As A Young Adult, Do You Feel Your Views Are Represented In Ireland?

goose2005 · 06-07-2013 09:46PM

Staff Infection wrote: »

Hard to do. If people enter in politics specifically addressing the issues of young people they only have one niche (who don't turn out in big numbers) to appeal to for votes to get elected in the first place.

Which means that there are votes there to be won if the youth can be encouraged to come out and vote.

Also when these young people get old why would they continue to vote for the "young persons party" as it wouldn't be addressing their older issues and would instead be trying to appeal to the new young people and their issues.

That's a matter for decades in the future surely, presumably a Youth party founded in 2013 would have evolved by 2033

1ZRed · 06-07-2013 10:09PM

FloatingVoter wrote: »

I'm 38 and you young people are whats wrong with this country. Lazy good for nothings.

Enjoying letting my inner old fart out.

Every single generation will say that about the next.

Staff Infection · 06-07-2013 11:23PM

goose2005 wrote: »

Which means that there are votes there to be won if the youth can be encouraged to come out and vote.

That's a matter for decades in the future surely, presumably a Youth party founded in 2013 would have evolved by 2033

Well I presume that's why many parties have a youth branch, to specifically try and tap into the youth vote. However, apart from Obama in the US I can't remember any politician actually managing to get a big number of young people out to vote. There just isn't enough young people engaged in politics (I'm 22 by the way). Now that may change if a party specifically looked at youth issues but equally it may not and they waste alot of money trying. As a result appealing to a wider range of voters is a safer bet.

Yeah I know the party would evolve but they'd have to choose between developing into a party which looks after middle-aged people (their young voters who aged) or alienate them from those who voted for them in the past by focusing on young peoples issues.

jimmycrackcorm · 07-07-2013 12:03AM

But op, your views are being represented by one TD in the Dail. You just need a party of Mings.

oppenheimer1 · 07-07-2013 12:17AM

Winston Churchill wrote:

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”

I think the OP has made the mistake in assuming that all young people have the same views as him.

NuckingFacker · 07-07-2013 12:21AM

Old and grey wrote: »

A sad,naive, and polotically immature post.
If this is the youth of Ireland then God help us all!

I'd chukka bit of editing onto that, old chap. Also, the new generation are not all lazy good for nothings. My two sons are, no question, sleep on the floor if there was work in the bed, but I doubt they represent they majority. At least I hope they don't..

KyussBishop · 07-07-2013 12:23AM

Libertarianism over social issues is more representative of young adults today; the US style of 'Libertarianism' is a cynical attempt to hijack social Libertarianism, and use it to promote economic 'Libertarianism', i.e. to free finance and business to commit massive fraud, like what just destroyed much of the world economy.

I'm all for social Libertarianism, but don't pretend like any of that other crap is in any way representative of youth/young-adults today.

Iwasfrozen · 07-07-2013 12:28AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Libertarianism over social issues is more representative of young adults today; the US style of 'Libertarianism' is a cynical attempt to hijack social Libertarianism, and use it to promote economic 'Libertarianism', i.e. to free finance and business to commit massive fraud, like what just destroyed much of the world economy.

I'm all for social Libertarianism, but don't pretend like any of that other crap is in any way representative of youth/young-adults today.

That's funny. I could have sworn the socialisation of private debt destroyed the economy.

garhjw · 07-07-2013 12:29AM

Trade unions are the problem with this country. The laziness and sense of entitlement they promote set this country and a road to ruin long before the "bankers". You have thousands of idiots getting paid €60k a year.

seven_eleven · 07-07-2013 12:35AM

Never mind young people, but who in the jaysus would be "just fine" with FF/FG?!

Bunch of morons.

Iwasfrozen · 07-07-2013 12:39AM

seven_eleven wrote: »

Never mind young people, but who in the jaysus would be "just fine" with FF/FG?!

Bunch of morons.

Grass is always greener...

What would you do? If you were Taoiseach?

downonthefarm · 07-07-2013 12:41AM

we should just govern ourselves and go back to bartering

KyussBishop · 07-07-2013 12:56AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's funny. I could have sworn the socialisation of private debt destroyed the economy.

Yes because absent the bailouts, which would lead to cascading bank failures, our economy would currently be running perfectly fine, right?

