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

J'accuse le libertarians

24567…19

Comments

  • #32
    RockinRolla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 575 ✭✭✭RockinRolla


    20Cent wrote: »
    So I check out this Hayek guy and it comes as no surprise that he was a Pinochet supporter as so many right wing hero's including Friedman, Reagan and Thatcher. This reinforces my view that when the libertarian talks about freedom etc they are not talking about individual freedom but actually the removal of safeguards to protect people from exploitation.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Libertarianism is about repealing laws that have created barriers to entry. If this is your idea of exploitation then I'm not sure if we're all on the same page or not. If by "removing safeguards to protect people" means destroying monopoly privileges government has given special interests groups over the last number of decades, then yes..I'd be all for that.

    I believe you have a very strange view of the ideology at large - perhaps, you should do some reading on the subject as your contributions have shown nothing but ignorance towards the topic thus far.


  • #33
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    RockinRolla wrote: »
    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Libertarianism is about repealing laws that have created barriers to entry. If this is your idea of exploitation then I'm not sure if we're all on the same page or not. If by "removing safeguards to protect people" means destroying monopoly privileges government has given special interests groups over the last number of decades, then yes..I'd be all for that.

    I believe you have a very strange view of the ideology at large - perhaps, you should do some reading on the subject as your contributions have shown nothing but ignorance towards the topic thus far.

    Perhaps you could help then.
    In the op I asked for a libertarian to give a description of how you would see a libertarian society, not much success so far.


  • #34
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #35
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,346 ✭✭✭SeanW


    I'll take on the OPs challenge, though I myself am something of a "Left Leaning" Libertarian, e.g. I focus on social issues and to a lesser extent financial ones. e.g. I think that having no labour rights laws or no welfare could work IF there were constantly some scarcity of labour (thus the market would dictate that all workers should have a decent quality of life and reasonable capacity for career improvement) but I'm skeptical about this to a degree (e.g how could the poor advance without help with education?)

    In my Libertarian society, the following would be a given, at minimum:
    1. The principle of the legal system would be "Liberty and Law" i.e. your rights (Liberty) are recognised and Law exists to enforce those rights and punish transgressors. Most other objectives would be rescinded from Law.
    2. E.g. you would be free to consume whichever drugs you wished, but if one's habit required a transgression of anothers rights (i.e. robbing someone to pay for a fix) severe action would be taken.
    3. Gambling (subject to local statutes and planning law on casinos etc) would be permitted, as would prostitution. There would be no "morality" laws against homosexuality etc.
    4. Citizens with clean criminal records, or otherwise if they could show themselves to be of good character, would be permitted to hold firearms for their defense of life and property.
    5. ALL laws remaining, e.g. ones relating to the protection of the rights of individuals (and to a lesser extent corporations) would be enforced to the fullest extent possible and violators (murderers, rapists, thieves, vandals etc) could expect little mercy. There would be very little of the "extenuating circumstances" rubbish prevalent in our courts, the aforementioned phrase being used and twisted so much as to be virtually meaningless.
    6. No State would assume responsibility for the failure of any bank or other business beyond perhaps compensating retail depositors.
    7. All government issued currency would be backed by gold, either Specie Gold Backing or a credible Gold Reserve & Redepmtion Standard. "Legal Tender" laws mandating the use of any currency in transactions would be abolished.
    Other elements could be added as well if a case could be made.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #36
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Hayek, Friedman, Reagan, Thatcher the whole Chicago School were/are Pinochet supporters, this is not slinging mud.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    An out of context quote from a thread almost a year ago wow I feel like Noam Chomsky!! Still agree with what I wrote obviously not everyone with libertarian views would be a Pinochet supporter but the ones I named are/were.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    SeanW wrote: »
    I'll take on the OPs challenge, though I myself am something of a "Left Leaning" Libertarian, e.g. I focus on social issues and to a lesser extent financial ones. e.g. I think that having no labour rights laws or no welfare could work IF there were constantly some scarcity of labour (thus the market would dictate that all workers should have a decent quality of life and reasonable capacity for career improvement) but I'm skeptical about this to a degree (e.g how could the poor advance without help with education?)

