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
Become part of the Welcome Squad! Apply here! 28-10-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Out of interest, do libertarians tend to support an international human-organ market? Surely, for example, if I am poor and my children cannot eat, I should be allowed to excercise the freedom to sell my organs to other people.

    Additionally, should one be allowed to fund/invest in e.g. Hamas-led P.A.?
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I suppose that yes, the right to sell ones body parts (spare kidney anyone) is perfectly reasonable when done with informed consent. I think the medical professionals might have some ethnical problems with it though.

    Funding terrorist groups would be effectively a criminal offence - and quite rightly so. However the Palestinian Authority is separate from Hamas and has done nothing which is any more repugnant than most other governments, so that seems fair enough.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hobbesian)
    Thats much more plausible , Libertine, thanks
    Either you leave the Libertarian Society or you leave the Socialists, whats it going to be?

    I must say, I am gobsmacked at the amount of people who seem to be muddling up socialism and libertarianism on here.

    My guess is that people are attracted to Libertarians' liberal stance on social issues, and just tend to ignore the economic aspects, or turn to communism for economic issues. I'm afraid that just doesn't work, it's not how libertarianism works!
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jasperstory)
    Out of interest, do libertarians tend to support an international human-organ market? Surely, for example, if I am poor and my children cannot eat, I should be allowed to excercise the freedom to sell my organs to other people.
    I don't see why it should be illegal, as distasteful as it may be.

    Saying that, it simply would not happen in a truly free market as there would be some serious ethical issues involved and not only, as LN said, would professionals be very hostile to the idea, but if people were really THAT poor then they would not be able to afford the surgery in such a system to actually go ahead with it anyway.

    Additionally, should one be allowed to fund/invest in e.g. Hamas-led P.A.?
    Like most other humane people, most libertarians do not support International terrorism, and i'm sure I speak for most libertarians when I say that I would like to see constraints on dealings with terrorist organisations.
    If you started allowing things like that then I don't think the free market would survive intact for very long.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    be some serious ethical issues involved
    From a Libertarian stand-point, I dont see why. People have the freedom to do so, and it would be immoral to prevent them from excercising this freedom. Libertarians hold a primary holding of humans is their freedom, not the goodness of the outcome - so there should be no concern whether this is actually the best thing to undertake.

    really THAT poor then they would not be able to afford the surgery in such a system to actually go ahead with it anyway.
    I believe that un-regulated doctors (what with unregulated markets and all) and so on would be able to undertake these things relatively cheaply - plus the surgery cost would be factored into the price of the organ.

    ---

    So you may well have a somewhat regulated system whereby thousands of people in the Thirld World sell off their bodies (they have the right to sell all their usable body parts, I assume, including blood and so on) in order to fund their children through school. I am not even going to consider international prostitution and illegal migrant workers working in terrible conditions.

    What a wonderful world under Libertarianism.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jasperstory)
    From a Libertarian stand-point, I dont see why. People have the freedom to do so, and it would be immoral to prevent them from excercising this freedom. Libertarians hold a primary holding of humans is their freedom, not the goodness of the outcome - so there should be no concern whether this is actually the best thing to undertake.
    What the heck are you blithering on about?

    People will still have their own morals, regardless of whether they live in a libertarian society or not. What we're saying is that the vast majority of doctors will not approve of such surgery on their own ethical conscience.

    I believe that un-regulated doctors (what with unregulated markets and all) and so on would be able to undertake these things relatively cheaply - plus the surgery cost would be factored into the price of the organ.
    Ha. One minute you socialists are moaning that we are driven on profit, and the next minute youre criticising the increased cheapness of services!
    Could you honestly see many doctors removing peoples organs for little or no profit at all? It's not exactly a 5minute checkup.
    And while you point out that doctors may not be regulated (obviously there would be some regulation), it's important to remember that such an economy is driven on competition, and doctors would be scrutinised heavily by independent agencies and such, and the wider population would be made more than well aware of their standards.

