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

V4Voluntary wrote: »

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?

You don't even contest my claims, you just demand further validation of them; do your own research. Take Cato - funded by the Koch Brothers (very uncontroversial point - you won't even bother denying this, because you know it's correct, you just demand further validation for rhetorical effect), Ludwig Von Mises is tied to the Mont Pelerin Society think tank, which is also tied to the Koch's and a whole bunch of other lobbyists/propagandists; Rothbard has ties to many early Libertarian think-tanks, including those involved in the early history of the Mont Pelerin Society; Hayek has ties to Cato and reams of other corrupt think tanks.

Combined, these think-tanks have a very wide variety of oil industry lobbyists (not least the Koch's), tobacco industry lobbyists, among many other industries lobbyists.

Their goal is not to lobby politicans direct, but to create an entire set of academic and political narrative/ideology, to create faux-legitimacy for ultra-conservative economic views (which if implemented, just-so-happen to massively benefit finance/business and often corrupt industry lobbyists, to the detriment of the rest of society), that tend to be extremely anti-science in many instances, to try and control and muddy political debate.


You're not going to bother actually contesting any of my very easily researched claims though, because you don't give a toss about the truth of it, just about rhetoric to back the views you support, and to remain eternally 'unconvinced' of every possible point that contests them.

I'm not posting to convince you, I don't care about that; I'm posting to point out largely to other posters, the massive hypocrisy and corrupt nature of the political ideology you support, which anyone here can verify with a little searching/reading.

If you (and other posters with similar views) have zero skepticism towards the intellectually/morally corrupt people and institutions responsible for constructing your favoured ideology, yet are ultra-skeptical of government (even in cases where it is blindingly obvious fault lies in private hands), it shows extreme hypocrisy (and in my view, probable knowledge that what you support is bunk), so I'm not going to waste my time further with that.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On the contrary there are many eloquent proponents of libertarianism who very elaborately detail how the system works.

They're talking bollocks then because there is no libertarian system in the first place.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Now now, you shouldn't make snap judgements on political philosophies. Especially ones with so many followers.

You just ignored what I wrote and went off on a soporific soliloquy. True to form.

I'll make it easier for you.

You said:

there are many eloquent proponents of libertarianism who very elaborately detail how the system works.

To which I replied:

They're talking bollocks then because there is no libertarian system in the first place.

How can 'eloquent proponents of libertarianism' 'elaborately detail how the system works' when there is no libertarian system at work?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

models to describe how they would function if applied to the real world.

They describe how they believe a libertarian fantasy society will function in a fantasy future which brings us back to my original point:

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

They're talking bollocks

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Incredible.

The fantasy libertarian society in a fantasy future is indeed incredible.

Here's another thing. If Libertarianism is a viable system then why hasn't it arisen in the, you know, real world rather than the fantasies of academics?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

To truely believe that a concept developed by academics, business leaders, and ordinary people alike cannot possibly exist in the future just because it hasn't existed in the past? That's conservatism in the extreme.

I never said it wasn't possible, I'd say it's highly improbable - I'm just calling it out for what it is. An unproven, untested fantasy.

Libertarianism as it's being pushed at present is just a cynical ploy to push the centre further right and hand more power to corporations.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A plot by who? Corporations? Even assuming there was a corporation hive mind they certainly wouldn't be supporting libertarianism.

Libertarianism is a wide spectrum. On the extreme ends you have anarcho-capitalists (who nobody takes seriously) and on the other you have right wing proto-fascists who pretend they hate government but actually love it.

I don't need to tell you which end of the spectrum has lots of money and influence.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

To say that Libertarians wish to eradicate regulations so they can commit white collar crime is intellectually dishonest at best and a down right lie at worst.

I didn't say Libertarians wish this, though I do think many of them are fooled into believing the ideology, and end up becoming 'useful idiots' for advocating this (though it is notable that so many Libertarians I encounter, seem to turn out to work in finance a lot of the time - the place where white collar crime has become more concentrated, than it ever has been before in any other industry).

A political ideology largely constructed by corrupt corporate-funded think-tanks, is designed to promote policies that corruptly benefit the people who fund the construction and dissemination of these political views.
Putting all that together is not exactly a huge leap in conclusions, given the well documented connections here; "wealthy private industries/individuals, in corrupt propaganda shocker!".