    In my Libertarian society, the following would be a given, at minimum:
    1. The principle of the legal system would be "Liberty and Law" i.e. your rights (Liberty) are recognised and Law exists to enforce those rights and punish transgressors. Most other objectives would be rescinded from Law.
    2. E.g. you would be free to consume whichever drugs you wished, but if one's habit required a transgression of anothers rights (i.e. robbing someone to pay for a fix) severe action would be taken.
    3. Gambling (subject to local statutes and planning law on casinos etc) would be permitted, as would prostitution. There would be no "morality" laws against homosexuality etc.
    4. Citizens with clean criminal records, or otherwise if they could show themselves to be of good character, would be permitted to hold firearms for their defense of life and property.
    5. ALL laws remaining, e.g. ones relating to the protection of the rights of individuals (and to a lesser extent corporations) would be enforced to the fullest extent possible and violators (murderers, rapists, thieves, vandals etc) could expect little mercy. There would be very little of the "extenuating circumstances" rubbish prevalent in our courts, the aforementioned phrase being used and twisted so much as to be virtually meaningless.
    6. No State would assume responsibility for the failure of any bank or other business beyond perhaps compensating retail depositors.
    7. All government issued currency would be backed by gold, either Specie Gold Backing or a credible Gold Reserve & Redepmtion Standard. "Legal Tender" laws mandating the use of any currency in transactions would be abolished.
    Other elements could be added as well if a case could be made.

    Thanks Sean. Still a bit wishy washy if you know what I mean.
    Say a child born into a poor family in a libertarian society, what happens to the re education, health work etc?


  • #38
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    It would be more likely. In a libertarian society it would be perfectly legal to sit in your house doing drugs with a loaded gun. So long as the guy does not start shooting he'd be fine. Still aren't my rights are being infringed because of the stress?

    Has making things illegal decreased drug use and limited people who really want a gun getting one. The US's war on drugs has had the opposite effect of the desired. Violent criminal gangs in our own country have no problem getting either.
    Heard of Khanacademy think its very good but wouldn't think it is a replacement for attending a school. So there would be no public schools? The poor parents will have to pay for education (presuming there is some available which they can afford) or rely on a charity. Would education be compulsory?

    We are currently paying for our schools, far more than what they would cost under in a free market system. I wonder if they tested kids who only used the Khanacademy for a period of time vs kids in a public school who would score better. Did you watch the TED talk i linked to where kids learning by themselves in India's slums were able to outperform kids in public schools.
    re Health. Those that cannot afford treatment would have to rely on extended family and community and charity. So what happens if that does not work out?

    They would die. But that fault lies with the individual, his family, extended family and charity. The general wealth levels of the individual, his family, extended family and size of charity would be much greater in a Libertarian society. The poorest would be able to afford far better quality than is available to them for 'free' through the public health care system.


  • #39
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,346 ✭✭✭SeanW


    20Cent wrote: »
    ... and particularly the republican party in the us.
    Let's see - corporate welfare, international wars and imperialism, supports the War on Drugs, Guantanamo Bay, bank bailouts, extreme levels of Social Conservatism (i.e. heavily influenced by religion), the "Patriot" Act, insane runaway deficits started under Bush Jr. ... etc ...

    Yeah, the Republican Party is really Libertarian ... I don't think so! In fact, as a Left-leaning Libertarian, I cannot imagine one good thing the Republicans have done, perhaps with the exception of opposing Obama-care.
    20Cent wrote: »
    Thanks Sean. Still a bit wishy washy if you know what I mean.
    Say a child born into a poor family in a libertarian society, what happens to the re education, health work etc?
    Perhaps so, but I did qualify my post by saying that I was a left-leaning Libertarian, primarily concerned with the societal aspects of personal freedom & responsibility.

    Obviously, if it can be shown that under a Fully Libertarian (social and financial) society, the poor could have a plentiful supply of jobs, good healthcare and a decent education, I would support that. I'm just concerned the vision might be a bit Utopian.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #40
    whatstherush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    SeanW wrote: »
    [*]E.g. you would be free to consume whichever drugs you wished, but if one's habit required a transgression of anothers rights (i.e. robbing someone to pay for a fix) severe action would be taken.

    Could you expand a little more on this. Besides the obvious moralistic and prohibitive laws you would get rid of, what other kinds of laws (if any) would Libertarians get rid of. i.e. Do environmental laws have a place in a Libertarian Society?