    So you may well have a somewhat regulated system whereby thousands of people in the Thirld World sell off their bodies (they have the right to sell all their usable body parts, I assume, including blood and so on) in order to fund their children through school. I am not even going to consider international prostitution and illegal migrant workers working in terrible conditions.
    I'm not here to discuss transforming the third world into a libertarian state, I think it's best if we sort our own problems before we start messing around with other countries.

    What a wonderful world under Libertarianism.
    Valuable contribution from you, as always. :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Libertarians,

    I'm currently in the process of trying to get a Libertarian Party set up on TSR. This would involve getting our own private forum and standing in the next TSR GE, where we would try to win as many votes and seats as possible.
    I think it would be an interesting experiment in seeing how far we can push libertarian values on TSR, and to see how many people we would be able to sway.

    If anyones interested in getting involved (whether you're a society member or not), then post in this thread or PM me.

    Cheers.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What the heck are you blithering on about?

    People will still have their own morals, regardless of whether they live in a libertarian society or not. What we're saying is that the vast majority of doctors will not approve of such surgery on their own ethical conscience.
    A strong-point of Libertarianism can surely not be that within a society that was run along Libertarian grounds, there would be non-Libertarians in positions of authority (e.g. doctors) who would be able to refuse people the right to excercise their freedoms (such as refusing people the ability to sell their organs). Oh dear, I think I realise my mistake: I forgot a bed-rock of Libertarianism, that is essential moral relativism. What a shambles.

    Ha. One minute you socialists are moaning that we are driven on profit, and the next minute youre criticising the increased cheapness of services!
    I was not at any moment inferring that the un-regulation of markets meant that same-quality services could be excercised more cheaply than via a regulated service. Merely that un-regulated doctors could perform such ethically-unsound treatments. And that secondly the service would probably be relatively cheap, because these doctors, because they were un-regulated, could undertake the service without restrictions such as health-and-safety precautions.

    My point was simply to enforce the idea that under Libertarianism, it is certain that an almost wholly un-regulated internal organ market would be in place - a reviling prospect if there is one. The reason against making such a immoral and ethically-unsound market illegal - people's freedom to dis-assemble their bodies and sell of organs to the rich? Their right to do so. I have my answer.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jasperstory)
    ...there would be non-Libertarians in positions of authority (e.g. doctors) who would be able to refuse people the right to excercise their freedoms (such as refusing people the ability to sell their organs).
    I can see what angle you're trying to approach this from, but you're wrong.

    It is not a principle of libertarianism that you have a right to demand a service. This would involve force being imposed on the seller, which is absolutely against our liberal values.

    There is no such thing as the 'freedom' to demand somebody else does something against their own will. The doctor is free to provide whatever services he likes, whether you view them as ethnical or not.
    If you don't like it then thats your choice, nobody is going to force you to.

    Heck, start a charity and campaign against it if it bothers you so much, but force is never the answer.

    The reason against making such a immoral and ethically-unsound market illegal - people's freedom to dis-assemble their bodies and sell of organs to the rich?
    The rich? You mean these doctors that provide service at such extremely cheap rates? :rolleyes:

    And who are you to say it is immoral and thus should be illegal? Libertarianism is about allowing people the opportunity to make their own decisions.

    Hmm and personally there would be some regulation to safeguard very basic standards and to prevent any unlawful activity taking place.
    Not all libertarians believe there should be no regulation at all, that is about as extreme as libertarianism gets, and only a minority support such a model.

    And by the way, from the title post of this thread:

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

    Now, we are only too aware how intolerant you socialists are of anything remotely capitalist, but if all you've come here for is to moan and try to shed libertarianism in the darkest vein possible then save it, because we're really not interested.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Libertarians,

    Regarding the Party...

    As I remember there were about 12 members interested in getting involved in a new Libertarian Party, I don't have the time to PM you all individually, so i'll just say here that it has failed.
    Despite my efforts, deej has decided not to allow any more Parties at all, despite the departure of several Parties and low activity recently. It seems like an odd policy before an election and not one I would have dreamed of making, but unfortunately I don't make the rules and therefore we will not be standing in the election and there will not be a Libertarian Party.