It's not like Libertarians aren't fully aware of this either, seeing as it happens all the time, particularly in the US; hell, even the defense earlier in this thread didn't even contest it! (just was a variation of 'other parties do this too' - the usual whataboutery, just not applied to government this time)

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's simply not true. Again ignorance at best and a down right lie at worst.

http://business-ethics.com/2010/02/16/1035-who-detects-corporate-fraud-tip-its-not-usually-the-sec/

Eh, your article (which by the way, is a study limited to a timeframe in one of the most deregulated financial periods in modern history), backs my point that deregulation makes business opaque, since the article describes relying almost entirely upon whistleblowers for information.

Luigi Zingales (who co-authored the paper) is also a member of several right-wing think tanks, including the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, which has all sorts of corrupt ties to the Tobacco industry and Bush Administration, and tons of other right-wing think tanks, as well as ties to borderline-racist authors like Charles Murray.

If you want good writing on fraud, William K. Black (Bill Black), a former regulator in the US who helped put thousands in jail during the Savings & Loans crisis, is one of the most prominent experts on fraud around.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Talking about prevention of fraud is all well and good but what you would do put regulations on business that will stifle the economy to prevent fraud which may happen which may stifle the economy. Pretty much like nuking your garden to get rid of cockroaches.

See there we go - bland assertions that it will 'stifle the economy' (I think the gigantic economic crisis resulting from widespread deregulation, has 'stifle[d] the economy' a bit). You don't favour adequate regulations at all, you just pay lip service to it.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Fraud will happen with regulations or without and you know that. You've displayed a lot of intellectual dishonesty in your previous couple of posts. Furthermore as I've pointed out earlier the most amount of corporate fraud in the US isn't caught by the SEC.

I haven't displayed any intellectual dishonesty here - you're the one claiming to support regulation for dealing with fraud, while in the same breath saying it would stifle the economy.

Now we're at 'but fraud will happen anyway', which is just nonsense because there's a huge difference between small-scale fraud failing to be detected and clamped down on even with strong regulations, and massive widescale economy-destroying fraud that was staring regulators in the face for most of a decade.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On the contrary there are many eloquent proponents of libertarianism who very elaborately detail how the system works. Of all the major "fringe" movements Libertarianism is the most expanded upon the and most workable.

Yet never a Libertarian poster who can do it. Only posters who reference others to multi-dozen page books as reference.

If you (or others posters) tried to describe/construct a complete Libertarian economic/political system (not even in huge detail, just general strokes), inconsistencies and faults would become apparent so fast, and in such great number, that you would not be able to answer challenges against them.

That's why these posters never attempt this, and why they rely primarily on anti-government bashing, instead of presenting actual solutions themselves ('solutions' which they know, cause far more damage than the overexaggerated problem they are supposed to solve)

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nothing contradictory about them. A monopoly can only survive under state controlled entrance laws. Take away the entrance laws and more companies will join the market until it is no longer competitive to do so. It would be impossible to hold monopoly or even oligopoly power in a libertarian society.

That's a ridiculous assertion; just look up natural monopolies and barriers to entry to see how completely wrong that is.

This is one of the big things Libertarians do their utmost to deny: The very possibility of monopolies/oligopolies in private industry (even though it is blindingly obvious to almost everyone that this happens and will happen).

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The free market is a theoretical concept. Of course it doesn't exist in real life. The world isn't that simple. But the closer you move towards the free market the more the real market begins to resemble it.

That's total nonsense. Another completely unbacked assertion, which is more like a religious belief than backed by anything based in reality. You say "The world isn't that simple", and in the next sentence make one of the most oversimplified semi-religious assertions that exists in economics today.

The 'free market' is not just a theoretical concept, it is an impossible concept; that's like a physicist saying "we have this model of a perpetual motion machine - we know it's theoretical and not possible in reality, but if we try to construct it, the closer the construction moves towards the model, the more it will begin to resemble a perpetual motion machine".

That's just ridiculous stuff - I'd say that's even one of the most insane and harmful ideas that exists in economics today, and there are plenty of authors (notably Steve Keen) who have ripped that idea to shreds.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

When mass slavery was the norm people said the same thing.