  • #41
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    SeanW wrote: »
    Let's see - corporate welfare, international wars and imperialism, supports the War on Drugs, Guantanamo Bay, bank bailouts, extreme levels of Social Conservatism (i.e. heavily influenced by religion), the "Patriot" Act, insane runaway deficits started under Bush Jr. ... etc ...

    Yeah, the Republican Party is really Libertarian ... I don't think so! In fact, as a Left-leaning Libertarian, I cannot imagine one good thing the Republicans have done, perhaps with the exception of opposing Obama-care.

    The republicans are still the nearest thing to libertarians with power in the world. Ron and Rand Paul are republicans. It is the republicans who are trying to cut welfare and healthcare.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    SupaNova wrote: »
    Has making things illegal decreased drug use and limited people who really want a gun getting one. The US's war on drugs has had the opposite effect of the desired. Violent criminal gangs in our own country have no problem getting either.

    I agree with you to an extent. I to would be for the legalisation of some drugs. The war on drugs probably causes more harm than the drugs themselves. Still there are some drugs where the person loses control of themselves and can become paranoid and violent. Crack and Crystal Meth come to mind, in this case the safety of others would over ride the persons right to take these drugs imo. Still it would be perfectly legal to sit in your house doing drugs with a loaded gun. So long as the guy does not start shooting he'd be fine. Still aren't my rights are being infringed because of the stress?

    Less laws doesn't automatically mean more freedom in many cases.
    SupaNova wrote: »
    We are currently paying for our schools, far more than what they would cost under in a free market system. I wonder if they tested kids who only used the Khanacademy for a period of time vs kids in a public school who would score better. Did you watch the TED talk i linked to where kids learning by themselves in India's slums were able to outperform kids in public schools.

    Watched the TED (thanks for the link) talk and saw the Khan one before. In a free market system there would still be some without access to education if they can't afford anything for education. Tough luck I suppose. Freedom to me means that you have more options available to you. Education is the most important factor in having success. In a society with little social safety net or healthcare surely people will go for stable safe careers. Starting your own business would be very risky as there would be no second chance if something goes wrong.

    SupaNova wrote: »
    They would die. But that fault lies with the individual, his family, extended family and charity. The general wealth levels of the individual, his family, extended family and size of charity would be much greater in a Libertarian society. The poorest would be able to afford far better quality than is available to them for 'free' through the public health care system.

    At last someone finally said it. You die! Sounds like a warped type of society where the Gov has no interest in the lives of human beings but the copyright on a dvd is protected!!
    The US is the closest thing to a free market health system and it is the most expensive in the world. People go bankrupt in the US because of an accident or illness. The fear of losing health cover means that they must stay in their job, starting your own business is a big risk if you are not covered, it reduces people freedom instead of increasing it. Imagine your wife gets sick, you ask your boss for some flexibility in work to go to appointments and look after her offering to make up the time at weekends and evenings. The boss fires you! Happened in the US.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFJT0gpsALo&feature=player_embedded#at=20

    For profit health care just does not work. The insurer wants to pay out as little as possible and the provider wants to charge as much as possible. There is no profit to be made insuring old people, handicapped, disabled, even people with dangerous jobs. What happens to them then just die I suppose.


  • #43
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Watched the TED (thanks for the link) talk and saw the Khan one before. In a free market system there would still be some without access to education if they can't afford anything for education. Tough luck I suppose. Freedom to me means that you have more options available to you. Education is the most important factor in having success. In a society with little social safety net or healthcare surely people will go for stable safe careers. Starting your own business would be very risky as there would be no second chance if something goes wrong.

    If you are hung up on state style education you will find that school attendance was gradually increasing in the US before state education just as poverty was declining before Welfare was introduced. This is the point i am making that even in the poorest in a free market environment would be better off than those getting 'free' healthcare, or 'free' education.
    At last someone finally said it. You die! Sounds like a warped type of society where the Gov has no interest in the lives of human beings but the copyright on a dvd is protected!!

