Libertarians

[fj1200]

I'm still amazed how Socialists are being brought up in a Libertarian thread.

[Drummond]

I said you didn't identify Libertarians there. That is true.

Perhaps you're playing games with phraseology. The UK has a definite idea about what Libertarianism is .. and it's sufficiently well established for there to be a political Party representing Libertarianism specifically. If you mean that I, PERSONALLY, don't identify Libertarians (?) ... I prove you wrong by making you aware of their Party in the first place.

You are trying to make the case that unions there are Libertarian which is a ridiculous statement to make.

WHY ?

Trade Unionism is supposed to be all about individual workers forming an organised structure which fights for individual rights. Libertarianism is all about the individual versus State, or other all-controlling, authority ... Unions exist to take them on, to make the individula triumph over such authorities (indeed, they've tried to depose entire Governments not to their liking, and even managed to succeed). Unions are a form of perversion of Libertarianism .. but then, avoiding the realisation of that perversion is inevitable, because the individual Libertarian has no power. To create power, to get anything done, you need strength in numbers. So, Libertarianism converts into collectivism. Trade Unionism fits the bill in terms of a practical wielding of Libertarian-type ambition.

You make ridiculous connections in the first place and then think that those connections prove your point. Newsflash: They don't prove your point.

Then disprove the logic of my argument, above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...lections,_2011

320 votes over two cycles and maybe one elected official??? OMG, stop the leftie scourge.

I'm not following you at all clearly (explain the citing of your figures - what's their context ? Try not to be abusive when you do so ..). However, if your point is to illustrate the uselessness of the Libertarian Party, consider that the converted version of it does considerably better.

Listen up coward,

... just one example of many of what I'm talking about.

...open up the thread and point out where my tax cutting proposal matched Labour's position. Oh yeah, you can't, you prefer to lie.

You're definitely mucking about with context.

Labour, traditionally, is a high taxation Party. HOWEVER, they're choosy about who they want to tax. Their preference, certainly these days, is to make the very wealthy exorbitantly taxed .. and minimise taxation burdens for the poorest in Society.

You say you argue for tax cuts. Yes ... you did so in the thread we're both referring to. However, you were unable to make any convincing argument as to how tax cuts would be afforded. Losses of taxation revenue mean that this revenue is absent from the economy, where otherwise it would exist. This therefore creates an unsustainable hole in the economy.

Possibly, in the long term ... if enough YEARS go by ... this would be self-fixing. BUT NOT IN THE SHORTER TERM. In the shorter term, you'd have just two options ... one, to reverse tax cuts and get revenue flowing again, OR, to borrow to make up the shortfall.

AND EXCESSIVE BORROWING DEFEATS ANY MEASURES ATTEMPTED TO FIX AN AILING ECONOMY.

I say 'ailing'. The UK economy was in dire straits, in 2008, and became a lot worse by 2010, by the time Labour and their spendthrift policies were kicked out. The Conservatives, in coalition with our Lib Dems, took the ONE reasonable course available to them. That of instituting an austerity programme.

You've said 'austerity sucks', like a mantra. Fact is, though, that IT HAS WORKED. An economy where balance of payments is taken seriously, where there's a preference for paying your way instead of borrowing ever more recklessly, IS a sensible one to pursue ... and the UK economy is now on a far better 'even keel' than in 2010.

Your prognostication that we'd end up like Greece is today, was - and is - PURE ROT. OK ... so, truth be told, you hate Conservative policies enacted in the UK (.. well, it goes with all the Leftieism, eh ??). But, THEY WORKED.

And you STILL hate that fact - don't you ?

[fj1200]

Perhaps you're playing games with phraseology. The UK has a definite idea about what Libertarianism is .. and it's sufficiently well established for there to be a political Party representing Libertarianism specifically. If you mean that I, PERSONALLY, don't identify Libertarians (?) ... I prove you wrong by making you aware of their Party in the first place.

You made me aware? Nevertheless I'm sure that some in the UK know what a Libertarian is. I'm stating that you don't know what a Libertarian is. Your redundant statements prove me right.

WHY ?