Knowing Libertarians, this would magically turn out to be governments fault as well somehow; that's what Libertarians are (many unwittingly - as useful idiots): Apologists/denialists for widespread private fraud in finance/business, who to try to spin every instance of private corruption and profligacy, so the blame falls on government, in order to argue that government should get out of the way of private fraud/corruption/rent-seeking 'wealth/job-creation'.

It's a movement that is very cynically and successfully designed, to get people to argue against their own best interests (in allowing massive fraud/corruption to go unchecked), while being utterly fooled into thinking they are arguing for greater 'freedoms' for themselves and society (or just giving those who know better, an ideological narrative to superficially justify various forms of greed/fraud, at the expense of the rest of society).

downonthefarm · 07-07-2013 01:02AM

garhjw wrote: »

Trade unions are the problem with this country. The laziness and sense of entitlement they promote set this country and a road to ruin long before the "bankers". You have thousands of idiots getting paid €60k a year.

hey,them trade unions are keeping my job safe from jobsbridgers

Iwasfrozen · 07-07-2013 01:07AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes because absent the bailouts, which would lead to cascading bank failures, our economy would currently be running perfectly fine, right?

Knowing Libertarians, this would magically turn out to be governments fault as well somehow; that's what Libertarians are (many unwittingly - as useful idiots): Apologists/denialists for widespread private fraud in finance/business, who to try to spin every instance of private corruption and profligacy, so the blame falls on government, in order to argue that government should get out of the way of private fraud/corruption/rent-seeking 'wealth/job-creation'.

It's a movement that is very cynically and successfully designed, to get people to argue against their own best interests (in allowing massive fraud/corruption to go unchecked), while being utterly fooled into thinking they are arguing for greater 'freedoms' for themselves and society (or just giving those who know better, an ideological narrative to superficially justify various forms of greed/fraud, at the expense of the rest of society).

Of course our economy would have suffered had our banks failed? But the debt would have remained in the private hands of those who's riskless behaviour brought about it's destruction. But foreign banks would have come in and taken over and our economy would be in a much better state now.

Your argument that Libertarians "trick" people into going against their best interests kind of falls apart when you realise there is no collective "upper class" mind. Also the staunchest supporters of Libertarianism tends to be University academics and intellectuals. The very sort of people you claim would suffer under privatisation of the third level system.

I don't think it takes a genius to realise smaller government = less opportunity for the government to interfere in your life.

Iwasfrozen · 07-07-2013 01:10AM

downonthefarm wrote: »

hey,them trade unions are keeping my job safe from jobsbridgers

Then join the jobsbridgers. If they're willing to work for less money then you then it's not fair you're in a job and they aren't.

downonthefarm · 07-07-2013 01:16AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then join the jobsbridgers. If they're willing to work for less money then you then it's not fair you're in a job and they aren't.

not fair?i got my job because i EARNED
it,not because it was given to me

Iwasfrozen · 07-07-2013 01:19AM

downonthefarm wrote: »

not fair?i got my job because i EARNED
it,not because it was given to me

And how are job bridgers supposed to earn their job unless they get the opportunity?

Fact is if someone equally qualified is willing to do your job for less money then the union stopping this is unfair. Now your experience may mean you are worth the extra money but that's for your employer to decide. Not the Union.

downonthefarm · 07-07-2013 01:24AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And how are job bridgers supposed to earn their job unless they get the opportunity?

Fact is if someone equally qualified is willing to do your job for less money then the union stopping this is unfair. Now your experience may mean you are worth the extra money but that's for your employer to decide. Not the Union.

but thats what i am getting at,the unions have the country over a barrel,
that croke park was a sickening disgrace and and example of the greed and culture of backslapping bs that was rife in the day

Iwasfrozen · 07-07-2013 01:28AM

downonthefarm wrote: »

but thats what i am getting at,the unions have the country over a barrel,
that croke park was a sickening disgrace and and example of the greed and culture of backslapping bs that was rife in the day

Couldn't agree more the Unions should never have been given the power social partnership entitles them to. Some anti union law to break up the conglomerates like ICTU and SITU would go a long way.

KyussBishop · 07-07-2013 01:34AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course our economy would have suffered had our banks failed? But the debt would have remained in the private hands of those who's riskless behaviour brought about it's destruction. But foreign banks would have come in and taken over and our economy would be in a much better state now.

