An Irish Libertarian Party

K-9 · 22-03-2012 04:28PM

The two main political parties have always been socially conservative barring Garrett's time which FG have ditched, Labour would be more liberal but it faces the problem of coalition and watered down proposals or else they are ignored. Social partnership was probably the most liberal law we've had since Divorce, which is starting to look outdated already. People do seem interested about Abortion etc. but when it comes to voting, the economy is the main determining factor for most it seems.

Unfair generalisation I suppose. The almost religious belief in the market puts people of I think, it seems nothing is ever the markets fault, always somebody else's.

Permabear · 22-03-2012 06:30PM

This post has been deleted.

K-9 · 22-03-2012 09:58PM

I never mentioned nor doubted the research whatsoever, I suppose I tend to look at politics in a practical and historical way. Looking at it from an Irish context which is the subject of the thread after all, its very easy to point at Government inefficiencies and failures, sure it's all around us. The lack of real world examples of Libertarianism is a big drawback for me, its very much an argument from theory as usually when somebody points to some examples of the free market in operation, they always get told "that isn't the free market".

From reading threads in the political theory section I could see a market for a PD, "Libertarian lite" type party as another poster mentioned. Its an ideal time for it just like the mid 80's and O'Malley. Personally, the country is crying out for a new socially liberal party with a right wing economic policy, but nothing near say Ron Paul politics.

SeanW · 22-03-2012 11:32PM

Libertarians are all rich people who want to destroy society, and money doesn't make the biggest ruler anymore.

That's why we have ACTA now ... because all those libertarians who don't exist, didn't use their money to get law written in their favour.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the "rich" still control our world and make our laws in their favour (see ACTA) and it has nothing to do with libertarianism.

Virtually all the establishment politicians in the U.S. are funded and serviced by wealthy special interests via lobbyists, up to and including presidents whose campaigns are so expensive they can only be funded by the likes of Goldman Sachs.

Again, nothing to do with libertarianism.

celticcrash · 22-03-2012 11:45PM

libertarian ideas, is that not what happened with our banks? Do what ever they wanted to do, no regulation. It seems some of their ideas have already been here.

CiaranC · 22-03-2012 11:51PM

In before one of the cranks tries to blame socialism for the consequences of increased deregulation

SeanW · 22-03-2012 11:54PM

Yes and no.

Yes, in a libertarian society, banks can lend money etc as they see fit.

No, in a libertarian society, when a bank messes up, it goes under, and everyone who lent money to it loses, unless there was something like the American FDIC to cover retail depositors.

NAMA, the Bank Guarantee schemes and the €40bn payout to Anglo bondholders would NEVER have happened in a libertarian society.

K-9 · 23-03-2012 12:55AM

Ireland doesn't have a social policy vacuum, Labour and the Greens fill it.

I wonder why you strongly advocated FG in the last election, very socially conservative party, far removed from Garrett? Tbh I didn't see that much different in the main parties economically, lots of talk in manifestos but the reality is, most of it was waffle!

The economic side overrides any reforming social agenda?

K-9 · 23-03-2012 01:04AM

The problem is FG aren't socially liberal whatsoever, Labour, SF and the Greens are which poses a problem for people who are interested in socially liberal policies. Does "left wing" economics supercede socially liberal policies, and I'm afraid it does.

You advocated strongly for a FG majority in the last election, I can fathom that economically but not socially, so "right wing" economics was a huge factor.

At this stage I don't see a huge difference between the 3 main parties economically, they all say they are different, but when in Government not that different at all. Socially there are differences.

Permabear · 23-03-2012 10:11AM

This post has been deleted.

K-9 · 23-03-2012 10:29AM

Huh? Where did the SF rant come from?

All parties supported the same-sex legislation so I suppose all are socially liberal to some extent by that rational!

Given the choice of candidates in the bye-election, absolutely. I voted Green No.1 in the General Election, I think you hate them more than the Shinners which is quite saying something!

Permabear · 23-03-2012 11:03AM

This post has been deleted.

K-9 · 23-03-2012 11:26AM

We'll know how socially liberal they are after the term of this Government ends. I don't hold out much hope for much change from FG.

Lockstep · 23-03-2012 11:38AM

They also quietly opposed gay marriage (a friend of mine contacted them to ask when putting together an LGBT guide to the election) and they refused to publicly clarify what their position was when Creighton came out and said she opposed gay marrage.
They refused to put anything about their manifesto regarding legislating for the X Case. It was an irksome example of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". By contrast, Labour who noted that they would legislate on the X Case had pro-life protesters sending out leaflets noting how Labour wanted to bring in abortion on demand, nailing anti-Labour billboards outside cathedrals during the novena and blockading Labour members houses and offices.