    The point again is in a free market system the poorest would get healthcare better than the 'free' healthcare 'guaranteed' by the state. How many people die on wait lists for guaranteed state care. What happens when state's hyperinflate their currency and the default on all its promises cause deaths.
    The US is the closest thing to a free market health system and it is the most expensive in the world.
    You obviously have no knowledge of US healthcare as its not close to a free market system in the slightest.
    People go bankrupt in the US because of an accident or illness. The fear of losing health cover means that they must stay in their job, starting your own business is a big risk if you are not covered, it reduces people freedom instead of increasing it. Imagine your wife gets sick, you ask your boss for some flexibility in work to go to appointments and look after her offering to make up the time at weekends and evenings. The boss fires you! Happened in the US.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFJT0...embedded#at=20

    Someone lost their job because it was not profitable for the employer to keep them hired. This is what makes me believe you have not read a single economics book. If employers started running losses they would go out of business and many more people would be affected. The fact that someone has a sick relative is unfortunate, but the responsibility is not with the employer. It is with the individuals involved to have adequate cover for the eventualities, insurance, savings for a rainy day, etc. When people think they can rely on the state they ignore individual responsibility, thinking they can depend on the state.

    You are making an argument similar to that of a young Michael Moore made to Friedman, not one of principle, but one of price. If you understand basic economics and that a business can't run at a loss, you are only asking a question of price, how much of a loss should the employer take when someone asks for flexible working hours is what you are asking?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg&playnext=1&list=PLB5287C011F43E5C1


  • #44
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    SupaNova wrote: »
    If you are hung up on state style education you will find that school attendance was gradually increasing in the US before state education just as poverty was declining before Welfare was introduced. This is the point i am making that even in the poorest in a free market environment would be better off than those getting 'free' healthcare, or 'free' education.


    The point again is in a free market system the poorest would get healthcare better than the 'free' healthcare 'guaranteed' by the state. How many people die on wait lists for guaranteed state care. What happens when state's hyperinflate their currency and the default on all its promises cause deaths.

    You obviously have no knowledge of US healthcare as its not close to a free market system in the slightest.


    Well we have historical evidence of societies without public education and health. Well documented by people like Charles Dickens. I guess the person dieing slowly of cancer would be glad to be free of evil socialist healthcare.
    I actually lived in the US and worked in banking thanks. I do recall my collegues main concern was to keep health cover for themselves and their families. There was also the time I took a neighbour to the emergency room at 3am in a terrible fever. She got five minutes with a doctor a perscription and a bill for 800 dollars.
    To believe something without empirical, historial or even anecdotal evidence is called faith I believe. Those with the faith think that others would also believe if only the knew enough. Sorry not buying it.
    SupaNova wrote: »

    Someone lost their job because it was not profitable for the employer to keep them hired. This is what makes me believe you have not read a single economics book. If employers started running losses they would go out of business and many more people would be affected. The fact that someone has a sick relative is unfortunate, but the responsibility is not with the employer. It is with the individuals involved to have adequate cover for the eventualities, insurance, savings for a rainy day, etc. When people think they can rely on the state they ignore individual responsibility, thinking they can depend on the state.

    You are making an argument similar to that of a young Michael Moore made to Friedman, not one of principle, but one of price. If you understand basic economics and that a business can't run at a loss, you are only asking a question of price, how much of a loss should the employer take when someone asks for flexible working hours is what you are asking?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg&playnext=1&list=PLB5287C011F43E5C1

    Firing someone because his wife got cancer. Lovely society being descrbed here. What about my question, There is no profit to be made insuring old people, handicapped, disabled, even people with dangerous jobs. What happens to them?

    The sight of Friedman makes me want to puke. The young fella asked a real world question with facts and figures which actually happened. Friedman replies with a made up theoretical situation and claims victory. Typical of the theorist, his policies were enacted much to the detriment of many south American countries. They also involved plenty of murder and torture guess he thought it was worth it. Horrible human being. Read plenty of economics books thanks, maybe not the frings faith based ones by the chicago "school" or the austrians. Haven't read scientology books either.


  • #45
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Well we have historical evidence of societies without public education and health. Well documented by people like Charles Dickens. I guess the person dieing slowly of cancer would be glad to be free of evil socialist healthcare.
    I actually lived in the US and worked in banking thanks. I do recall my collegues main concern was to keep health cover for themselves and their families. There was also the time I took a neighbour to the emergency room at 3am in a terrible fever. She got five minutes with a doctor a perscription and a bill for 800 dollars.
    To believe something without empirical, historial or even anecdotal evidence is called faith I believe. Those with the faith think that others would also believe if only the knew enough. Sorry not buying it.