So you have just pointed out how the economy would have been destroyed anyway, contradicting your previous post:

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's funny. I could have sworn the socialisation of private debt destroyed the economy.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Your argument that Libertarians "trick" people into going against their best interests kind of falls apart when you realise there is no collective "upper class" mind. Also the staunchest supporters of Libertarianism tends to be University academics and intellectuals. The very sort of people you claim would suffer under privatisation of the third level system.

I don't think it takes a genius to realise smaller government = less opportunity for the government to interfere in your life.

Libertarians don't successfully 'trick' anyone other than themselves largely, which is why they are a point of ridicule on the Internet; they succeed more in muddying debate than convincing anybody (which is damaging enough).

You don't need any upper class either, just people willing to try and get ahead through fraud, and who don't care about harming society in the process.

The academics/intellectual founders and leaders of Libertarian views are almost universally part of the right-wing network of opaque think-tanks, where enormous amounts of money in the form of corporate and other 'charitable' tax-deducted donations, slosh around to fund support for these propagandists. No doubt, there are some 'true believers' out there, but it takes very little digging to start rooting up connections to opaquely-funded think-tanks, for most influential proponents.

It's nothing to do with 'freedom' from government at all. It's about getting rid of government, in order to grant greater private control over society/politics, through economic firepower. Any monopolistic/oligopolistic control over an important resource, shows economic power in private hands, can be a far greater danger to politics and society, than a properly run democratic government.
Massive financial fraud can, as we see to day, destroy entire countries and can drag down the entire world economy; it is used as a weapon against entire countries, with enormous economic (and thus political) power, in private hands.

Libertarianism is all about removing attention from any and every instance of excessive privately wielded political/economic/social power, and trying to redirect all attention/blame onto government instead (where reduction of government, is promoted in ways that just-so-happens to bolster unaccountable/excessive concentration of power in private hands).

Iwasfrozen · 07-07-2013 01:59AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

So you have just pointed out how the economy would have been destroyed anyway, contradicting your previous post:

No contradiction. Yes we would have been in a bad position but we probably would have recovered by now. Socialisation of private debt has held back our recovery.

Libertarians don't successfully 'trick' anyone other than themselves largely, which is why they are a point of ridicule on the Internet; they succeed more in muddying debate than convincing anybody (which is damaging enough).

You make a lot of generalisations and off the tangent remarks in this post and this is one of them. I agree Libertarians don't "trick" anyone. They convince because their arguments make sense and people recognise this.

You don't need any upper class either, just people willing to try and get ahead through fraud, and who don't care about harming society in the process.

That's not true at all. Libertarianism benefits society. It empowers small businesses through cut backs in regulation and gives them greater leverage to benefit their community. For example a group of parents in a community who want to come together and set up their own school to teach their own ethos and instil in their children values that are important to them may do so free of government interference.

Another example is by cutting the minimum wage and making it easier to fire people companies will be more willing to take on lesser skilled workers. Another benefit to society.

The academics/intellectual founders and leaders of Libertarian views are almost universally part of the right-wing network of opaque think-tanks, where enormous amounts of money in the form of corporate and other 'charitable' tax-deducted donations, slosh around to fund support for these propagandists. No doubt, there are some 'true believers' out there, but it takes very little digging to start rooting up connections to opaquely-funded think-tanks, for most influential proponents.

Another generalised claim that you can't possibly back up.

It's nothing to do with 'freedom' from government at all. It's about getting rid of government, in order to grant greater private control over society/politics, through economic firepower. Any monopolistic/oligopolistic control over an important resource, shows economic power in private hands, can be a far greater danger to politics and society, than a properly run democratic government.

That's not true. Anarcho-capitalism is a subsect of libertarianism but not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalist. Also under a libertarian economic system monopolistic/oligopolistic markets are practically impossible to carry off. The only way these markets can survive is through government interference. You also mention democracy but libertarianism returns democracy to were it is most important. People's wallets.

Massive financial fraud can, as we see to day, destroy entire countries and can drag down the entire world economy; it is used as a weapon against entire countries, with enormous economic (and thus political) power, in private hands.

The Libertarian system is merciless in dealing with white collar crime.

Jimoslimos · 07-07-2013 02:59AM

V4Voluntary wrote: »

I've no problem saying I've libertarian leanings....what about it?

Well given the argument for vastly decreased government interference, libertarianism can never be truly socially liberal, rather socially passive. Which is fine if you live in a progressive utopia free from the overburdening influence of the Church and other such organisations - which we don't.