Except all those people who were slaves and all those people who thought slavery was oppressive and immoral.

The places where the least slavery and forms of slavery are the norm are places where the power differential of vast wealth, and thus power, is mitigated by a robust social democratic state and government in places like Denmark, Sweden and Norway which highlights the 'government is the problem' for being the absolute libereligious gibberish that it is.

V4Voluntary wrote: »

Sadly you're somehow under the wrong assumption that the countries you list is in someway the end goal or destination in which everyone walking planet earth is undertaking to imitate. They're not.

They're the societies that consistently top lists that attempt to measure how happy people are with their lot. Unlike libertarian fantasists I prefer to be more rational and examine what works in the real world to see where people enjoy a good standard of living and comfortable life.

You think people today that view the State in a similar light don't exist?

How very embarrassing for you that you've swallowed so much libertarian propaganda that you equate distaste with living in a modern state to distaste with ownership of human beings by other human beings by threat of torture and murder. What a perverse persecution complex.

I do however find your hypocrisy of interest particularly given the myth that is Scandinavian socialism and would refer you to look up the subject with regards to their more laissez faire approach to certain aspects.

Ah yes, the libertarian strawman is rolled out. Let me set fire to it by reminding you that I didn't claim Scandinavian countries were socialist, rather, they're social democracies where the government and state play a strong role in mitigating the vagaries of capitalism.

You've just described an entirely voluntary system of regulations. That amounts to just trusting business to behave, i.e. having a lawless system.

Regulations are laws (I would say that is a mandatory condition, for the term to be valid - otherwise it is engaging in semantic muddying of debate). 'Regulations' not backed in law are toothless and voluntary, and might as well not exist at all.


Bill Black there does a lot of writing on the 'Greshams dynamic' in economics; it applies to a very wide range of economics, from currencies ("bad money drives out good"), to consumer items ("lemons, i.e. items with concealed faults, drive out quality goods"), and business ("bad/fraudulent business, drives out good/honest business").

It's all about control of information. If you don't know about hidden fraud, lack of quality, debasement of currency or valuable items (such as clipping gold coins, or mixing in cheaper metals), you get conned and the person who conned you generates greater profits than his competitors who behave well.

If this information stays concealed, the fraudulent competitor has an advantage over the rest of the market, and drives out honest competitors, leaving only the fraudulent competitors.
This is why you need proper regulations, ones which are mandatory (not optional/voluntary), and which prevent fraud, not just react to it (which is often too late, with irrecoverable damage already having been done to competitors in the market, or even entire economies).


Trusting private industry to self-regulate, requires undue faith in impossible 'perfect markets', in 'perfect information sharing' (efficient markets hypothesis), and something close to 'perfect competition'; basically, trusting private industry like this requires trusting that the impossible 'free market' will spontaneously come about.

It is nothing more than a semi-religious belief, that everyone will 'behave' in such an economy, even though that belief is based on an impossibly perfect economic model, that proponents know can never exist in reality.

Valmont wrote: »

Could you point us towards any 'proven' or pre-tested societies in function already? Have you found a little civilisation in your fish tank like Lisa Simpson? Have you dropped in a copy of Das Kapital and then Atlas Shrugged and published your findings?

You don't need to test a society in a fish-tank or whatnot, when its theory is already at-odds with reality; it's not just going to magically start working. We already know markets (particularly heavily deregulated ones) with perfect competition/information-sharing are impossible in reality, and that the belief that moving towards that unattainable goal, will bring about the positive aspects of that impossible model, is about as rational/logical as believing that attempts to construct a perpetual motion machine, will bring about the positive aspects of perpetual motion, the closer you get to emulating it.

It's not going to happen. It's a mythical/semi-religious belief, bolstered only by assertion and mounds of rhetoric (which tries to distract away from the faults/impossibility of what is advocated, by rallying supporters around anti-government drum-banging), and which is contrary to observation of reality (with fraud being one of the best ways to see how you don't get anywhere near emulating perfect markets - you don't get adequate transparency without adequate preventative regulation - a necessity for 'perfect information' in free markets, the lack of which kills it because it is a boon for fraud).