    Oh well, fingers crossed we'll get a new Speaker soon.

    Anth.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    They are MY toys and you can't play with them because daddy bought them for me and I don't really care you've got no toys or parents because I don't want to become associated with people like you anyways. Also, I'm better than you because I've got toys and you haven't.

    Libertarians tend to be people in a comfortable financial situation who don't believe in the redistribution of wealth or income. They tend to believe that everything they own they have a right to because they earned it by working hard (though 99% of the time this has more to do with inheritance and being benefited from growing up in a shielded and prosperous environment). If you happen to be one of the aforemenioned people, you have every reason to argue against the state intervening with your finances and freedoms (or what you would call your liberties).

    Although you may have good reasons to follow these principles you cannot deny the fact that it is an extremely selfish political philosophy. A characteristic of libertarianism is its complete disregard for those less advantaged and born under a social configuration which makes it very hard for them to accumulate wealth.

    My opinion is that as humans, and indeed as humans living in a society and under a social contract, we must share some form of social responsability. If left to market forces all schools would be private and not everyone could access them. Health care would be reserved for those wealthy enough to pay for it. In a purely libertarian society there would only be private security guards but no police. This would arguably result in anarchy and we all know this would put the wealthy in a very uncomfortable and dangerous situation.

    No, I dont feel stamp duty is unjust and I DO think it is fair for the rich to be taxed more. After all, one does not simply become rich. One is usually made rich aided by the help of a workforce labouring under the minimum wage and enjoying a very different life quality. It makes sense to give back to society in a similar proportion to what you receive.

    I could go on, but quite honestly it is a dated and worn argument which bores me and irritates me in pretty much equal measures.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jasperstory)
    So you may well have a somewhat regulated system whereby thousands of people in the Thirld World sell off their bodies (they have the right to sell all their usable body parts, I assume, including blood and so on) in order to fund their children through school. I am not even going to consider international prostitution and illegal migrant workers working in terrible conditions.

    What a wonderful world under Libertarianism.
    As they apparently say in Yorkshire "owt's better than nowt" - essentially if you're going to sell your organs you clearly think that what you can buy with the money is going to be more useful than whatever you're selling. What use is a second kidney if you've got nothing to eat?
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lentement)
    Libertarians tend to be people in a comfortable financial situation
    Care to back up that statement?

    They tend to believe that everything they own they have a right to because they earned it by working hard (though 99% of the time this has more to do with inheritance and being benefited from growing up in a shielded and prosperous environment).
    Load of crap. Considering the size of the middle class has expanded hugely since the turn of the 20th century, that's obviously a lie. The vast majority of people don't rely on inheritance - considering it's hugely taxed at a level which many people now reach, it often split in quite a few directions, usually has been spent on care towards the end of life and to be honest, in 99% of cases (to steal your habit of using nonsense statistics) will not be sufficient to live off of for any extended period when buying houses etc are brought into the equation.

    Really only the upper classes could ever rely on inheritance.


    If you happen to be one of the aforemenioned people, you have every reason to argue against the state intervening with your finances and freedoms (or what you would call your liberties).
    Meanwhile the poor supposedly place no value on liberty?

    Although you may have good reasons to follow these principles you cannot deny the fact that it is an extremely selfish political philosophy.
    So you're claiming to be unselfish because--
    1. You advocate the spending of other people's money.
    2. You are in support of an external force taking your money when you have no say in the matter.

    The only way you're going to get out of accusations of selfishness is to give your own money freely to someone else. Socialism doesn't do that.

    A characteristic of libertarianism is its complete disregard for those less advantaged and born under a social configuration which makes it very hard for them to accumulate wealth.
    Personifying a philosophy now?

    My opinion is that as humans, and indeed as humans living in a society and under a social contract, we must share some form of social responsability.
    A social contract! Ha! I thought that idiotic theory died years ago. A contract is an agreement between two parties who have capacity to contract. I never agreed to being taxed, hence no contract - social or otherwise.

