Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

The Libertarian Society of TSR.

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Libertarian Society
    Individual Liberty
    Limited Government
    Free Markets & Peace


    Join the TSR Libertarian Party here for access to the Libertarian sub-forum here on TSR.


    This is a society set up for the promotion of libertarian values, and discussion between likeminded individuals who follow this important political philosophy.

    A libertarian is a supporter of both economic and social freedom and liberties.

    Among others, a Libertarian will probably believe in the following (though of course you may not agree with all of these):
    Rights of privacy,
    The right to own property,
    Freedom of speech,
    Freedom of trade,
    legalisation of gambling and drugs,
    Any sexual acts between consenting adults,
    Against censorship of any kind,
    Against forcible wealth distribution,
    Oppose unnecessary taxation


    Click here to watch a video of Milton Friedman explaining the key principles of Limited Government.

    "The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another." – Milton Friedman


    Libertarianism is... a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as they allow others the same liberty, by not initiating physical force, the threat of it, or fraud against others. They see no ethical distinction between civil and economic freedom, and believe that the state should not trespass on those liberties...

    Aside from their distaste of constraints on personal behavior, libertarians believe that government should refrain from imposing any positive moral obligations, such as religious practices, mandatory national service, or tax-financed welfare. In fact, most libertarians consider any forcible redistribution of wealth to be theft, whether done by private individuals or through state power in the form of taxation. As such, they generally oppose the tax-funded provision of public services such as postal service, transportation, social insurance, public education, and health care. They further argue that whatever services a government provides, the private sector could produce at a higher quality and lower cost and, in most cases, in greater abundance...

    Libertarians tend to call themselves "individualists" and claim to oppose anything that they see as paternalistic or collectivist. Many libertarians hold that all liberties they support (such as privacy, freedom of speech, the right to own property, and the freedom to trade) are justifiable on the same philosophical or ethical foundations. Some libertarians have elaborate philosophies to support their positions while others express an instinctive politics."

    Source


    Links:

    Libertarian Alliance (UK):


    CATO Institute (US):


    Free Market News Network (US):


    If you're going to St Andrews University then check out their 'Liberty Club'; i've heard they are quite active:


    The Institute of Economic Affairs, one of the UK's first free-market think tanks:


    Lewrockwell.com, some good Libertarian articles:


    Liberty Post:


    Outright Libertarians, LGB Libertarians "From Liberty Springs Equality":


    Adam Smith- 'The Wealth of nations'!

    TSR Secular Society

    "It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve." – Henry George
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm in.

    I didn't really see you as the sort to be establishing a libertarian society, BK. I've certainly never seen you argue on what I suppose are the more extreme side of it anyway.

    But all the same, glad to have it.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    I'm in.

    I didn't really see you as the sort to be establishing a libertarian society, BK. I've certainly never seen you argue on what I suppose are the more extreme side of it anyway.

    But all the same, glad to have it.
    Fantastic, thanks. I'm not sure about the 'extreme side' , but I always argue in favour of Libertarian values, and am becoming increasingly disappointed with the Conservatives, who I feel have neglected many of their core values while holding onto a few of the less desirable ones.

    It is important for a group to have a clear set of values and philosophies, and not be tempted to change these values with the public mood at the time, which I hate to say is happening right now all over the political spectrum.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    as a libertarian do you not worry that laissez faire strategies can easily be less than optimum in the economic models, that you're defecting in a game of prisoner's dilemma?
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by homoterror)
    as a libertarian do you not worry that laissez faire strategies can easily be less than optimum in the economic models, that you're defecting in a game of prisoner's dilemma?
    Sorry, either i'm too tired or that question doesn't make any sense. Please, accept my apologise, but could you rephrase this question? :confused:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    Sorry, either i'm too tired or that question doesn't make any sense. Please, accept my apologise, but could you rephrase this question? :confused:
    apologies, that was quite a poncy way of phrasing it.

    basically, as a bunch of humans we're interacting and depending on how we do that we get different payoffs to 'society', what becomes clear if you look at the economics of society is that acting individually we can only hope to achieve say 20% of what we can by cooperating. however it is the nature of society that we can maximise the benefit to ourselves by defecting from society and acting individually. it's only through authority and enforcement that we can stop such dissent and actually enjoy a much higher benefit.

    that's the icky theory, but for an application think of public goods, we all have alot to gain by cooperating with each other and having some goods to be public goods, but the individualist will always consume more than his share of the public good and screw everybody else over.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    edit: i'm still writing quite inaccessibly, apologies, let me see if I can find something on it

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
    http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/whatis.htm
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by homoterror)
    apologies, that was quite a poncy way of phrasing it.
    Be as poncy as you like, just make sure the question makes sense next time. :p:

    basically, as a bunch of humans we're interacting and depending on how we do that we get different payoffs to 'society', what becomes clear if you look at the economics of society is that acting individually we can only hope to achieve say 20% of what we can by cooperating. however it is the nature of society that we can maximise the benefit to ourselves by defecting from society and acting individually. it's only through authority and enforcement that we can stop such dissent and actually enjoy a much higher benefit.
    I don't know where you got the random 20% statistic from, and I don't know by what means you are measuring this "achievement". It depends entirely on what you consider 'benefits' or 'losses'.

