    It's a rather interesting question: how far do you pursue your absolute ideal?


  • #677
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    I don't think people are arguing with the fact that it offers the greatest individual liberty. It's just that the others here feel that some of that liberty is worth sacrificing for a greater good.

    It's a rather interesting question: how far do you pursue your absolute ideal?


    Clearliy this is the reality but it doesnt make it right. How does one calculate sacrificing for a greater good? there is an assumption here that the cost will be less then the gains, however without stretching the point it is obvious that the cost will be more then the gains for some people (which seems unfair) and even for the rest, how do you prove it? Look at the economy now, a lot of people are suffering more costs then gains because they let the government run the economy and the planning system for them. It takes a lot of almost religious faith that the greater good statement is in fact true.

    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



  • #678
    Exile 1798
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I'm confused df, if these kids can't afford private schools then they can't afford private schools, right?

    I actually agree with the idea of subsidising private students as in the end it does actually save tax payer money if parents are willing to directly pay half the bill for their child's education. This goes for Ireland too.

    When anaylising the results of public and private schools one has to consider that private school students are a self selecting group. It will be parents that can afford to pay significant school fees that are sending their children to private schools, ie families with more resources. The other main group will be families with very few resources but that value education highly so they put everything they can into their child's education and push them very hard. These people are also likely remove their child if it becomes apparent they're not getting great benefit from their costly private education. Where are they removed to? The public system.

    Indeed America has some truly awful school districts. This is in no small part a symptom of the large underclass that exists in that country, one of the richest in the world. Culture and society play a large role in educational achievement. There's a lot of issues at play here, it's not just a simple matter of "private good, public bad." I find it hard to believe that even you think that.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Obama is loaded df, as you well know.

    I'd imagine that Obama supports public education because he knows that people with meagre means couldn't afford a private education.

    There's no contradiction there, indeed you have had to feign stupidity to fashion one. As a general rule, when you find yourself pretending to be obtuse to support your argument, generally your argument hasn't got much going for it.


  • #679
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    ... I don't think people are arguing with the fact that it offers the greatest individual liberty. ...

    First, it's not a fact; it's a claim.

    Second, a lot of people dispute the claim, mainly on the grounds that the purist libertarian has no interest in equality of opportunity, vindication of the oppressed, or assisting the disadvantaged.
    silverharp wrote: »
    ... How does one calculate sacrificing for a greater good? ... It takes a lot of almost religious faith that the greater good statement is in fact true.

    While it is true that some notions of the greater good can be contested as ill-judged or even intentionally distorted, it looks to me as if the advocates of libertarianism ask for an even greater leap of faith.


  • #680
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #681
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    the fact that it offers the greatest individual liberty.
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    First, it's not a fact; it's a claim.

    Second, a lot of people dispute the claim, mainly on the grounds that the purist libertarian has no interest in equality of opportunity, vindication of the oppressed, or assisting the disadvantaged.

    we need to reaaly nail down what is meant by liberty here because the way I see it, the pursuit of absolute individual liberty is a self defeating concept and therefore it cannot be the best societal order. Does it simply mean that we are aiming to maximise the right to choose?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    allowing individuals to make decisions is amoral, morals only come into play for the individuals making the decisions. Anyway under libertarianism everyone might have the right to choose but they do not have the same choices. One persons set of choices can greatly limit anothers and for some people they have many options with most choices involving approach-approach conflicts (i.e. Should I buy a Beamer or a merc; should I holiday in bora bora or St trope?) while for others they are very limited to avoidance-avoidance type decisions (should I stay in this demeaning job or go hungry; should I clean toilets or rely on charity) - so yes they are free to choose but what they have to choose between does not exemplify liberty for me. There is no equality of opportunity. So in an attempt to maximise liberty we've maximised it for some and minimised it for others. A more moral approach would aim to maximise all liberty in as balanced a way as possible so people aren't merely left with the freedom of choice amongst crud alternatives but that they have some viable alternatives - some opportunity. In other words get the most liberty possible for everyone. For this to work you need some distribution of wealth.


    This debate ruined Robin Hood for me because I sat through it wondering whether a libertarian wrote it. Yes of course words like liberty and freedom sound great in the face of Tyranny, oppression and injustice. And in the Robin Hood world one has reason to rally against authority and taxation. But the struggle for more liberty is not justification of absolute liberty. If a libertarian did write the script they were confused, as usual, because they also used words like equality and Sherwood forest where they are free from authority and tyranny is as much an example of a socialist commune as it is a libertarian utopia.


  • #683
    Exile 1798
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    As I said I'm supportive of reasonable subsidies for students from poor families to attend private schools if they so chose.

    But Obama is not denying low income people the ability to attend private schools - their low income is. If they could afford it they could go. Has Libertarian fairness not spoken? (yeah I know, the market is cornered by the govt ect ect)

    I'd be very surprised if the President's children were receiving government vouchers to attend their private school. In the absence of that there's no contradiction. Further, I'm sure there were many security and privacy concerns to be considered when picking schools for the young daughters of the President of the United States, let's be a bit serious here.