    Not to mention the fact that the state generally does not fulfil its supposed half of the bargain. The police are generally useless when I have approached them for assistance, the NHS has more waste than a food fight and the education system is a shambles.

    In a purely libertarian society there would only be private security guards but no police. This would arguably result in anarchy and we all know this would put the wealthy in a very uncomfortable and dangerous situation.
    No I do believe you are actually criticising Anarchism rather than Libertarianism here.

    No, I dont feel stamp duty is unjust and I DO think it is fair for the rich to be taxed more. After all, one does not simply become rich. One is usually made rich aided by the help of a workforce labouring under the minimum wage and enjoying a very different life quality.
    I believe everyone should be treated equally by the state and that if I earn a pound I shouldn't have any more of it taken away from me than someone else who earns a pound. Obviously I'm leaving some room here for personal tax free earning allowances.

    Why does it matter what the workforce is labouring under. You do not own them, they are operating on your behalf certainly - but every human being is essentially their own person, free to be employed by whoever they wish under whatever conditions they're offered. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere.

    It makes sense to give back to society in a similar proportion to what you receive.
    I agree. However this is not the position you're supporting - you're not allowing room to give, you're saying it should be taken.

    I believe that people who make money should donate to their communities, I believe that people with wealth should support the less fortunate, I believe that philanthropy is a great thing (hell, without it my university wouldn't exist) - however, while I will use legitimate means to encourage people to do this (eg, buying from local shops who donate to the town or get involved with the community) I will not physically attack anyone for it - which is essentially what socialism means.

    I could go on, but quite honestly it is a dated and worn argument which bores me and irritates me in pretty much equal measures.
    I would be bored by a textbook on Ph.D level chemistry - don't worry, it's a natural response to things we don't understand.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I would by no means say I'm a socialist, but I guess people with views such as yours tend to see everything in monochrome. Can't do anything about that sorry. In any case, libertarianism shouldn't defend itself against socialism, as it faces stronger and far more dangerous opposition from utilitarianism and liberal equality (not to mention citizenship theory). Socialism is an obsolete political philosophy.
    ---------------
    Whilst it is true very few people rely on inheritance, it is also worth noticing you not only inherit money. You inherit social capital in the form of your parents and their level of education. This in turn will determine their expectations of you.
    ---------------

    Yes, the poor do place a value on their 'liberties' but whereas they are free to walk the streets of Manchester, they are not 'free' to hire a barrister if they so choose, or to pay for private health care to get their hip replaced in a week. We are all equal, only some more equal than others.
    -------------------
    Second point

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Of course it would be great if people donated to their communities and did nice things for the world. The fact of the matter is that people in Britain need to be given tax incentives to give to charity. Sad but true.

    More about taxes:

    Economics is the science of incentives, most of which work through taxes. For instance, if a government wants to encourage (or disencourage) the counsumption of a good they can simpy tax or subsidise accordingly. This is another reason why taxes work and are used all around the world. A state such as ours can't MAKE you stop smoking but it can give you good reasons not to. Taxes serve a social role in regulating the consumption of merit and demerit goods.

    It is not simply about taking money from someone and giving it to someone else. Your analysis of taxing is simplistic and I can assure you there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.
    ---------------
    You also say that people working for you are free to do what they want, and that they can go somewhere else if they want. This brings us back to liberties and freedoms. Although we may (in theory) enjoy the same rights, people with different ammounts of wealth and disposable income (not to mention social capital) are able to exercise their rights to a greater or lesser extent.

    Choosing from one job to another is not as easy as choosing whether to go to Paris or Milan for the summer. You are no longer exercising your right to choose when you have only one option.

    Also, you failed to address the point about what would happen to education, health and security in a libertarian society. I said libertarianism would result in anarchy. It simply wouldn't work.

    Tell me: who would pay for roads and street lighting.
    Say YOU pay for street lighting on your own street. How do you prevent other people from benefiting from something like this.