    You have just showed an example of the terrible cost of healthcare in the US. It is not a free market healthcare system or anywhere close.
    Firing someone because his wife got cancer. Lovely society being descrbed here. What about my question, There is no profit to be made insuring old people, handicapped, disabled, even people with dangerous jobs. What happens to them

    He wasn't fired because his wife got cancer! Listen to the video, he was let go because he wanted different working hours.
    The sight of Friedman makes me want to puke. The young fella asked a real world question with facts and figures which actually happened. Friedman replies with a made up theoretical situation and claims victory.

    You either don't understand economics or are dodging the question. If you understand economics and understand how prices, profit and loss work, you know that profit is good thing and loss is bad thing. If all businesses were required to run at a loss we would be required to print endless currency, prices would lose their functions and we would experience a hyperinflation, the worst case scenario for a society.
    Typical of the theorist, his policies were enacted much to the detriment of many south American countries. They also involved plenty of murder and torture guess he thought it was worth it. Horrible human being.

    What policy of Friedman's involve theft and torture???
    Read plenty of economics books thanks, maybe not the frings faith based ones by the chicago "school" or the austrians. Haven't read scientology books either.

    The fact you don't understand price, the role it plays, and profit and loss would contradict your claim.


  • #46
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    ...in a free market system the poorest would get healthcare better than the 'free' healthcare 'guaranteed' by the state.
    How? Who pays for it?
    The fact that someone has a sick relative is unfortunate, but the responsibility is not with the employer. It is with the individuals involved to have adequate cover for the eventualities, insurance, savings for a rainy day, etc.
    Whose responsibility is it to make sure the insurance company doesn't cheat you out of your entitlements? What happens when the insurance company decides they've paid out enough, and stop your benefits?

    You can argue that it's the responsibility of the individual to make sure that they have adequate insurance to cover any possibility that could possibly occur, but in a free market, people will be forced to balance the assessment of risk against the cost of such cover.
    SupaNova wrote: »
    He wasn't fired because his wife got cancer! Listen to the video, he was let go because he wanted different working hours.
    Let's hope he had enough of his income left over after paying for medical insurance to insure against losing his income - and that the income insurance doesn't invoke some small print to refuse to pay out.

    As a matter of interest, in a free market society, who would prevent insurance companies from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions?


  • #47
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    How? Who pays for it?

    The individual pays for it through savings, insurance, help from extended family. Charity if necessary.
    Whose responsibility is it to make sure the insurance company doesn't cheat you out of your entitlements? What happens when the insurance company decides they've paid out enough, and stop your benefits?

    Its your responsibility and its in the company's own interest to pay the customers what they are entitled.
    You can argue that it's the responsibility of the individual to make sure that they have adequate insurance to cover any possibility that could possibly occur, but in a free market, people will be forced to balance the assessment of risk against the cost of such cover.

    People don't want to cover any possibility, they cover the possibilities that are most likely to affect them and balance the cost involved. We pay for a health insurance package based on our own situation and our likely health risks. We don't insure ourselves against every possible obscure disease.
    As a matter of interest, in a free market society, who would prevent insurance companies from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions?

    Breaking contracts would expose them to legal action. They would be forced to pay compensation to the customer, and face massive loss of future business or bankruptcy.


  • #48
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Let's hope he had enough of his income left over after paying for medical insurance to insure against losing his income - and that the income insurance doesn't invoke some small print to refuse to pay out.

    Do you blame the employer? If i hire an individual and he asks to change his working hours to something that would make business unprofitable, i obviously can't oblige. If you can understand that you can only argue about how much money you should force me to give up to help the individual i am hiring without going out of business.


  • #49
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,346 ✭✭✭SeanW


    20Cent wrote: »
    The republicans are still the nearest thing to libertarians with power in the world. Ron and Rand Paul are republicans. It is the republicans who are trying to cut welfare and healthcare.
    Irrelevant. As I've said, the republican party policy isn't anything resembling libertarianism. Their stance is Right-Authoritarianism, to a level of extreme.