Trade Unionism is supposed to be all about individual workers forming an organised structure which fights for individual rights. Libertarianism is all about the individual versus State, or other all-controlling, authority ... Unions exist to take them on, to make the individula triumph over such authorities (indeed, they've tried to depose entire Governments not to their liking, and even managed to succeed). Unions are a form of perversion of Libertarianism .. but then, avoiding the realisation of that perversion is inevitable, because the individual Libertarian has no power. To create power, to get anything done, you need strength in numbers. So, Libertarianism converts into collectivism. Trade Unionism fits the bill in terms of a practical wielding of Libertarian-type ambition.

Then disprove the logic of my argument, above.

You didn't prove your logic in the first case so there isn't anything to disprove. Besides, I, and others here, have pointed out that you are indeed wrong. I'm not sure what else will convince you. How about this, unions don't want the individual to 'triumph' they want the union to triumph.

I'm not following you at all clearly (explain the citing of your figures - what's their context ? Try not to be abusive when you do so ..). However, if your point is to illustrate the uselessness of the Libertarian Party, consider that the converted version of it does considerably better.

Of course you're not following me. I used logic and fact to disprove your ridiculous assertions. But ridiculous assertions is what you do. You take something you have no clue about; Libertarians. Find something that may have a hint of "leftie"; Scottish independence or some such thing that mirrors to the SNP. Make an assertion about the SNP: Their leftie. And then tie them to other lefties; Labour. Never mind that you've made tenuous links at each step of the way but to equate the first point to the last is complete balderdash. And it's something you do all the time.

... just one example of many of what I'm talking about.

You're definitely mucking about with context.

... But, THEY WORKED.

And you STILL hate that fact - don't you ?

I'm merely trying to point out truth to you. You are a coward and you are a liar and that will always be true until you dispose of your mindless imagination.

And yes, tax cuts worked. I love that. Resurrect that thread and look for the truth. I dare you.

[Gunny]

I'm still amazed how Socialists are being brought up in a Libertarian thread.

Pay no attention to the elephant in the room. There are right and left libertarians. It's obvious the ones in the UK are left libertarians and and not right libertarians like we have here.

[Kathianne]

Pay no attention to the elephant in the room. There are right and left libertarians. It's obvious the ones in the UK are left libertarians and and not right libertarians like we have here.

From anything I can tell, 'left libertarians' would be better be called 'anarchists', think 'occupy Wallstreet' types. Certainly not for any social order of any size.

I find Drummond's use of 'libertarian' a misnomer, not a 'lesson' in what we were trying to discuss originally in this thread. Like all of us, he's speaking passionately about what he 'knows' based upon his personal knowledge of something in his country several decades ago. The time really is irrelevant, but the label used is problematic for the discussion.

Since most of us are Americans, I would suggest that he try to use the definition of 'smaller government' of both scope and level that most of us are using regarding the term.

[Drummond]

From anything I can tell, 'left libertarians' would be better be called 'anarchists', think 'occupy Wallstreet' types. Certainly not for any social order of any size.

I find Drummond's use of 'libertarian' a misnomer, not a 'lesson' in what we were trying to discuss originally in this thread. Like all of us, he's speaking passionately about what he 'knows' based upon his personal knowledge of something in his country several decades ago. The time really is irrelevant, but the label used is problematic for the discussion.

Since most of us are Americans, I would suggest that he try to use the definition of 'smaller government' of both scope and level that most of us are using regarding the term.

Kathianne, I think you're missing something of the point I've intended.

Libertarians can forge no form of power for themselves, therefore, achieve anything worthwhile for what they say they believe in, unless they do what they've done in the UK .. namely, form collectives.

This is what I've been describing, and it follows the only meaningful evolution possible for them.

That this hasn't conspicuously happened - apparently - in the US, doesn't prove that it ultimately WON'T. Just that it hasn't.

I think that Libertarianism, be it the UK phenomenon of it, or the US version, will, given enough time, prove to follow the same path. Just wait until the US Libertarians get to feel that they really need power for themselves. They'll come to the realisation that they 'should' do what our lot have done.

Libertarians want 'small Government' ? How will they exert influence to meaningfully stem it ? Answer .. BY TAKING IT ON. That requires a power base. That requires strength in numbers.

Hello Collectivism, and the inevitable mutation of supposedly 'conservative' Libertarianism into its more realistic guise, instead.

[Kathianne]

[QUOTE=Drummond;732144]Kathianne, I think you're missing something of the point I've intended.