The so-called "socially liberal" aspect is used as a sell to promote the actual aim - removal of any regulation to free market economics. Now if lax regulation was partly to blame for the current mess we find ourselves in what would zero regulation result in?

Jimoslimos · 07-07-2013 03:05AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Couldn't agree more the Unions should never have been given the power social partnership entitles them to. Some anti union law to break up the conglomerates like ICTU and SITU would go a long way.

So in a similar vein, do you reckon we should have anti-monopoly laws?

CuriousG · 07-07-2013 03:07AM

No.

My views tend to differ from the usual views of 'young people' though, I've learned (and confirmed by OP), so that says something.

I am 20.

KyussBishop · 07-07-2013 03:16AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No contradiction. Yes we would have been in a bad position but we probably would have recovered by now. Socialisation of private debt has held back our recovery.

You make a lot of generalisations and off the tangent remarks in this post and this is one of them. I agree Libertarians don't "trick" anyone. They convince because their arguments make sense and people recognise this.

That's not true at all. Libertarianism benefits society. It empowers small businesses through cut backs in regulation and gives them greater leverage to benefit their community. For example a group of parents in a community who want to come together and set up their own school to teach their own ethos and instil in their children values that are important to them may do so free of government interference.

Another example is by cutting the minimum wage and making it easier to fire people companies will be more willing to take on lesser skilled workers. Another benefit to society.

Another generalised claim that you can't possibly back up.

That's not true. Anarcho-capitalism is a subsect of libertarianism but not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalist. Also under a libertarian economic system monopolistic/oligopolistic markets are practically impossible to carry off. The only way these markets can survive is through government interference. You also mention democracy but libertarianism returns democracy to were it is most important. People's wallets.

The Libertarian system is merciless in dealing with white collar crime.

Very few people outside of the existing believers take in any of that spiel. None of it is anything other than unbacked assertion, countered by the visible reality that the entire Libertarian movement just happens to be funded by a huge network of opaque think-tanks, with a history of 'intellectual' backers (particularly the founders) in the pocket of some of the most corrupt corporations/industries in existence.

Very few are going to believe any of that nonsense grounded in free market fundamentalism (the insane failed idea that markets can be trusted to regulate themselves), when it takes only the slightest exercise in critical thought to see that most of the policies advocated to achieve that aim, are expressly designed to empower those who are already wealthy, the corporations they control, and to empower fraud in finance/business, for even more upward-concentration of wealth.

The only counter offered against that, are really weak assurances that (despite everything pointing to the opposite) 'the markets' would not engage in massive fraud if left alone, that free unregulated (meaning getting rid of laws, by definition) markets 'will behave themselves, we promise', and that every instance of private fraud you've ever seen is really governments fault.

It's an ideology entirely built up on deliberately false assertions at best (repeated as often as possible without any backing, to lend weight through repetition - it's almost entirely wind, dressed up as argument), and (when you get to the more sociopathic supporters) total lies aimed at crippling democracy at worst.

You say I can't back up the claim that huge swathes of Libertarian intellectuals are in the pocket of corrupt think tanks? Do a brief Google search on any of the big names, and start plugging the institutes and people into www.sourcewatch.org for one; you barely need to do any digging at all, to start rooting out widespread connections to corrupt individuals/institutes, with mostly opaque funding.

Iwasfrozen · 07-07-2013 03:36AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Very few people outside of the existing believers take in any of that spiel. None of it is anything other than unbacked assertion, countered by the visible reality that the entire Libertarian movement just happens to be funded by a huge network of opaque think-tanks, with a history of 'intellectual' backers (particularly the founders) in the pocket of some of the most corrupt corporations/industries in existence.

You have absolutely no proof for any of this. It's just random spewing. To say that an entire political movement is being funded by large corporations is ridiculous. Particularly as those large corporations would bt the first ones to suffer under a libertarian economic system.

Very few are going to believe any of that nonsense grounded in free market fundamentalism (the insane failed idea that markets can be trusted to regulate themselves), when it takes only the slightest exercise in critical thought to see that most of the policies advocated to achieve that aim, are expressly designed to empower those who are already wealthy, the corporations they control, and to empower fraud in finance/business, for even more upward-concentration of wealth.

When you deregulate the market you increase competition, make monopolies impossible to maintain and shorten the supply lines from producer to customer giving each citizen a grater economic and democratic control over the market place. Libertarianism is about taking power away from the large corporations and empowering small to medium business to pick up the place and provide higher wages and employment through increased competition for jobs. The state maintains oligarchs. The market destroys them.

