Lack of a Libertarian party in the UK

To have a representative democracy, as opposed to one imposed on everyone else who didn't vote for a certain party

Having a genuine free market (Corporations have monopolised and completely dismantled the free market, they can simply buy out any competition now)

Hm. I dont think you genuinely understand what true libertarianism is. What you're supporting seems to be a weird mix of liberalism, communitarianism and maybe just the slightest touch of libertarianism.

A true libertarian government is always a dictatorship/totalitarian type-it will only exist to enforce and adjudicate contracts, as well as protect citizens from interference by another person. There hence cannot be any sort of voting-right is right is right and wrong is wrong is wrong, period.

Under a libertarian system, corporate dominance is also entirely permitted, even encouraged. Any corporation will be allowed to 'brute-force' and edge out competitors by buying or undercutting. The only things not allowed are to threaten, coerce (in the sense of blackmail) or to push for laws that limit other players from entering the market (through permits etc) to begin with. Any other form of competition cannot be restricted.

Non-inteference is the core of libertarianism

Reply 23

Original post by Drunken Bard

What?

Are you familiar with the works of Rand or Nozick?

Reply 24

IamLiquid

Original post by The two eds

Labour are libertarian. They also lie furthest left on the spectrum. You should consider them as a party.

That's a joke right?

Reply 25

SHallowvale

14

Original post by Drunken Bard

Freedom from government intervention into our private lives

Such as what?

Original post by Drunken Bard

To have a representative democracy, as opposed to one imposed on everyone else who didn't vote for a certain party

I don't think that is a libertarian issue. I mean, both UKIP and the Greens currently support proportional representation and the Liberal Democrats and Labour have supported AV and/or STV in the past.

While AV isn't PR, it was the public which voted against a more representative voting system.

Original post by Drunken Bard

Having a genuine free market (Corporations have monopolised and completely dismantled the free market, they can simply buy out any competition now)

What would a libertarian party do to change this?

Reply 26

The two eds

4

Original post by IamLiquid

That's a joke right?

No, Labour are in fact as left wing as you get.

Reply 27

Original post by Drunken Bard

UKIP contradict themselves constantly, they say the are Libertarian yet wish to ban the burka?

They absolutely do not wish to ban the burka.

Reply 28

Drunken Bard

OP

8

Original post by Cristocracy

Hm. I dont think you genuinely understand what true libertarianism is. What you're supporting seems to be a weird mix of liberalism, communitarianism and maybe just the slightest touch of libertarianism.

A true libertarian government is always a dictatorship/totalitarian type-it will only exist to enforce and adjudicate contracts, as well as protect citizens from interference by another person. There hence cannot be any sort of voting-right is right is right and wrong is wrong is wrong, period.

Under a libertarian system, corporate dominance is also entirely permitted, even encouraged. Any corporation will be allowed to 'brute-force' and edge out competitors by buying or undercutting. The only things not allowed are to threaten, coerce (in the sense of blackmail) or to push for laws that limit other players from entering the market (through permits etc) to begin with. Any other form of competition cannot be restricted.

Non-inteference is the core of libertarianism

Not true, yes although non-intervention is a core principal with libertarians and having a free market is the best way for an economy to operate, economic liberalism can allow government intervention to remove private monopoly as it inhibits the decision making of some individuals.

As I said, not all libertarians are the same.

Reply 29

Drunken Bard

OP

8

What would a libertarian party do to change this?

Removal of private monopoly as it infringes on the freedoms of other individuals.

Reply 30

Davij038

Whilst farage and his retinue are semi libertarian the bulk of the party is a so called red ukip faction which has more in common with the BNP than the Tories.

I've heard it said a few time that the majority of Tories under 40 are libertarians.

Reply 31

Conservationofmass

12

Original post by The two eds

Terror threat. You can be libertarian and fight to reduce terror at the same time you know.

Yeah, I was reading in a wealth of nations, written by Adam Smith( a liberal) that we should have liberalism in most situations unless it affects the security of the nation, it's something like that anyway.

Reply 32

Original post by SHallowvale

What would a libertarian party do to change this?

That is a very difficult question to answer because libertarians believe that these monopolies wouldn't develop in a free-market situation.And indeed, when you look at the sources of monopoly and oligopoly, you will find that almost all of those sources are government intervention.

A statistics solution to monopolies is often a relatively simplistic one; limit the size of a company in a particular market.