    You seem to be on a bit of a strange philosophical rant. Can you elaborate on this 'dissent' you speak of, and this perceived personal loss as a result of greater market freedom?

    that's the icky theory, but for an application think of public goods, we all have alot to gain by cooperating with each other and having some goods to be public goods, but the individualist will always consume more than his share of the public good and screw everybody else over.
    How does the individualist 'screw everyone else over' exactly? I don't think you understand what Libertarians speak of, or atleast you're on a completely different wavelength, given that you are instantly assuming there is some moral obligation to give away your gains to the Government and society.
    There is none of this so-called 'share of the public good' in Libertarian thinking, so that is not a huge concern.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    I don't know where you got the random 20% statistic from, and I don't know by what means you are measuring this "achievement".
    It's a measure of utility, happiness with the outcome. The 20% came from empirical experiments in my microeconomics lectures

    You seem to be on a bit of a strange philosophical rant.
    I assure you that individualism and the application of prisoner's dilemma is standard debate, it is something you should read about if you're interested in libertarianism.
    Can you elaborate on this 'dissent' you speak of, and this perceived personal loss as a result of greater market freedom?
    individuals in society play a game where the maximum benefit comes through cooperation, but there is incentive for dissent or defection of the individual who can raise his individual benefit at the cost of everybody else. street lighting can come about through cooperation, but an individual can increase his own welfare by not contributing to a street lighting program, as the rest of society can hardly stop him enjoying the benefits of street lighting. you can see very quickly that without being forced to, nobody will contribute to a street lighting programme.


    How does the individualist 'screw everyone else over' exactly?
    By not paying his fair share of the street lighting programme cost.s
    I don't think you understand what Libertarians speak of, or atleast you're on a completely different wavelength, given that you are instantly assuming there is some moral obligation to give away your gains to the Government and society.
    No I was simply saying that your best strategy as an individualist conflicts with what's best for everybody.

    There is none of this so-called 'share of the public good' in Libertarian thinking, so that is not a huge concern.
    oh yes there is!
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Okay, you're clearly not a libertarian and it is inevitable that you are going to disagree regardless.

    I agree with you though, and you are referring to what is Libertarianism in its most extreme form. Obviously there would be some taxation, though only to cover essential needs like, as you say, street lighting, and other key needs like securing a healthy democratic society, and the need to fund the police and fire services et al.
    I'm not advocating complete individualism and isolation from society, I am merely applying libertarian values to common sense.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    i'm a libertarian on facebook.com. i like freedom. i just think the libertarians on TSR have spent so long being enchanted by markets that somewhere along the line they starting thinking "if something isn't provided by the markets it shouldn't be provided," along with "competition brings us closer to the best outcome." This is stunted thought and quite embarassing really.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by homoterror)
    i'm a libertarian on facebook.com. i like freedom. i just think the libertarians on TSR have spent so long being enchanted by markets that somewhere along the line they starting thinking "if something isn't provided by the markets it shouldn't be provided," along with "competition brings us closer to the best outcome." This is stunted thought and quite embarassing really.
    That pretty much the level of argument one encounters on http://www.freetalklive.com/ - 'The only chance of liberty in your lifetime' - apparently.

    They are affiliated to The Free State Project (New Hampshire). Advocates of Libertarianism are trying to transform themselves into the third political force in the U.S.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think they already are pretty much the best known of the 'third parties' in the US... even if it is just from gentle jibes in The Simpsons.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, that was pretty gripping stuff...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Just reading the above opening of the thread. Surely all parties and different wings of politics stand for the reasons of free speech etc. (even Communism) but its just how the parties actually follow out their supposed policies.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm in.

    Obviously there would be some taxation, though only to cover essential needs like, as you say, street lighting, and other key needs like securing a healthy democratic society, and the need to fund the police and fire services et al.
    Why can't fire services be provided by the free market? Evidently there is a demand for fire coverage, so the market would meet it.

    As for street lights, well it would depend on who owns the roads. Even in a minarchist society, private road ownership could be feasible. Big roads like motorways or major A roads could be owned by private companies. Residential roads could be owned by the residential communities themselves.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well, essential needs must be funded by someone. This is the obvious summoning for the goverment and treasury fundings. Such causes like the Lifeboat service etc. have to be funded from charitable causes, as the goverment does not regard them as a priority, in public saftey. I personally, feel that this should be changed and funded properly by the goverment.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ElWilson)
    Well, essential needs must be funded by someone.
    Why not the free market?
    This is the obvious summoning for the goverment and treasury fundings. Such causes like the Lifeboat service etc. have to be funded from charitable causes, as the goverment does not regard them as a priority, in public saftey. I personally, feel that this should be changed and funded properly by the goverment.
    As a libertarian, I think government should be limited since government is force.

    Government should be limited to protecting rights to the person and property. This includes a police force, a standing army, navy and air force and a judicial system.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Local communities would own the street lights and the roads. If you lived in an area, you would be partly responsible for the upkeep of the roads and street lights.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    Local communities would own the street lights and the roads. If you lived in an area, you would be partly responsible for the upkeep of the roads and street lights.
    That's a force!! A social contract!

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: January 20, 2014
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.