The only counter offered against that, are really weak assurances that (despite everything pointing to the opposite) 'the markets' would not engage in massive fraud if left alone, that free unregulated (meaning getting rid of laws, by definition) markets 'will behave themselves, we promise', and that every instance of private fraud you've ever seen is really governments fault.

I've never said the market won't engage in fraud. Of course it will be attempted. Humans are by their nature greedy and these motives are found in all economic systems but a truly democratic libertarian society would be merciless in putting down white collar crime. This is one of the few areas a government would still be needed.

It's an ideology entirely built up on deliberately false assertions at best (repeated as often as possible without any backing, to lend weight through repetition - it's almost entirely wind, dressed up as argument), and (when you get to the more sociopathic supporters) total lies aimed at crippling democracy at worst.

Socialism isn't that bad, they're just misguided.

You say I can't back up the claim that huge swathes of Libertarian intellectuals are in the pocket of corrupt think tanks? Do a brief Google search on any of the big names, and start plugging the institutes and people into www.sourcewatch.org for one; you barely need to do any digging at all, to start rooting out widespread connections to corrupt individuals/institutes, with mostly opaque funding.

From the page of Ron Paul:

"Libertarian Party spokesman George Getz said that thousands of libertarians across the United States donate money to Ron Paul's campaign funds. Campaign disclosures reveal that 71.4% of contributions to Paul's coffers come from outside his home state of Texas. Unlike many political candidates, Paul receives the overwhelming majority of his campaign contributions (92.5% in 2004), from individuals."

92.5% from individuals. Lies and generalisations are the only contribution you have made to this debate.

Just thought I'd throw this in.

KyussBishop · 07-07-2013 05:34AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You have absolutely no proof for any of this. It's just random spewing. To say that an entire political movement is being funded by large corporations is ridiculous. Particularly as those large corporations would bt the first ones to suffer under a libertarian economic system.

Seriously, start searching up your favoured Libertarian institutions/spokespeople, and find how many are not neck-deep in corrupt corporate lobbyist connections; Ludwig von Mises institute, Cato, Murray Rothbard, Hayek, to pick a handful of more prominent names; all have a history of corrupt (sometimes even anti-science) lobbyist connections, at best.

I mean, just picking through this list for one, and searching around (something I actually took the time to do way back), shows a ton of such connections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizations

Libertarianism is built around hypocritical hyperskepticism towards government, and zero skepticism towards private industry, and especially little skepticism about the movements own murky history.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

When you deregulate the market you increase competition, make monopolies impossible to maintain and shorten the supply lines from producer to customer giving each citizen a grater economic and democratic control over the market place. Libertarianism is about taking power away from the large corporations and empowering small to medium business to pick up the place and provide higher wages and employment through increased competition for jobs. The state maintains oligarchs. The market destroys them.

I've never said the market won't engage in fraud. Of course it will be attempted. Humans are by their nature greedy and these motives are found in all economic systems but a truly democratic libertarian society would be merciless in putting down white collar crime. This is one of the few areas a government would still be needed.

Socialism isn't that bad, they're just misguided.

This is more of the usual spiel that is all assertion and soundbites, and has no backing in reality. Repeating the same free market fundamentalist nonsense once again, doesn't make it any more true when it's already failed catastrophically; 'deregulation', and removal of 'government interference', is just another way of saying laws will be repealed, in a way that makes fraud much easier to conduct and get away with (usually by making it incredibly easy to hide - so not even 'the markets' can do anything about it).

Again, we're supposed to believe the massive failures of deregulation, generating all sorts of monopolistic/oligopolistic effects in multiple industries (particularly with greater amounts of 'too big to fail' institutions in various industries, that have ridiculous economic power), is again 'all the fault of government', not the blindingly obvious result of excessive deregulation.

It's just the usual nonsense of "try to pin the blame for all private corruption/fraud on government".

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

From the page of Ron Paul:

"Libertarian Party spokesman George Getz said that thousands of libertarians across the United States donate money to Ron Paul's campaign funds. Campaign disclosures reveal that 71.4% of contributions to Paul's coffers come from outside his home state of Texas. Unlike many political candidates, Paul receives the overwhelming majority of his campaign contributions (92.5% in 2004), from individuals."