But I hope you will agree that a liberal's solution is a much better one - free trade. Eliminate all tariffs and all restrictions on foreign trade and you enable the world to come in and increase competition. It is a much better solution than any regulation and it has the added bonus of increasing human freedom and individual liberty.

But going back to where monopolies come from, it is clear that in the USA and the UK the most powerful monopolies come from governmental privilege. The monopoly of a TV licence, granted by the government is a massive source of wealth for Americans and helps fund the ineffectual BBC in the UK. US Steel would have been eliminated by now if it wasn't able to convince government to impose tariffs on imports and a subsidy on production. The monopoly of Trade Unions, they get their support from the Davis Bacon Act, Walsh Healey Act, ect in the USA and things like the Taff Vale Act and Trades Dispute Act in the UK (all of which interfere with competition.)

It is very hard to find any monopolies that have been able to sustain themselves over a significant length of time without government assistance. Milton Friedman could only find two one is the De Beers diamond monopoly and the second is the NYSE (obviously this was in it's earlier days before excessive government regulation.)

In almost every other case, you have temporary monopolies develop and if the government doesn't come in to shore them up, the monopoly collapses.

Another example, the US Railroads only became a monopoly because they were able to get the interstate commerce commission established, trucking is a monopoly becuase the ICC keeps out competitors. National Rail is a similar government-enforced monopoly in the UK.

A libertarians solution to monopoly is to do precisely nothing.

Reply 33

Original post by Drunken Bard

Removal of private monopoly as it infringes on the freedoms of other individuals.

Are you trolling?

Government intervention in a libertarian society is a misnomer.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 34

Not true, yes although non-intervention is a core principal with libertarians and having a free market is the best way for an economy to operate, economic liberalism can allow government intervention to remove private monopoly as it inhibits the decision making of some individuals.

As I said, not all libertarians are the same.

No, this means that you are not a libertarian. This is absolutely fundamental to the libertarian school of thought-that no interference is allowed. The act itself is what matters, not the result.

Interfering with another person's rights and liberty, as understood in the libertarian context, is always a positive action-someone who punches another person is interfering with the person's rights, but someone who merely watches is not interfering in the other's persons rights.

A libertarian does not care whether the free market is run efficiently or not, and does not care whether it's run optimally, or in the best possible way. All a libertarian cares about is whether the market is free or not. A private monopoly does not infringe on another person's rights, even if the said person starves to death due to lack of job and opportunity. It only becomes interference if the said monopoly lobbies for an act banning the starving person from ever entering the market.

You my friend, do not understand libertarianism

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 35

Original post by SHallowvale

What freedoms do we currently not have that you think we should have?

The right to absolute freedom of expression.
The right to put substances inside of our bodies.
The right to smoke inside (with the property owners permission.)
The right to ride a bicycle without a helmet.
The right to drive a car without a seatbelt
The right to not wear any clothes in public.
Ect.

I.e the right to do anything that doesn't harm anyone else.

Reply 36

Original post by Cristocracy

No, this means that you are not a libertarian. This is absolutely fundamental to the libertarian school of thought-that no interference is allowed. The act itself is what matters, not the result.

Interfering with another person's rights and liberty, as understood in the libertarian context, is always a positive action-someone who punches another person is interfering with the person's rights, but someone who merely watches is not interfering in the other's persons rights.

A libertarian does not care whether the free market is run efficiently or not, and does not care whether it's run optimally, or in the best possible way. All a libertarian cares about is whether the market is free or not. A private monopoly only does not infringe on another person's rights, even if the said person starves to death due to lack of job and opportunity. It only becomes interference if the said monopoly lobbies for an act banning the starving person from ever entering the market.

You my friend, do not understand libertarianism

No, there can be some intervention in a libertarian society; just not on the scale suggested.

For example, things like corporate fraud are still illegal in a liberal society and would be punished.

Reply 37

Original post by cacra

No, there can be some intervention in a libertarian society; just not on the scale suggested.

For example, things like corporate fraud are still illegal in a liberal society and would be punished.

This makes no sense. You first say then can be some intervention in a libertarian society, then support it with the further example that corporate fraud will still be illegal in a liberal society.

This is like saying in English society, there will be no punishment meted out to thieves because thieves in Egypt are punished. It just simply makes utterly no sense at all.

But yes, in a libertarian society there is some level of interference-but only if the said person himself first intervenes in the rights of another. In this sense, there will be jail for someone who hits another, just as how someone who engages in fraud will receive punishment also.

But this is not interference as understood in the traditional, liberal way

Reply 38