An Irish Libertarian Party

oscarBravo · 24-03-2012 03:23PM

_Gawd_ wrote: »

You prop up FG around here because they're the best of the bad bunch - how about voting differently to see a total collapse? Is there an argument for that?

There's no provision in our electoral system for a total collapse. If enough people don't vote for the centrist parties, the leftist parties will form a government.

Is your position so absolutist that, as far as you're concerned, a FG-led government is in every sense as bad as a ULA- or SF-led government, simply because neither would be perfectly libertarian?

_Gawd_ · 24-03-2012 03:28PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's no provision in our electoral system for a total collapse. If enough people don't vote for the centrist parties, the leftist parties will form a government.

Is your position so absolutist that, as far as you're concerned, a FG-led government is in every sense as bad as a ULA- or SF-led government, simply because neither would be perfectly libertarian?

Absolutely not.

Having said that, I don't think FG should be absent from criticism. I believe they should be hammered. Definitely NOT defended.

SeanW · 24-03-2012 04:06PM

I think a Libertarian Party could work in Ireland if they took a page out of Ron Pauls book and prioritised the important areas.

I once watched a video where RP explained how he would move America from its statist mess to a free society, and he mentioned that he would start with the foreign occupations and misadventures, close the foreign bases, get out of a lot of these countries etc.

He criticised conservatives who, when asked about the need to save the government money, would say "let's cut child healthcare" RP would respond by saying "I don't think the government should be providing child healthcare either, but that's not where I would start."

If you ever watch RP in action, he's usually going after the Federal Reserve or the crazy international spending. He'd like to dismantle Social Security and whatnot eventually, but he does not focus on them.

Similarly, if an Irish Libertarian party were to start with the socially liberal aspect (taxing and decriminalising cannibis for example), highlight how a Libertarian would never have spent so much money on the banks, and focus financially only on the need to balance the budget, prefering cuts in spending, then the rest of the policy could come at a later date.

Permabear · 24-03-2012 06:14PM

This post has been deleted.

_Gawd_ · 24-03-2012 07:17PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, I'm not looking for a specific strain - I would support a party that would realistically address the debt, deregulation, lower taxes, civil liberties but I just don't see it in FG. They've made a total dogs dinner of this household charge and if you were to attend any of their constituency meetings, you'd be awe-struck at the lack of debate and independent thought. I was at one myself recently and the amount of scare-mongering regarding the fiscal treaty had people running and ducking in horror at what might become if there is a no vote.

This is a non-issue when compared with central planning Soviet style. Of course, perhaps I was naive enough to think that the conversation had passed a stage where we had looked at the evidence and were clear in the knowledge that the market works better, yet I don't see this as a calling cry for promoting parish pump FG who I might add, supported these bailouts which is a travesty in every sense. I see both (although impossible to compare as systems) fundamentally hostile in their own ways to freedom. For this reason, I'd be willing to get involved in some way with a new party because I don't see any group in Ireland that represents me and as far as I can tell, most of the Libertarians in this country and on this board so advertising FG is counter productive. Voting FG just because they're "somewhat market" is not a justification when we see the current financial crisis on our doorstep.

Endless Nameless · 24-03-2012 07:21PM

SeanW wrote: »

I think a Libertarian Party could work in Ireland if they took a page out of Ron Pauls book and prioritised the important areas.

I once watched a video where RP explained how he would move America from its statist mess to a free society, and he mentioned that he would start with the foreign occupations and misadventures, close the foreign bases, get out of a lot of these countries etc.

He criticised conservatives who, when asked about the need to save the government money, would say "let's cut child healthcare" RP would respond by saying "I don't think the government should be providing child healthcare either, but that's not where I would start."

If you ever watch RP in action, he's usually going after the Federal Reserve or the crazy international spending. He'd like to dismantle Social Security and whatnot eventually, but he does not focus on them.

Similarly, if an Irish Libertarian party were to start with the socially liberal aspect (taxing and decriminalising cannibis for example), highlight how a Libertarian would never have spent so much money on the banks, and focus financially only on the need to balance the budget, prefering cuts in spending, then the rest of the policy could come at a later date.

Yep, I think that'd be a very reasonable start: cutting the larger, more unnecessary expenses and decrimilisation/legalisation of softer drugs.

As for voting, I think I'm just going to send in a spoiled vote.

Valmont · 24-03-2012 11:33PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is your position so absolutist that, as far as you're concerned, a FG-led government is in every sense as bad as a ULA- or SF-led government, simply because neither would be perfectly libertarian?