92.5% from individuals. Lies and generalisations are the only contribution you have made to this debate.

I'll give Ron Paul credit for appearing to cleanly stick by his principles, and he comes out with a lot of stuff I can agree with strongly (on primarily non-economic issues); does little to change the corrupt history of US Libertarianism's intellectual and funding history mind, with a vast number of the core founding people and institutions being affected by this.

This is something Libertarian supporters seem to not give a toss about at all, even though it exhibits an extreme lack of skepticism and critical thinking, towards corruption riddling their own political movement.

V4Voluntary · 07-07-2013 11:07AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Seriously, start searching up your favoured Libertarian institutions/spokespeople, and find how many are not neck-deep in corrupt corporate lobbyist connections; Ludwig von Mises institute, Cato, Murray Rothbard, Hayek, to pick a handful of more prominent names; all have a history of corrupt (sometimes even anti-science) lobbyist connections, at best.

I mean, just picking through this list for one, and searching around (something I actually took the time to do way back), shows a ton of such connections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizations

Libertarianism is built around hypocritical hyperskepticism towards government, and zero skepticism towards private industry, and especially little skepticism about the movements own murky history.

This argument is typical of a total retreat from the question. You haven't answered the question put to you and now you seem to think that you have justified your claim by completely reiterating the exact same point you made several pages back. Let me ask you another question.

If corporations favour and support Libertarians, then why the hell don't they financially back them in campaigns? It's your puppet candidates like the Obamas, the Romneys, the Camerons, the Kennys of this world that received corporate donations. That's where the corporate money goes, not to libertarian candidates. Have you ever asked yourself why that is? If not, why?

Iwasfrozen · 07-07-2013 02:57PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Seriously, start searching up your favoured Libertarian institutions/spokespeople, and find how many are not neck-deep in corrupt corporate lobbyist connections; Ludwig von Mises institute, Cato, Murray Rothbard, Hayek, to pick a handful of more prominent names; all have a history of corrupt (sometimes even anti-science) lobbyist connections, at best.

I mean, just picking through this list for one, and searching around (something I actually took the time to do way back), shows a ton of such connections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizations

All that proves is that some members of the Libertarian movement have been corrupt, well of course. All movements have their bad eggs and Libertarianism is no different. I understand that. What you don't understand, or at least don't seem to accept is under a true theoretical libertarian system white collar crime is punished mercilessly by the judiciary system. Something we're missing in our current version of corny capitalism were bankers who swindled away the wealth of the nation walk free.

Libertarianism is built around hypocritical hyperskepticism towards government, and zero skepticism towards private industry, and especially little skepticism about the movements own murky history.

That's not true. Libertarianism is built on hypersketicism towards both. Under a Libertarian system neither government or companies can be allowed monopolistic power over any part of people's lives.

This is more of the usual spiel that is all assertion and soundbites, and has no backing in reality. Repeating the same free market fundamentalist nonsense once again, doesn't make it any more true when it's already failed catastrophically; 'deregulation', and removal of 'government interference', is just another way of saying laws will be repealed, in a way that makes fraud much easier to conduct and get away with (usually by making it incredibly easy to hide - so not even 'the markets' can do anything about it).

And here you are repeating the exact same thing you said in your last post, go figure.

Again, we're supposed to believe the massive failures of deregulation, generating all sorts of monopolistic/oligopolistic effects in multiple industries (particularly with greater amounts of 'too big to fail' institutions in various industries, that have ridiculous economic power), is again 'all the fault of government', not the blindingly obvious result of excessive deregulation.

Ever ask yourself why big companies don't want a libertarian system to come into effect? No? Well here's why, because monopolies/oligopolies are not a natural creation of the market. That's right they're formed by government restrictions of entry. Take away this regulation and monopolies are impossible to maintain.

I'll give Ron Paul credit for appearing to cleanly stick by his principles, and he comes out with a lot of stuff I can agree with strongly (on primarily non-economic issues); does little to change the corrupt history of US Libertarianism's intellectual and funding history mind, with a vast number of the core founding people and institutions being affected by this.

This is something Libertarian supporters seem to not give a toss about at all, even though it exhibits an extreme lack of skepticism and critical thinking, towards corruption riddling their own political movement.

Well there you go they aren't all that bad after all are they?

As A Young Adult, Do You Feel Your Views Are Represented In Ireland?

Comments