Libertarians can forge no form of power for themselves, therefore, achieve anything worthwhile for what they say they believe in, unless they do what they've done in the UK .. namely, form collectives.

This is what I've been describing, and it follows the only meaningful evolution possible for them.

That this hasn't conspicuously happened - apparently - in the US, doesn't prove that it ultimately WON'T. Just that it hasn't.

I think that Libertarianism, be it the UK phenomenon of it, or the US version, will, given enough time, prove to follow the same path. Just wait until the US Libertarians get to feel that they really need power for themselves. They'll come to the realisation that they 'should' do what our lot have done.

The 'Department of Education' began in 1979 for instance. We know when Obamacare began...

I know I gave some links during out discussion on how many don't 'know' what libertarianism 'is' but when asked general questions hold libertarian values on many aspects of government purview.

Unfortunately by the very nature of the philosophy it seems to be difficult/impossible for a real 'party' to emerge. Basically the best to hope for imo is as influence over those that pay more than lip service to the Constitution and those are to be found in small numbers in the GOP. Going to DC seems to knock the Constitution out of most of them, another argument for returning powers to states and localities.

[Drummond]

[QUOTE=Kathianne;732149]

Kathianne, I think you're missing something of the point I've intended.

Libertarians can forge no form of power for themselves, therefore, achieve anything worthwhile for what they say they believe in, unless they do what they've done in the UK .. namely, form collectives.

This is what I've been describing, and it follows the only meaningful evolution possible for them.

That this hasn't conspicuously happened - apparently - in the US, doesn't prove that it ultimately WON'T. Just that it hasn't.

I think that Libertarianism, be it the UK phenomenon of it, or the US version, will, given enough time, prove to follow the same path. Just wait until the US Libertarians get to feel that they really need power for themselves. They'll come to the realisation that they 'should' do what our lot have done.

The 'Department of Education' began in 1979 for instance. We know when Obamacare began...

I know I gave some links during out discussion on how many don't 'know' what libertarianism 'is' but when asked general questions hold libertarian values on many aspects of government purview.

Unfortunately by the very nature of the philosophy it seems to be difficult/impossible for a real 'party' to emerge. Basically the best to hope for imo is as influence over those that pay more than lip service to the Constitution and those are to be found in small numbers in the GOP. Going to DC seems to knock the Constitution out of most of them, another argument for returning powers to states and localities.

That's because it hasn't, yet, undergone the only evolutionary path it CAN take. UK's version of Libertarian has failed to be impeded in the way you're suggesting the US's Libertarians are.

Here, a 'real Party' HAS emerged. It operates, it has its manifesto, it will contest seats in the imminent General Election, in the usual way that any power hungry, power-seeking group would do. Our Libertarians understand the 'power in numbers' principle, and they follow it. Of course they do ! That's how they found it easy to go the Union route, long ago (now largely discredited). That's how, today, they do what any politicised wannabe power base does, and form a voice for themselves through unified organisational methodology.

I present to you .. THE UK LIBERTARIAN PARTY ....

http://libertarianpartyuk.com/

.... COMPLETE WITH MANIFESTO (downloadable PDF) ...

http://libertarianpartyuk.com/wp-con...festo-2015.pdf

You may perceive from it that they're very strong on their version (however 'devolved' it may be) of applied authoritarianism !! ...

[Kathianne]

Drummond, sorry the quotes got messed up.

I do not accept your premise of what has happened MAY or what you are actually pushing-WILL repeat what you have seen regarding those calling themselves libertarian in UK. We are speaking of differences you seem unable to accept.

I suggest instead we speak of the concept of federal government doing those things and collecting the taxes that the states cannot efficiently or effectively provide for their citizens. Pretty much the Constitution covers those things, with the addition of changes in transportation and technology in general.

Likewise the states should be providing those services and taxes that the counties, townships, and local municipalities cannot provide efficiently or effectively.

[Drummond]

Drummond, sorry the quotes got messed up.

I do not accept your premise of what has happened MAY or what you are actually pushing-WILL repeat what you have seen regarding those calling themselves libertarian in UK. We are speaking of differences you seem unable to accept.

I suggest instead we speak of the concept of federal government doing those things and collecting the taxes that the states cannot efficiently or effectively provide for their citizens. Pretty much the Constitution covers those things, with the addition of changes in transportation and technology in general.