    People have thought of these problems and solved them hundreds of years ago so you don't have to. I can understand why it is an atractive idea for someone with more resources than the average person, but I repeat, it is unrealistic even to dream of putting it into practice.

    --------
    I would like to add that I do indeed understand libertarianism as defined by academic work written on the subject. Not only that, I am aware of criticisms leveled against it by other schools of thought. I am part of the debate you see, I'm not an easily impressed student who speaks from the gut and not from the brain. Do a bit more reading, it will do you good and you will find that trying to defend libertarianism on rational grounds is like trying to prove the existence of God. You will stumble with countless contradictions and you will find that at the core of your ideas there are simply emotions and no substance.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lentement)
    I would by no means say I'm a socialist, but I guess people with views such as yours tend to see everything in monochrome.
    Not at all. But desiring redistribution of wealth is a socialist ideal.

    Can't do anything about that sorry. In any case, libertarianism shouldn't defend itself against socialism, as it faces stronger and far more dangerous opposition from utilitarianism and liberal equality (not to mention citizenship theory). Socialism is an obsolete political philosophy.
    Ah you may well have a point there, but there's something so delightful about cursing those damnable socialist bastards. Rolls right off the tongue...

    Whilst it is true very few people rely on inheritance, it is also worth noticing you not only inherit money. You inherit social capital in the form of your parents and their level of education. This in turn will determine their expectations of you.
    Yes indeed, however the point I was trying to make is that we're all placed at various advantages and disadvantages from birth and to try and measure and compare them is a fool's errand - and for someone to throw something as completely arbitrary as a parent's education into the equasion makes it meaningless.

    All the wealth in the world won't stop your child being born with Down's syndrome, or indeed being born a lazy bugger - although of course the latter argument assumes a certain position on the nature v. nurture debate.

    We are measured as human beings in how far we overcome our personal hurdles.

    Yes, the poor do place a value on their 'liberties' but whereas they are free to walk the streets of Manchester, they are not 'free' to hire a barrister if they so choose, or to pay for private health care to get their hip replaced in a week. We are all equal, only some more equal than others.
    Expensive barristers may be all well and good, but you'll find that justice accomodates anyone and allowances are made. Not to mention the fact that if you have a legally upheld case your fees will be paid by the defender...

    While they may not be able to get a hip replacement as quickly as some, whose fault is that? The National Health Service's. If healthcare was privatised, it'd cut waste and with the conbination of charitable elements would undoubtedly be quite affordable. Plus why not place it on as a debt? After all, I'm being saddled with student loans, so why not a similar situation for operations: after a certain income level is reached, the cost will be skimmed off the top of your salary. Assuming the state did that right, I'd be perfectly willing for them to run that, it'd certainly be more desirable than the present system.


    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Of course it would be great if people donated to their communities and did nice things for the world. The fact of the matter is that people in Britain need to be given tax incentives to give to charity. Sad but true.
    I don't think that is true. Go around your local town centre, there'll likely be many statues of benefactors who gave, not because of tax incentives, but because they thought it was right - or more cynically, because they thought it'd make good business sense.

    Not to mention that you're making a bit of a daft argument - here you are arguing in favour of helping those less fortunate, indeed it's one of the few things we both agree on. Yet you're saying that people need to be forced to give?

    Economics is the science of incentives, most of which work through taxes. For instance, if a government wants to encourage (or disencourage) the counsumption of a good they can simpy tax or subsidise accordingly. This is another reason why taxes work and are used all around the world. A state such as ours can't MAKE you stop smoking but it can give you good reasons not to. Taxes serve a social role in regulating the consumption of merit and demerit goods.
    The state could quite easily make people stop smoking - after all, they ban and restrict an enormous list of substances.

    This sort of mass social engineering is abhorrent to me. The state has no legitimate interest in whether I smoke or don't smoke - as far as I'm concerned, they can go bugger themselves. Not to mention that it often penalises people that it did not intend to - after all, who smokes more: the wealthy or the poor? Who can least afford these taxes?