  • #684
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Laminations wrote: »
    we need to reaaly nail down what is meant by liberty here

    Libertarians advocate liberty in the negative sense. "Liberty" is
    1. the state of being free from oppression or imprisonment.
    2. a right or a privilege, especially a statutory one.
    3. the power or scope to act as one pleases

    Negative liberty is the first; positive liberty the third. With respect to government, the provision of positive liberty (free education, for example) necessitates the restriction of negative liberty (the education system is funded though non-voluntary taxes).

    One could possibly view the government as a provider of positive liberty. However it's terribly inefficient at this. Taking donegalfella's example of school vouchers, the government spends far more money on education than is actually necessary for the societal return. The inefficiency is composed of a number of things, such as lost money due to pandering to the teachers' unions. Do you think a charity (which could also be viewed as a provider of positive liberty) would receive many donations if so much of its money was being wasted keeping a special interest group happy?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    As Joe Klein wrote in Time magazine, "the unions, and their minions in the Democratic Party, have been a reactionary force in education reform for too long."

    From reading his Time column, I have always viewed Klein as a supporter of Obama, which perhaps makes this indictment all the more attention worthy.

    I think it's worth noting that if there was ever a man to tackle the inherent problems in government (such as supporting special interests and other vote winning but socially destructive activities) it was Obama. To see even him fall prey to such things only reaffirms my belief that the problems we see in modern Ireland are as much to do with the very setup of government as with Fianna Fail.


    Cheers for the link by the way. :)


  • #685
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #686
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Why do you see that as the only solution?

    An OECD report concluded that Finland has the best secondary school system in the world. They charge no tuition for full time students, have compulsory schooling until the age of 16 and the schools are administered by local councils with the National Board of Education setting targets.

    If we want an evidence-based solution, surely we should be looking to implement a similar system here, instead of automatically assuming that all government involvement is bad government involvement.


  • #687
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    taconnol wrote: »
    Why do you see that as the only solution?

    An OECD report concluded that Finland has the best secondary school system in the world. They charge no tuition for full time students, have compulsory schooling until the age of 16 and the schools are administered by local councils with the National Board of Education setting targets.

    If we want an evidence-based solution, surely we should be looking to implement a similar system here, instead of automatically assuming that all government involvement is bad government involvement.

    Indeed - there seems to be an automatic assumption that the things that are wrong with government-run ventures here in Ireland are characteristics of government-run ventures full stop - as opposed to, for example, characteristic of Irish-run ventures, or symptomatic of insufficient public input, or indeed symptomatic of Irish public input.

    As they say, to every complex problem, there's a solution that's simple, obvious, and wrong.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #688
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    First of all fair play on that DF; a great thing indeed.

    On an aside though; you are sort of creating a false dichotomy. Such things are possible in publicly funded schools. I attended a school run and funded by the EU when I was a teenager and had to do around half of my subjects in French. At first, this was a disaster as I had no French ability at all and failed the 1st semester of 4th year (equivalent to 3rd year here) horribly (I got something like 4 out of 10 with 6 being a pass mark). The school recognised this and in order to continue as a student in the school I would need to attend grinds classes. I was happy out to do so and spent the next few years meeting with a teacher who would do one to one work with me. It was slow enough work but I graduated with 90% or something in my Baccalaureate French.

    Apologies for the tangent there but there can certainly be such systems in a publicly funded system. We both agree on the need for extra help for students who are behind in certain subjects.


  • #689
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #690
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I can see merit in the above idea. I'm against performance related pay as a rule (it can be too difficult to judge when it's a school in inner city Dublin or a school in Blackrock) but giving bonuses while maintaining existing pay is a novel idea. I was fortunate enough to have great teachers throughout my schooldays. However, some system would need to be implemented to keep attracting teachers into deprived-area schools while a bonus system is on offer.

    However, I wouldn't write off the pressure power parents have. My siblings are now attending public schools in Ireland and parent's pester power can make a huge difference; any time any of the kids do badly then there's a trail of parents on their way to the school to complain; clearly it must be the teacher's fault if little Conor got such poor grades. It was the same in my day with one memorable incident where one girl led a campaign to get the teacher sacked rather than admit that she just didn't do much work for the subject.
    Although sadly this doesn't apply to some of the kids in the school who need the help most of all (the Travellers being the best example)


    As an aside, I remember reading some years ago why Asian schools tend to produce such high quality students; the article noted that in the West, whena student did badly, the culture had it that it must be the teacher's fault. By contrast, Asian culture has it that a poor mark is the student's mark and that they must work harder to compensate. I can't remember where I read it so feel free to dismiss it but there does appear to be some merit in it.

    I must say that I have the utmost respect for 90% of the teachers I've encountered in my life; it's not an easy job by any means and in my experience, most do stirling work.


Advertisement