Likewise the states should be providing those services and taxes that the counties, townships, and local municipalities cannot provide efficiently or effectively.

I'm sorry, Kathianne, but I'm not sure I can give you a proper debate from the terms you've offered. For one thing, we in the UK don't quite have an equivalent of individual States wielding powers as yours would. We have local councils, we have county councils, we have central Government(s) in the UK. So much more power is centred at central Government level in my system than may be true (or potentially possible) for lower authorities, in yours. I don't have the same points of reference that you'd have.

I can only say that 'Libertarianism' is ultimately a self-defeating concept, or premise. Either power to effect change is wielded by an individual already supplied with considerable personal authority (in your terms, at Governmental level), or, it has to be wielded through power from a collective. Either way .. we're talking about the implementation either of 'Big Government' or 'Big Power', from enforcing that power through strength in numbers.

Speaking of the UK model of Libertarian ... here, the need to wield power to get your way is fully understood as necessary. The Libertarian Party operates from, and within, the political arena, and were they to progress with their aims, they'd be doing it from a Governmental level. This proves of itself the understanding, in our Libertarians, that to hope to make a difference, it HAS to be achieved from the 'wielding a big stick' principle, which is what Governmental authority must be all about !

This is over and above their earlier, NON Governmental efforts, via the Trade Union Movement, which itself helped to spawn the Labour Party, so again, intentions became overtly politically ambitious ...

I know this doesn't answer you, Kathianne. But I think I'd need to be American to do a good job of trying to. My reality is a little too far removed from yours, I think.

By the way, in passing .. an examination of the UK's Libertarian Party Manifesto appears at first glance to be of a Right-wing nature. Yet ... I've seen their commitment to fight for an entirely secular Society (which of course is a fundamentally Socialist ambition, not a Conservative one). Also ... they may want power over our borders, YET, they're strongly in favour at the same time of permitting substantial immigration (a Labour Party position in 2010).

[Gunny]

I'm sorry, Kathianne, but I'm not sure I can give you a proper debate from the terms you've offered. For one thing, we in the UK don't quite have an equivalent of individual States wielding powers as yours would. We have local councils, we have county councils, we have central Government(s) in the UK. So much more power is centred at central Government level in my system than may be true (or potentially possible) for lower authorities, in yours. I don't have the same points of reference that you'd have.

I can only say that 'Libertarianism' is ultimately a self-defeating concept, or premise. Either power to effect change is wielded by an individual already supplied with considerable personal authority (in your terms, at Governmental level), or, it has to be wielded through power from a collective. Either way .. we're talking about the implementation either of 'Big Government' or 'Big Power', from enforcing that power through strength in numbers.

Speaking of the UK model of Libertarian ... here, the need to wield power to get your way is fully understood as necessary. The Libertarian Party operates from, and within, the political arena, and were they to progress with their aims, they'd be doing it from a Governmental level. This proves of itself the understanding, in our Libertarians, that to hope to make a difference, it HAS to be achieved from the 'wielding a big stick' principle, which is what Governmental authority must be all about !

This is over and above their earlier, NON Governmental efforts, via the Trade Union Movement, which itself helped to spawn the Labour Party, so again, intentions became overtly politically ambitious ...

I know this doesn't answer you, Kathianne. But I think I'd need to be American to do a good job of trying to. My reality is a little too far removed from yours, I think.

By the way, in passing .. an examination of the UK's Libertarian Party Manifesto appears at first glance to be of a Right-wing nature. Yet ... I've seen their commitment to fight for an entirely secular Society (which of course is a fundamentally Socialist ambition, not a Conservative one). Also ... they may want power over our borders, YET, they're strongly in favour at the same time of permitting substantial immigration (a Labour Party position in 2010).

Sure you can. Try opening your mind. It works. The repeated theme here is that your idea of a "libertarian" and ours are different. There are NO leftwing libertarians of note in this country. You're so hung up on labels you can't see past them to the ideals that make people who and what they are.

I wish I could find that chart. It's BS, but it presents the current mindset. Republican, Democrat, and everyone else is a label.

If I disagree with a Republican't I'm a "liberal". Ask FJ. If I disagree with a "liberal", I'm a "con". If I disagree with both, I'm a libertarian. Y'all just have to have a name to besmerch.