    I enjoy a cigar occasionally and a nice beer when I get home from a day at uni. I don't see why that is behaviour that should be penalised. I drink, I very rarely smoke and I use illegal drugs on occasion too - I don't commit any real crimes in the process, I don't upset anyone. While I thank you for your interest in the good of my soul/health/well-being or whatever it is, I don't thank you for dictating to me.

    It is not simply about taking money from someone and giving it to someone else. Your analysis of taxing is simplistic and I can assure you there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.
    As I've said I'm no anarchist - I do believe that, at least presently, taxes are a necessary evil. However I disagree most strongly with the sort that redistribute wealth or attempt to change my lifestyle, so naturally I'm going to be rallying against them with the greater vigour.


    You also say that people working for you are free to do what they want, and that they can go somewhere else if they want. This brings us back to liberties and freedoms. Although we may (in theory) enjoy the same rights, people with different ammounts of wealth and disposable income (not to mention social capital) are able to exercise their rights to a greater or lesser extent.

    Choosing from one job to another is not as easy as choosing whether to go to Paris or Milan for the summer. You are no longer exercising your right to choose when you have only one option.
    In this world you never have one choice - you can become self employed, give your services to whoever you please. To say that you owe something to someone who freely contracts with you reduces the whole structure of our economic and political philosophy (which I assume you share to some degree - being that you've stated you're not a socialist) to nothing.

    Where there is no freedom in these parts, someone will be shafted. You're just shifting the burden.

    Also, you failed to address the point about what would happen to education, health and security in a libertarian society. I said libertarianism would result in anarchy. It simply wouldn't work.
    To be frank, these are practicalities and to present all the various schemes that have been brought up for healthcare, education etc in a libertarian society would take a long, long time and not fit comfortably in here. If you want to start a debate on the issue then I will be happy to oblige to the best of my ability, but it'll be extending our already-lengthy posts when you could just go down to your library and perhaps get a copy of Milton Friedman's books.

    Tell me: who would pay for roads and street lighting.
    Say YOU pay for street lighting on your own street. How do you prevent other people from benefiting from something like this.
    As it so happens, back home I live on a private street. My area was traditionally the only Tory ward in a Labour run local authority, so we ended up with the short end of the deal on most occasions - contributing lots of taxes and getting little back. As a result, the old maxim of 'if you want a job done properly...' was effectively the village motto. The streetlights and roads were owned up to the midpoint, although we have community burdens placed upon our property to contribute to the upkeep of these areas.

    So as a result of them actually being ours, they get more care than the council-run roads and we actually get broken streetlamps fixed within the month.

    Expanding this to the wider world, business would have an interest in getting their employees and customers to their buildings, toll roads and wider networks could be run by private companies and people could, in theory, pay just as they do with the present road tax.

    I don't really mind others benefiting from my road to be honest, not many people come up it.

    Not only that, I am aware of criticisms leveled against it by other schools of thought. I am part of the debate you see, I'm not an easily impressed student who speaks from the gut and not from the brain. Do a bit more reading, it will do you good and you will find that trying to defend libertarianism on rational grounds is like trying to prove the existence of God. You will stumble with countless contradictions and you will find that at the core of your ideas there are simply emotions and no substance.
    Perhaps we could take a philosophical stance that no matter how hard problems may be to overcome, freedom is an end in itself and should be protected regardless of the problems that would bring about.

    That would be rather unsatisfactory in my book and if that was simply the case then I doubt I'd be a Libertarian. But the fact is that anything run by the state is almost invariably bad and things that are privately owned are almost invariably better - not to mention more flexible and efficient. Where there has been freedom, there has usually been success and improve living standards; yet where there is tyranny, it'll usually be followed by misery. For practical examples look towards the United States and the British Empire - two civilisations built on the ideals of individual liberty and two that flourished as superpowers. Not to mention that classical civilisations of Greece and Rome, which I take a great interest in. At no point in history has a majority of our money gone to the state until relatively recently, and you'll find in the areas where it is spent - for example in some parts of my native Glasgow, where public expenditure accounts for over 70 or 80 percent of the economic activity - it does little good, for these are the places where people are on average not living past their 60th birthday, and the situation is only getting worse as more and more money is thrown away.