    Mars might be nearer to Earth than Alpha Centauri, but it's still Mars.

    Ron Paul is very much an outcast in the Republican party, and if you knew anything about him you would know that he's not out to pull the rug out from anyone, always saying that he would start by dismantling the overseas occupations, ending the drug war etc.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #50
    loldog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 634 ✭✭✭loldog


    This is one of the few examples I've seen of real Libertarianism in action. I think you'll agree this chap is making tremendous use of his right to private property and freedom from pesky government regulation:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFhcDl8tlpI


    This must be a Libertarian's wet dream. :rolleyes:

    .


  • #51
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    This is one of the few examples I've seen of real Libertarianism in action. I think you'll agree this chap is making tremendous use of his right to private property and freedom from pesky government regulation

    One of the foundations of Libertarian philosophy is the non aggression principle. And you post a video of children that are beaten to make sure they work. An excellent shoot down of Libertarianism, keep them coming.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    The individual pays for it through savings, insurance, help from extended family. Charity if necessary.
    The poorest will have insurance, savings, and family wealthy enough to pay for the finest medical treatment available? Nice.

    You could have just skipped straight to the bit where poor people will have to hope for charity if they get sick, and die if they don't get charity.
    Its your responsibility...
    Of course it is. I'm unable to work, barely alive due to cancer, my insurance company is shafting me, and they have infinite funds and ten thousand lawyers. What could possibly go wrong?
    ...and its in the company's own interest to pay the customers what they are entitled.
    Is it buggery. It's in a company's own interest to maximise shareholder value in any possible way they can get away with, and if that means choosing to let customers die rather than give them money, that's a calculation that will be coldly made. If you don't believe that there are already corporations that operate on that basis, you're clearly high on your own Kool-aid.

    I love this fantasy that in a free market, every single dishonest thing a company does will immediately be pounced upon by a vigilant customer base and the company promptly drummed out of the market. It's about as likely a vision as the socialist workers' paradise, and I'm equally unconvinced by both.
    People don't want to cover any possibility, they cover the possibilities that are most likely to affect them and balance the cost involved. We pay for a health insurance package based on our own situation and our likely health risks. We don't insure ourselves against every possible obscure disease.
    And if we fail to insure ourselves against the obscure disease that happens to cost us our home, we have libertarian fundamentalists pointing out that we made that choice and have to live with the consequences.
    Breaking contracts would expose them to legal action. They would be forced to pay compensation to the customer, and face massive loss of future business or bankruptcy.
    Yeah, because in a libertarian society, a poor person who gets shafted by a large corporation will be able to afford legal bills. Or will charity sort that little niggle out as well?
    SupaNova wrote: »
    Do you blame the employer? If i hire an individual and he asks to change his working hours to something that would make business unprofitable, i obviously can't oblige.
    Who says flexible working hours are necessarily unprofitable?


  • #53
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Of course it is. I'm unable to work, barely alive due to cancer, my insurance company is shafting me, and they have infinite funds and ten thousand lawyers. What could possibly go wrong?

    If you were responsible in a libertarian society in which you were not feeding a giant welfare state you would have savings, and plenty for a good insurance plan, and some left for legal costs unlikely worst case scenario if a a company tried to stiff you. All this responsible action undertaken by an individual is not an unlikely scenario. And for those irresponsible they would be dependent on charity of others, extended family, community.

    You seem to want to paint worst case scenario, regardless of how likely it is. Forgetting the rationing of public healthcare through waiting lists that people die on, and when governments default on 'free' healthcare.
    I love this fantasy that in a free market, every single dishonest thing a company does will immediately be pounced upon by a vigilant customer base and the company promptly drummed out of the market. It's about as likely a vision as the socialist workers' paradise, and I'm equally unconvinced by both.

    Its not a fantasy give me examples of company that commits fraud against its customers and has stayed in business without government help. We have a whole financial institution of legalised fraud permitted by governments in case you haven't noticed with the most devastating effects on the economy.
    Originally Posted by SupaNova viewpost.gif
    Do you blame the employer? If i hire an individual and he asks to change his working hours to something that would make business unprofitable, i obviously can't oblige.
    Who says flexible working hours are necessarily unprofitable?