The terms "perfectly libertarian" are antithetical to democracy as it currently stands so I don't think abstinence from voting is entirely because no party conforms to our ideals.

The issue is that democracy itself is in opposition to the natural rights inherent in the libertarian tradition. Few libertarians could throw their full weight behind a system which -- from one perspective -- involves two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. But I only point this out to demonstrate that principled opposition is not because no party is "libertarian enough" but because the system itself the problem. The system being democracy in the absence of a strong constitution limiting the remit of each new government.

_Gawd_ · 25-03-2012 12:42AM

Valmont wrote: »

The terms "perfectly libertarian" are antithetical to democracy as it currently stands so I don't think abstinence from voting is entirely because no party conforms to our ideals.

The issue is that democracy itself is in opposition to the natural rights inherent in the libertarian tradition. Few libertarians could throw their full weight behind a system which -- from one perspective -- involves two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. But I only point this out to demonstrate that principled opposition is not because no party is "libertarian enough" but because the system itself the problem. The system being democracy in the absence of a strong constitution limiting the remit of each new government.

Democracy itself is a problem.

Democracy doesn't protect the individual because it is basically mob rule in a sense. Add to that that democracy has the power to vote itself out of existence much like what occurred in Germany prior to the war and you have something totally opposite to individualism and Libertarianism. Some believe the ballot box is violence as you're intimidating someone else. I believe everyone should be free to choose and that's why I won't vote for FG. They're all as bad as each other, I don't see it as damage limitation...if this is the case, there must be enough motivation to start our own movement in a sense. I'm all for it, the question is....are the others on this website???

Reekwind · 25-03-2012 10:36AM

_Gawd_ wrote: »

if this is the case, there must be enough motivation to start our own movement in a sense. I'm all for it, the question is....are the others on this website???

Why bother if you'll be competing in a democratic process that is inevitably flawed and that you want to abolish?

Permabear · 25-03-2012 10:42AM

This post has been deleted.

Toby Take a Bow · 25-03-2012 11:25AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't get why people (even just in theory) suggest the possibility of a SF/ULA coalition. Completely unworkable (regardless of how you think their policies will effect the country) but also because they're ideologically incompatible. SF will move ever more to the right (and take up the position FF used to occupy before they go either right or left) while the ULA can barely keep together their election pact between the socialist party and the PBPA people. And there aren't really that many of them in government!

As for a libertarian party, I'd be all for it (despite being ideologically opposed to it). I'd personally prefer parties to identify themselves on ideological grounds, as (hopefully) it would take the parish-pump politics out of our system and if you vote for your local TD you (hopefully) know what sort of policies s/he will be initiating.

I think the idea of voting for the least-worst alternative (for libertarians: FG) can be a dangerous strategy, however. You can be stuck with FG as the only viable option. Forming a libertarian party now, and sticking with it, at least you have a foundation for a successful party which may be able to govern in the next generation.

Permabear · 25-03-2012 11:42AM

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch · 25-03-2012 11:45AM

The libertarian paradox:

Corrupt government is allowing monopolies to exist and create an unfair society. State = corruption. Eliminate the state and you reduce corruption.

They ignore the reason for the corruption. That elites, the corporate and the wealthy corrupt government from its purposes in order to further their own agenda at the expense of the electorate who voted for the government.

Somehow, these people who have enormous wealth and power, will somehow be LESS able to exploit or take advantage of others if government was 'limited.'

I've had numerous debates with libertarians on these forums and have come to the conclusion that they are fundamentally dishonest when discussing their ideology. They always couch their arguments in terms of freedom and equal rights when the reality is the implementation of their ideology will result in anything but.

It's like they skipped over the entire idea of a democracy.

Libertarianism is really just a form of extreme social darwinism.

To sum it up: Modern democracy has numerous flaws. The libertarian solution: Eliminate democracy.

FreudianSlippers · 25-03-2012 11:59AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I have US citizenship too but registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul

Permabear · 25-03-2012 11:59AM

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova · 25-03-2012 12:03PM

Memnoch wrote: »

The libertarian paradox:

Corrupt government is allowing monopolies to exist and create an unfair society. State = corruption. Eliminate the state and you reduce corruption.

They ignore the reason for the corruption. That elites, the corporate and the wealthy corrupt government from its purposes in order to further their own agenda at the expense of the electorate who voted for the government.

Well this usually gets covered in the umpteen threads on libertarianism. Assuming wealthy corporate elites all work together at the expense of the electorate is simplistic and wrong. As certain industries and corporations gain through the corruption of government others lose out.