I'm ME. Neither you nor anyone else gets to think for me nor tell me what I'm supposed to think. You and many like you can't stand the fact people like me don't bow down and fit into your filing cabinet. I ain't marching in lockstep with anyone.

You're arguing against something that means something completely different here than it does in the UK. Libertarians are hardcore rightwingers here. You can't make your argument until you get THAT. You're arguing against something that doesn't exist here.

[Kathianne]

Related:


http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/205740/
APRIL 25, 2015


THE PROBLEM WITH “THE SOCIALIST IMPULSE TO CLASSES VERSUS THE CAPITALIST FOCUS ON THE INDIVIDUAL,” courtesy of Prof. Russ Roberts: “Once you begin to see humans as the interchangeable members of a class, you begin to dehumanize them.”
To the political class, that’s not a bug, but a feature, since you can get away with a lot more.

[Drummond]

Sure you can. Try opening your mind. It works. The repeated theme here is that your idea of a "libertarian" and ours are different. There are NO leftwing libertarians of note in this country. You're so hung up on labels you can't see past them to the ideals that make people who and what they are.

I wish I could find that chart. It's BS, but it presents the current mindset. Republican, Democrat, and everyone else is a label.

If I disagree with a Republican't I'm a "liberal". Ask FJ. If I disagree with a "liberal", I'm a "con". If I disagree with both, I'm a libertarian. Y'all just have to have a name to besmerch.

I'm ME. Neither you nor anyone else gets to think for me nor tell me what I'm supposed to think. You and many like you can't stand the fact people like me don't bow down and fit into your filing cabinet. I ain't marching in lockstep with anyone.

You're arguing against something that means something completely different here than it does in the UK. Libertarians are hardcore rightwingers here. You can't make your argument until you get THAT. You're arguing against something that doesn't exist here.

Gunny, you're trying to defy the saying 'No man is an island'. Fact is that none of us are immune to being influenced by what we see, hear, learn about the world we live in. Everything has its input. And there are those who understand this, and try to be opportunistic on the back of it.

In my society, Socialists are forever preaching in some form or other, trying to set parameters of what they say are 'decent beliefs and standards' ... which is how our NHS is so well respected (despite the many disasters it's visited upon us), or why so many not only shun the idea of carrying guns, but even consider the very notion of it 'uncivilised'. Or how to be critical of Muslims, or Islam, or not believe that 'Islam is a religion of peace' means that you're bigoted or racist, or both.

They've worked on this process for decades and have done much to shape attitudes here. The principle is tried and tested: 'plug into society, and society plugs into you'.

Americans place a greater value on freedoms, liberty, etc ... so are protected from massive excesses of what I'm talking about. But nobody is immune. Can you guarantee to watch or listen to a debate programme, or news item, or current affairs broadcast, and know it cannot possibly shape any view of yours, or sway you even a little ?

You say you can't be labeled. But you carry SOMETHING of what has been fed to you through the media. We all do.

Your 'Ask FJ' suggestion, by the way, is meaningless. FJ professes to be something he's not .. he identifies with labels, deliberately so, but FALSELY. He'd have me believe he's a Thatcherite (he is not) and a Libertarian, both at the same time. That males zero sense ... Margaret Thatcher was no Libertarian, she FOUGHT Libertarians in the UK, and did it through State machinery.

[Drummond]

Related:


http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/205740/
APRIL 25, 2015


THE PROBLEM WITH “THE SOCIALIST IMPULSE TO CLASSES VERSUS THE CAPITALIST FOCUS ON THE INDIVIDUAL,” courtesy of Prof. Russ Roberts: “Once you begin to see humans as the interchangeable members of a class, you begin to dehumanize them.”
To the political class, that’s not a bug, but a feature, since you can get away with a lot more.

I would've thought that the proposition needs to be turned on its head to make any sense. It's the pigeonholing of humans in one specific class, and NOT interchanging them, which can lead to a level of bigotry which at its worst can lend itself to dehumanisation.

[Kathianne]

I would've thought that the proposition needs to be turned on its head to make any sense. It's the pigeonholing of humans in one specific class, and NOT interchanging them, which can lead to a level of bigotry which at its worst can lend itself to dehumanisation.

Again a problem in understanding our differing types of English.

Your 'public schools,' are our private schools. Your 'right' is our left, politically and in driving.