    The person in the video would still have his job if it had no effects on profitability. I'm not surprised you avoid the question or the principle of the question:
    Originally Posted by SupaNova
    If you can understand that you can only argue about how much money you should force me to give up to help the individual i am hiring without going out of business.


  • #54
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    If you were responsible in a libertarian society in which you were not feeding a giant welfare state you would have savings, and plenty for a good insurance plan, and some left for legal costs...
    Sorry, not impressed. The communists want us to think that if only we could steal all the money from rich people, everyone would live happily ever after. Some libertarians would have us believe that poverty is exclusively a result of the government stealing tax money from people who would otherwise be quite well off.

    There's far too much overlap between "ideology" and "idealism" for my taste. The idea that there would be no poor people if the government would only stop stealing from them is an insult to the intelligence of anyone you try to sell it to.
    You seem to want to paint worst case scenario, regardless of how likely it is.
    And you seem to want to pretend that worst case scenarios can't happen. It's all very well to paint the picture of a Utopian society without worst case scenarios, but when you are the person to whom the worst case happens, you might be forced to change your tune.
    Forgetting the rationing of public healthcare through waiting lists that people die on, and when governments default on 'free' healthcare.
    Man, I hate monochromatic thinking. It's faulty logic at its worst. People die while waiting for public healthcare; therefore, ipso facto, if you eliminate public healthcare people won't die. Or at least, if they do, it won't have cost me anything.
    Its not a fantasy give me examples of company that commits fraud against its customers and has stayed in business without government help.
    Are you seriously, hand on heart, wide-eyed-innocently trying to tell me that you don't believe this is the case? I have a delightful range of bridges you may be interested in purchasing.
    We have a whole financial institution of legalised fraud permitted by governments in case you haven't noticed with the most devastating effects on the economy.
    No; those frauds were perpetrated in the main by private companies, facilitated by governments. Which reinforces my point: a company will do whatever the hell it can to maximise profits. If that involves collapsing economies, or letting people die in the gutters - whether or not a government is involved - then so be it.
    The person in the video would still have his job if it had no effects on profitability.
    My girlfriend asked her former employer to allow her to work remotely. Her boss acknowledged that she would be able to do so with perfect efficiency, but cited "policy" and refused to allow it. There was no question of profitability. Sometimes employers make decisions not because they affect profitability, but because they are assholes.

    Someone who refuses to allow flexibility to an employee whose wife has cancer is an asshole. You can dress that up or down any way you want - including the blind faith that the poor unfortunate employer would have gone out of business if he showed some flexibility to an employee in difficulty - but an asshole in a party frock is still an asshole.


  • #55
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #56
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Sorry, not impressed. The communists want us to think that if only we could steal all the money from rich people, everyone would live happily ever after. Some libertarians would have us believe that poverty is exclusively a result of the government stealing tax money from people who would otherwise be quite well off.

    There's far too much overlap between "ideology" and "idealism" for my taste. The idea that there would be no poor people if the government would only stop stealing from them is an insult to the intelligence of anyone you try to sell it to.

    I don't think i am describing utopia, people taking care of themselves, relying on family in times of need, the wider community if needed. You think without welfare communities would leave each other die. The amount of money raised in local communities for any local cause would lead me to believe otherwise. In my community, maybe i am lucky, an almost 6 figure sum was raised to send the the children of a local family for the best treatment available in the US that wasn't available in Ireland at the time, also a lot of money was raised for someone with cancer locally at the same time. All GAA clubs get most of their funding raised locally. And you are painting a picture of people dying being likely without welfare?
    And you seem to want to pretend that worst case scenarios can't happen. It's all very well to paint the picture of a Utopian society without worst case scenarios, but when you are the person to whom the worst case happens, you might be forced to change your tune.

    No i think it can happen, but nowhere near the likelihood you suggest. I don't think its utopian to suggest if people were not taxed to pay for a terrible welfare system, they would have more money to save for a rainy day, more money for insurance, likewise for every member of their extended family and community.
    Man, I hate monochromatic thinking. It's faulty logic at its worst. People die while waiting for public healthcare; therefore, ipso facto, if you eliminate public healthcare people won't die. Or at least, if they do, it won't have cost me anything.