Somehow, these people who have enormous wealth and power, will somehow be LESS able to exploit or take advantage of others if government was 'limited.'

Another fairly simple idea that gets covered in libertarian threads, a government without the ability to grant favorable taxes or subsidize certain industries would be far more limiting than one being an institution of favor granting as it is now.

I've had numerous debates with libertarians on these forums and have come to the conclusion that they are fundamentally dishonest when discussing their ideology.

In these numerous debates with libertarians you must not have read their responses, or perhaps you did and are being fundamentally dishonest yourself.

Memnoch · 25-03-2012 12:08PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No.

But I would rather work at increasing accountability and reducing corruption.

The REASON there is corruption is because the wealthy want to supplant the regulations that are there in place to prevent them from exploiting others.

Limiting government won't reduce corruption, it will only make it redundant since now there is no need to corrupt government officials to turn regulations in your favor, you can simply eliminate the regulations in the first place.

So really what Libertarianism is arguing for to cut out the middle man and allow those who are corrupting the government to achieve their goals more easily.

I would rather live in a democracy than an Oligarchy.

Memnoch · 25-03-2012 12:12PM

SupaNova wrote: »

Well this usually gets covered in the umpteen threads on libertarianism. Assuming wealthy corporate elites all work together at the expense of the electorate is simplistic and wrong. As certain industries and corporations gain through the corruption of government others lose out.

Strawman. I make no such assumption. I'm not interested in which corporations are gaining or losing out. What I am interested in is that the ELECTORATE, we the people are losing out either way.

Another fairly simple idea that gets covered in libertarian threads, a government without the ability to grant favorable taxes or subsidize certain industries would be far more limiting than one being an institution of favor granting as it is now.

Someone must have created the universe. Therefore God exists. This is the kind of logic you are employing by picking an arbitary beginning/end point. I'm not going to repeat what I already said, you can read it in my post above in reply to permabear.

In these numerous debates with libertarians you must not have read their responses, or perhaps you did and are being fundamentally dishonest yourself.

I've read them, and what I've found is repeated strawmanning and pedantry.

Channel Zero · 25-03-2012 12:23PM

SeanW wrote: »

If you ever watch RP in action, he's usually going after the Federal Reserve or the crazy international spending. He'd like to dismantle Social Security and whatnot eventually, but he does not focus on them.

I wonder why.

Similarly, if an Irish Libertarian party were to start with the socially liberal aspect (taxing and decriminalising cannibis for example), highlight how a Libertarian would never have spent so much money on the banks, and focus financially only on the need to balance the budget, prefering cuts in spending, then the rest of the policy could come at a later date.

So you're basically saying that an Irish Libertarian party should "focus" on the popular aspects like legalising drugs, hypothetically letting banks fail, and the need to balance the budget and "the rest of the policy would come at a later date." I see.

The rest of the policy i presume being the far less palatable libertarian policies like eliminating social welfare, shutting down public healthcare, completely de-regulating finance, slashing taxes for the wealthy, scrapping the minimum wage and abolishing child labour laws.

What a very charming and transparent strategy.

SupaNova · 25-03-2012 12:24PM

Memnoch wrote: »

Strawman. I make no such assumption. I'm not interested in which corporations are gaining or losing out. What I am interested in is that the ELECTORATE, we the people are losing out either way.

Can you clarify, are you saying that corporations merely existing are causing people to lose out even without using the government at the expense of each other?

Someone must have created the universe. Therefore God exists. This is the kind of logic you are employing by picking an arbitary beginning/end point. I'm not going to repeat what I already said, you can read it in my post above in reply to permabear.

Interesting that you dodge quite a simple point with irrelevant rambling whilst criticizing libertarians for dishonest debating. Just answer the question, is a government that cannot grant favorable tax and subsidies not less corruptible than one that can and does?

EchoO · 25-03-2012 12:30PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That doesn't really make sense. The "others" who you say are generally paying for everything vote in far greater numbers than those that don't i.e, the employed vote in far greater numbers than the unemployed, those from more middle class areas vote in far greater numbers than those from more deprived areas...etc. And there is the old political adage raising taxes costs votes, cuts don't.

Permabear · 25-03-2012 01:10PM

This post has been deleted.

Sound of Silence · 25-03-2012 01:18PM

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness":

- J K Galbraith

25-03-2012 01:27PM

More freedom would be great. A party with a libertarian slant rather than a full libertarian agenda would be good.

Easier planning permission - in New South Wales you can get planning in 10 days. In alot of US states they dont tell you how you should build you house.

More direct democracy. Would we have bailed out the banks if we have a referendum?
Would we have nationalised Anglo Irish Bank?

More individual responsibility would be a good move away from this nanny/welfare state mentality. Ask not what the state can do for you but what you can do for your goddamned self. How about them apples

Memnoch · 25-03-2012 01:29PM

SupaNova wrote: »

Can you clarify, are you saying that corporations merely existing are causing people to lose out even without using the government at the expense of each other?

I'm saying that there are individuals (a lot of them) in society who are greedy and who will do anything to achieve what they want through the exploitation of others. I'm saying that limiting government is not going to stop these individuals from continuing to do everything they can to amass material wealth at the expense of everyone else.

I'm saying that the for those of us without the power and wealth of these individuals, the only chance we have to not be exploited and be able to be free is to band together for the collective good. Where every individual has equal say regardless of their wealth/power/influence. This is called democracy.

Interesting that you dodge quite a simple point with irrelevant rambling whilst criticizing libertarians for dishonest debating. Just answer the question, is a government that cannot grant favorable tax and subsidies not less corruptible than one that can and does?

I thought I already answered this in reply to permabear. There is no such thing as no government. If you create a power vacuum it WILL be filled. Those who want to exploit will only find it EASIER in the absence of the regulations they are currently corrupting to subvert.

For example. You are saying that limited government will not grant favorable tax to corporations.

But that is exactly what limiting government will do. That's exactly what libertarians are arguing for. Less taxes on corporations.

Maybe I'm confused. Are you saying that a libertarian government will tax corporations more fairly? Just how will this work? And how will such a limited government enforce these fairer taxes?

Manco · 25-03-2012 01:32PM

Memnoch · 25-03-2012 01:35PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Except there is no such thing as no government. There is no such thing as a power vacuum where everyone can live free from the influence of those around them.

You can either have a situation where people are as free as their wealth or power allows them to be, and this includes the freedom to exploit others, and this is what libertarianism will result in.

Or where people are free through a collective understanding and respect of each other's rights, enforced by the democratic principle.

The question of whether corporations corrupted government or government corrupted corporations would seem to be a question of, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

If you believe that corporations have corrupted the government, you must surely be able to identify an era of pre-corporate, uncorrupted government. So, when was it?

It doesn't matter what came first. Corruption has always existed for the same reasons.

Society/government/whoever is in power creates a set of laws.

There are individuals who want to subvert these laws for personal gain. To achieve this they participate in corruption.

Your solution seems to be to simply remove the offending laws in the first place or remove any tools that society might have to enforce these laws. That you cannot see how paradoxical this is truly shocks me.

Caveat: I can understand society having a debate about removing pointless laws that do more harm than good. But without laws there will be exploitation.

Zombrex · 25-03-2012 01:38PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There has never been such an era because there has always been, and always will be, a tension between the role a government member is supposed to play (responsibility to the people) and the temptation to accept incentives from minority interests such as business.

The solution to this though is not to simply remove the government so that the business can do what it likes without having to even going to the trouble of bribing.

I'm quite sympathetic to the Libertarian ideals, but just like all largely untested political philosophies you can't just assume certain things won't happen. You need to work through all likely scenarios.

One likely scenario with Libertarianism is that without government regulation companies run amuck in the search for ever increasing profits at the expense of things that the electorate hold dear in the long run, such as jobs or the environment. Things like financial crashes demonstrate the folly of assuming corporations will act in their own long term best interests.

It is foolish for Libertarians not to work these scenarios through properly (a lot do, but not seeing that much of that on this thread).

Permabear · 25-03-2012 01:44PM

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch · 25-03-2012 01:49PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

STRAWMAN. I never said government is virtuous. Specifically that Irish government is virtuous. That does not mean that Oligarchies or corporate anarchy is better.

You still don't get it. I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist or isn't a problem. I very much want to battle corruption.

I think the way to do it is through more transparency, accountability and robust democracy.

You seem to think that the way to do this is to eliminate government. But what you don't get is that corruption isn't the end point, nor is it the beginning it is simply a tool to subvert the rule of law. I don't understand how in your idealogical world, there will be any rule of law where the wealthy cannot simply do whatever the hell they want? You've eliminated government but you haven't proposed any alternative to stop exploitation.

From whatever angle I come at it, more and more you just seem to want anarchy. Or like I said before, some messed up version of extreme social darwinism.

An Irish Libertarian Party

Comments