    You took the opinion above that these questions were considered and answered years ago and that's why we have the present situation. Well I might be the Conservative here, but that attitude makes you the true conservative. To paraphrase Disraeli, I am a conservative for all that is good in our system yet a radical when it comes to fixing its problems.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for replying to the post. I can see where you're coming from and I'm satisfied you know what you're talking about. I think the debate we're having here basically comes down to what we understand to be our freedoms and liberties and how important they are to us. This is simply a difference of opinion and is unlikely to get us any further.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Libertarians,

    A Libertarian Party and forum have now been set up, and you can join here to get access to the forum.

    The Libertarian Party will now be contesting the upcoming TSR GE to be held on 4th of May.

    Simply join the Party by following the link above, and then we'll discuss what's next in the forum.

    Anth
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Ok, I'm all for legalising drugs, freedm of speech, any sexual acts in private etc...

    But surely taxes should be high to provide people with the services they need, so why are they so anti-tax, and against distribution of wealth? But there is inequality to be rectified.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not a commie, but with the economics there are niggles to me, though I'm probably just not understanding it.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    But surely taxes should be high to provide people with the services they need, so why are they so anti-tax, and against distribution of wealth?
    Well a number of reasons. Taxation is coersion. There's very little moral justification for forcing someone to do something when it isn't completely necessary - and the sheer amount of money the government spents on crap makes this important.

    The state often uses taxation to create large, inefficient bureaucracies. The private sector runs things better, people are able to decide what suits them.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not a commie, but with the economics there are niggles to me, though I'm probably just not understanding it.
    I don't think you can have liberty by social liberty alone - you have to have economic liberty too. The freedom to trade what you have, the freedom to offer your skills for something of value - without having the state stick its oar in. While large businesses and such may seem distant to this, they are all running along the same principles as a lemonade stall.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    Well a number of reasons. Taxation is coersion. There's very little moral justification for forcing someone to do something when it isn't completely necessary - and the sheer amount of money the government spents on crap makes this important.

    The state often uses taxation to create large, inefficient bureaucracies. The private sector runs things better, people are able to decide what suits them.
    Well obviously I'm against wasted taxation (who isn't), but I've always thought that tax is worthwhile as long as it's paying for good schools, hospitals, police etc... I'm not sombody who's into economics, and I've never done politics either so this is a bit foreign to me.

    But with schools I know I'm against private schooling because I don't believe the rich have the right to a better education, so I want that state owned. Would health etc not be the same?

    My mum was at a private hospital once and she complained she was trated badly and the owners of it (black) gave black patients special treatment and trated white people badly. If everything was private maybe waste would be reduced but then it's difficult to check up on it.

    Though I also saw something recently about police corruption, despite our 30p per day tax for the police they manage to ignre what really matters e.g. rape cases to play hide and seek in police cars, gamble and play cricket, and this is more than the odd exception! So I guess you get problems with checking up on state owned structures as well.

    I know I'm going back and forth here, but overall the goverment isn't exactly charging an arm and a leg in taxation. I think it's probably better to keep things state controlled but look in detail into each one and try to reduce bureaucracies. I'm suprised people in this thread are willing to compromise civil rights to slightly lower taxes, to me the priority is completly the opposite. I would rather be taxed moderatly and be free to be gay if I wished to be than taxed low and forced into being hetrosexual.

    I don't think you can have liberty by social liberty alone - you have to have economic liberty too. The freedom to trade what you have, the freedom to offer your skills for something of value - without having the state stick its oar in. While large businesses and such may seem distant to this, they are all running along the same principles as a lemonade stall.
    Isn't this capitialism? :confused:

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

Halloween 2014

Join the TSR Halloween party...if you dare!

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.