    It was to show that long waiting lists and rationing of healthcare is a way for governments to default on their promise of free healthcare. Also if a government bankrupts itself through continuous deficits there will be a much wider default on its promises. I was showing that your welfare panacea could actually leave more people to die than a society where people took care of themselves. Impossible to measure but believing people can take care of themselves is not utopian.
    No; those frauds were perpetrated in the main by private companies, facilitated by governments. Which reinforces my point: a company will do whatever the hell it can to maximise profits. If that involves collapsing economies, or letting people die in the gutters - whether or not a government is involved - then so be it.

    Yes and without governments facilitating those companies they would be bankrupt, ever heard of a bank run? Governments benefit from currency fraud. Do you think if banks stopped lending and printing for governments they would fold up shop if they were bankrupt? No they would print currency and redistribute remaining wealth to those they employ.
    Someone who refuses to allow flexibility to an employee whose wife has cancer is an asshole. You can dress that up or down any way you want - including the blind faith that the poor unfortunate employer would have gone out of business if he showed some flexibility to an employee in difficulty - but an asshole in a party frock is still an asshole.

    I agree the employer who does that is an asshole in a scenario where he is making a lot of money and this would not effect there bottom line by much, but if the employer is on a tight or budget where it has an big impact on bottom line he would be doing what he has to do to stay in business. So the employer could be a complete asshole or just doing what he has to do to stay in business.

    If you don't believe the employer would have gone out of business, its only a question of how much profit should an employer sacrifice to accommodate an employee. If i hire someone and they ask for more flexible working hours that costs me some profits should i accommodate them? Now if the employee asks the same question but has a sick wife, you obviously think i should, so how much should you take from me without putting me out of business is the question that should ask if that's your stance.


  • #57
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Trickle down economics, still clinging to that one despite it being proven not to work. They have been trying that since Raygun in the US income inequality is increasing while wages stagnate and unemployment increases.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Tends not to happen because the big bad Gov comes in to save them. What if your insurance company goes bust? Tough I suppose. Life savings gone tough luck see ya.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    The “they do it too” argument is not an argument.


  • #58
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Trickle down economics, still clinging to that one despite it being proven not to work. They have been trying that since Raygun in the US income inequality is increasing while wages stagnate and unemployment increases.

    He just described saving and investing, since when does that not work. If we took every cent the rich have tomorrow and redistributed it, there would be no more free economy we would have full blown socialism where government would be in charge of money, where it goes and what your job would be, and that has been proven not to work.


  • #59
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    SupaNova wrote: »
    He just described saving and investing, since when does that not work. If we took every cent the rich have tomorrow and redistributed it, there would be no more free economy we would have full blown socialism where government would be in charge of money, where it goes and what your job would be, and that has been proven not to work.

    Hasn't it just been proven by the world wide credit crash that just happened?

    The only choice isn't between socialism or libertarianism there is a lot in between.


  • #60
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Hasn't it just been proven by the world wide credit crash that just happened?

    The world wide credit crunch is a result of monetary intervention in the form of artificially low interest rates. Wall Street got particularly creative this time with its financial products fueling an even more spectacular boom. When credit could no longer be expanded the bust set in. The boom bust is a result of monetary policy. Artificially low interest rates discourage savings and encourage speculation through cheap credit, when there is not enough real savings left to fuel the credit expansion the bust sets in.

    That is totally different to saving and investing, the credit crunch was a result of an assault on saving in favor of credit whilst forgetting that you need savings to have credit, as soon as there is no savings to back credit, credit cannot expand further.
    The only choice isn't between socialism or libertarianism there is a lot in between.

    I know there is plenty of in between. Taking every penny from those who invest and redistributing it to people who likely don't save and invest but mostly consume, all the savings would be consumed and end all further investment. A government who wipes out savers and investors, is obviously a government who thinks it can 100% run an economy. So if you've done that you would be ready for your first taste of the realities of socialism.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    To explain how interest rate is supposed to function, when savings get high the interest rate lowers to encourage credit, when savings get low the interest rate is raised to encourage savings, keeping the rate artificially low, means credit is encouraged over saving even when savings are dangerously low, this fuels a credit expansionary boom, but as soon as savings cannot back credit the boom ends and we get our bust. Keeping interest rates artificially low has the same affect as keeping any price artificially low, it creates shortages. In this case a shortage of credit or 'credit crunch'.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement