An Irish Libertarian Party

Zombrex wrote: »

I meant removing the government from the areas they were regulating. Apologies for the confusion.

There is no confusion, he knows exactly what you meant. Like I said, when painted into a corner, the default option is to resort to semantics:

This discussion happened about a month ago -

Originally Posted by Permabear
Yes, that is correct. But limiting the power of government is rather different from eliminating government. I hope you can see the distinction.

Like I said, getting caught in semantics again. I'm sure there is a distinction, but the extent to which the libertarians want to 'limit' government is so drastic that in comparison to what we consider government today, what you will have will barely be a husk.

Libertarian philosophy seems to think that there should be very little actual GOVERNING that should be done by the government. They want to trust individuals to govern themselves.

For all intents and purposes you're talking about the elimination of government.

The reply:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Memnoch
Libertarian philosophy seems to think that there should be very little actual GOVERNING that should be done by the government. They want to trust individuals to govern themselves.

Pretty much, yes. Libertarians usually believe that as long as people are not harming one another or infringing on one another's liberty, they should be left alone to do as they please. As Thoreau once wrote, "That government is best which governs least."

So he knows that in the context we are having this discussion we are talking effectively about the elimination of government. But he doesn't like the way that sounds or reflects on his ideology even though that is exactly what's being proposed.

i.e. If permabears agenda was to be implemented, what would be left would appear to the vast majority of us to be an absence of government.

Soldie wrote: »

Memnoch wrote: »

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 also think it's terrible that the public sector has the productive part of the economy bent over a barrel thanks to the ruinous Croke Park Agreement that greedy elites lobbied the government into signing, to the detriment of millions. Unlike yourself, however, I think something like a strict constitutional limitation on the size of the budget deficit relative to GDP would be a very effective tool to address such problems.

Fiscal compact to the rescue!

Memnoch wrote: »

Not this circle again. What part of democracy do you not understand? Stop hiding behind the word state. Just come out and say it. You don't believe in democracy.

If by democracy, you mean majority rules absolutely; I don't think that is a good idea. I like to see the State i.e. the majority limited in what they can do. I don't think the State i.e. the majority should be able to kill people they don't like, I don't think the State i.e. the majority should be able to expropriate property, I don't think the State i.e. the majority should be able to tell a a person what they are allowed think, I don't think the State i.e. the majority should be able to tell a person what religion they should be, I don't think the State i.e. the majority should be able to tell a person which books they should be able to read.

Do you believe in any limits on the State i.e. the majority, which are going to be expressed through a constitution which of course will be amendable by the majority, but this is a issue for elsewhere.

There's a poor choice in the political system atm- we got green Fianna Fail, blue Fianna Fail, the relatively infamous Sinn Fein party, blue Fianna Fail's weak coalition buddies + some Indies. Blue Fianna Fail just tend to suck up all the votes from the electorate vacuum green Fianna Fail left behind.

But the only party is the ruling party, as they say.

And Ireland is way too conservative for all that crazy stuff like "drug legalisation".

_Gawd_ wrote: »

A Libertarian believes in the individual, not collectivism or groups.

Therefore, if there are two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner, a Libertarian recognizes that the sheep has no opinion in the matter and something close to him is going to be affected at the will of the other two. That's not freedom and that's not liberty. But it is democracy and democracy provides no safeguards against others imposing their will on you as an individual with your own personal beliefs and values being threatened.

For example, say Ireland was to vote socialist tomorrow for the sake of argument. As a capitalist say, you have no input or voice in the way the country is going. Therefore, democracy is basically mob rule. A Libertarian believes EVERYONE has the right to decide their own way in life and to live with the consequences of those choices. Ironically, socialism can work within a libertarian society..but capitalism cannot live in a socialist one.

To expand on that, libertarians have no problem with socialists coming together and paying into a community pot to provide free healthcare, schooling, welfare etc for the community. The problem arises when EVERYONE, even libertarians are FORCED to pay for these things which is the current situation.

In a word, democracy wouldn't exist because you wouldn't have anyone to vote for. Why? Because there would be no "higher power" at all. You have no government, YOU ARE YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

The Libertarian believes the 2 wolves and the sheep will live together in eternal happiness, doing no harm to each other.

If they do harm, the sheep can claim Sheep Insurance for well, just being a Sheep.

happyman81 wrote: »

I'm sure it made sense to him, at the time. Like a drunken post-it note that reads 'ALWAYS eat blueberries'.

, not drunken unfortunately!

Makes as much sense as the sheep analogy I was responding to. Funny how that was understood though.

Soldie wrote: »

I also think it's terrible that the public sector has the productive part of the economy bent over a barrel thanks to the ruinous Croke Park Agreement that greedy elites lobbied the government into signing, to the detriment of millions. Unlike yourself, however, I think something like a strict constitutional limitation on the size of the budget deficit relative to GDP would be a very effective tool to address such problems.

I don't want to get into a public vs private sector argument because that's another debate for another place. I do think in some instances, public sector workers are overpaid, but these are primarily those at the top, like consultant doctors etc. Again, our government has been horrible and rife with nepotism. It needs root and branch reform.

I want to add that those at the top of the private sector are very grossly overpaid.

I'd also be in favor of reducing the social welfare burden on the tax payer (which must be shocking coming from a leftie-pinko).

However, the vast majority of PS workers are not overpaid or have it that cushy. For example a specialist registrar(doctor at the final stages of training to be a consultant) with 7 years experience get's paid 2,300-2,400 euro a month after tax. That's not a lot to pay a mortage and support a family now is it?

If by democracy, you mean majority rules absolutely; I don't think that is a good idea. I like to see the State i.e. the majority limited in what they can do. I don't think the State i.e. the majority should be able to kill people they don't like, I don't think the State i.e. the majority should be able to expropriate property, I don't think the State i.e. the majority should be able to tell a a person what they are allowed think, I don't think the State i.e. the majority should be able to tell a person what religion they should be, I don't think the State i.e. the majority should be able to tell a person which books they should be able to read.

Do you believe in any limits on the State i.e. the majority, which are going to be expressed through a constitution which of course will be amendable by the majority, but this is a issue for elsewhere.

I do believe there should be limits on the state. I believe strongly in freedom of speech, I believe in the state not telling people what to think, and I don't believe in capital punishment either. I also believe the state has no place in the bedroom between two consenting adults.

However, there are places where I believe the state has a responsibility. Such as ensuring that all children get a high level of education, providing healthcare for the citizenry, providing safety and security etc.

But like you said, ultimately even a constitution can be amended by the majority. And i'm not sure what the alternative is.

_Gawd_ wrote: »

A Libertarian believes in the individual, not collectivism or groups.

Therefore, if there are two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner, a Libertarian recognizes that the sheep has no opinion in the matter and something close to him is going to be affected at the will of the other two. That's not freedom and that's not liberty. But it is democracy and democracy provides no safeguards against others imposing their will on you as an individual with your own personal beliefs and values being threatened.

For example, say Ireland was to vote socialist tomorrow for the sake of argument. As a capitalist say, you have no input or voice in the way the country is going. Therefore, democracy is basically mob rule. A Libertarian believes EVERYONE has the right to decide their own way in life and to live with the consequences of those choices. Ironically, socialism can work within a libertarian society..but capitalism cannot live in a socialist one.

To expand on that, libertarians have no problem with socialists coming together and paying into a community pot to provide free healthcare, schooling, welfare etc for the community. The problem arises when EVERYONE, even libertarians are FORCED to pay for these things which is the current situation.

In a word, democracy wouldn't exist because you wouldn't have anyone to vote for. Why? Because there would be no "higher power" at all. You have no government, YOU ARE YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

These kind of analogies are a bad idea, much better to argue the issues. I could for example say that actually... what would better reflect reality is that there are 5 wolves and a 100 sheep. In a democracy, the wolves and sheep get together and vote about whether or not it's okay for the wolves to eat sheep that are too weak to escape them. The sheep all vote that they should be safe from being exploited by the wolves.

In a libertarian framework, the sheep are somehow prevented from making this democratic decision and if as a sheep you're not strong enough, or fast enough or getting old, well, then you get eaten. That's nature, evolution, Darwin at work.

i.e. as I've oft said, Libertarianism is simply a form of extreme Social Darwinism.

As to your second point, that is a lie, and I'll tell you why. Libertarians are happy to force everyone to pay for the military, and also to pay for the police. What about things like roads for communities that can't afford to build them for themselves, should they just be cut off? Why run an unprofitable bus service for some village. Those people should abandon their heritage and move. etc.

I don't think Libertarians are against the idea in principle as they claim to be, they are only against it in instances they disagree with, such as healthcare. As another poster pointed out, it comes down to selfishness. The things they can't afford on their own (like a military) they are happy for everyone to pay for, while where they feel they would be better off 'private,' they don't want to pay. Such a system is great for those with means and those born with means.

Have any of the people in this thread criticising the Libertarian view of the Market stopped to consider that it might force the larger companies to compete with other ones, driving down the cost of products while making the average product better quality?

I've made the following point several times. There is no such thing as the free market. It doesn't exist. When a company becomes big enough, the best way to make the most profit is not by following free market principles but by subverting them. This is done by creating a monopoly, by corruption, by employing slave labor, by suppressing competition, by marketing not by providing a quality product. The only way to stop this is regulation, otherwise the market will destroy itself. The banking collapse of only a handful of years ago, of which we are still feeling the repurcussions in this country is a PERFECT example of where a deregulated market will always end up. Because profit is short sighted and people are selfish.

Yes, you're right. The debate really is between libertarians on the one hand and authoritarian statists (whether left- or right-wing) on the other.

Yawn. Libertarians are just extreme social darwinists who believe in an authoritarian corporate state.