Fine Gael, socially liberal they ain't.

Permabear · 23-03-2012 12:24PM

This post has been deleted.

joseph brand · 23-03-2012 12:25PM

The 1%? The 99% can certainly sympathise with those billionaires having trouble with the upkeep of their international property portfolios. It must be awful.

Because humans down on their luck or, without funds are useless. Nothing as bad as the poor and the needy. The 'heresy' is the idea of targeting the weak. The poor make decent mince. :rolleyes:

Get Rich or Die Trying! (50 Cent)

How do you buy freedom?

joseph brand · 23-03-2012 12:41PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

If Obama wants a second term he can't go upsetting the christians. America is very very religious. I don't believe he cares if the gheys want to get married. He has far more important matters to deal with, although religious nutters without jobs, seem more concerned with ghey marriage and abortion.

It will be very interesting to see Obama in his second term in office. He might even legalise weed, amongst other ideas he may have but can't even mention. If he mentioned weed legalisation and ghey marriage there would be sounds of men firing guns into the air, and women crying, then fainting, in the South. The States in the bible belt would be 'topsy turvy'. "Cats and dogs, living together, MASS hysteria".

He treads lightly. (he could perhaps be more bold, if only he were white).

joseph brand · 23-03-2012 12:57PM

I thought the Federal Reserve was a private bank?

Lockstep · 23-03-2012 01:10PM

No, Barack Obama is too right wing for my taste. So was Clinton with his awful "Don't Ask Don't Tell".
Don't assume I support him, merely because he's a Democrat.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the X Case/the A, B and C v Ireland cases.
I never said that FG oppose legislating the issue (they have to). The point is that they left it out of their manifesto (like their stance on gay marriage)rather than engage with it at a time when it was a key issue which allowed voters to assume Fine Gael supported their own position.
Keep it vague and be all things to all people.

20Cent · 23-03-2012 01:22PM

@Permabear

Isn't Ron Paul ok with a state banning gay marriage its the federal Gov being involved he has a problem with?

joseph brand · 23-03-2012 01:23PM

The Lotto is a form of tax. Sure there's a possibility I could win, just like there's a possibility that Kelly Brook will knock on my door while the wife is out, 'gagging for it'.

I'm guessing, by your other posts, that you are in the 'tiny minority', aka, the 1%. The 1% invests, while the 99% spends. AFAIK, spending is of massive benefit to an economy. Better than hiding ones millions in offshore bank accounts, or foreign investment.

Permabear · 23-03-2012 01:34PM

This post has been deleted.

Channel Zero · 23-03-2012 01:38PM

Good question. You could do what Milton Friedman's pyjama-wearing grandson and libertarian billionaire Peter Theil are doing. Go Seasteading.:)

Permabear · 23-03-2012 01:40PM

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 23-03-2012 01:48PM

Sounds like he's ok with a state banning gay marriage though.

http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/

“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States. Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.

“I will stand with the people of Iowa, against Unconstitutional federal power grabs, and will fight to protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage against the will of its people. If I were a member of the Iowa legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.”

Dr Galen · 23-03-2012 02:02PM

This thread is not about Ron Paul

Keep it OT please

Cheers

DrG

RichieC · 23-03-2012 02:08PM

I can see him relaxing the federal raids in California and other states that have a medical cannabis on the books, but there's far too many lobbying powers against legalisation. Corrections corporation of America for one, the Alcohol industry, Cotton, Textiles and Foresters. They all stand to lose their shirts to deregulated Hemp Farms.

I suppose this is a bit of an argument for more Libertarian outlook.

Lockstep · 23-03-2012 02:32PM

I thought this was about FG's apparent social liberalism?
Not Labour's stance on Croke Park (Saying they'd honour it if elected)
By contrast, FG avoided taking a stance on it. I can understand it to an extent when it's between elections but when Creighton was hammering out her backward views on gay marriage, FG refused then to clarify what their stance was.

_Gawd_ · 23-03-2012 03:09PM

A real Libertarian would never vote for Fine Gael because to be a Libertarian one must have had to really study economics (one their own) and understand the philosophy of individual liberty. I was told FG are the "best of the bad bunch" but really, I don't see them attacking central banks, the European Union, the monetary system, allowing free markets, cutting back the public service, down on taxes (they're introducing them!). None of these things constitute libertarianism so you can forget about the socially conservative issues and stop right on the economical issues....FG are NOT capitalists. I think there is a niche to fill party wise where a group could become very successful with Irelands youth - an economically conservative, socially liberal party.

oscarBravo · 23-03-2012 03:12PM

So who would a true Scotsman real Libertarian vote for?

An Irish Libertarian Party

Comments