Why does Britain have no popular Libertarian party?

Original post by anarchism101

The term "free markets" as libertarians tend to use it usually refers to some hypothetical market economy perfectly absent of any state involvement. Markets are accordingly "more free" when they are closer to this imagined ideal.

Meh, the government doesn't so much 'interfere', it's more completely intertwined with the market from the word go.

Quite so. but a market can have no intertwining.....

Anyway, just realised why there is no libertarian party..... They (we) have conviction.... a political 'party' implies government, and libertarians (and anarchists) do not see government as a force for good.
..... but of course that does NOT mean they (we) advocate causing harm or loss to other people can go unpunished.

Reply 42

skeptical_john

OP

13

Original post by BENJAMIN WEENEN

Most so called libertarians are of the slightly unpleasant allodial variety. The other alternative are Geoist parties, of which the Young People's Party UK is the only one of it's type.

Geoists believe that because our system of property rights are fundamentally wrong, we not only suffer from excessive inequality but economic dysfunction too.

In order to correct this produced wealth should remain private (untaxed) and the capitalised value from natural resources, mainly from land (location), shared equally.

By aligning incentives instead of distorting them, as are current economic system does, we can not only simplify our tax code, but Government departments like HMRC and DoWP could be virtually scrapped.

But, more importantly, by stopping the parasitic behaviour of bankers, landlords and the idle rich, we can have a real meritocracy, not some twisted version the main political parties seem to wish for.

Firstly I think it's unfair to categorize most people who want low state interference as unpleasant! If you wanted you could find any unpleasant people in any movement. Just look at Corbyn and all the anti -semites following him.

That's interesting on the Georgism, had not read about that before.

I certainly think we need strong regulations on banks etc if only to save themselves from each other. I think we need far less on smaller and medium business.

Reply 43

Original post by BENJAMIN WEENEN

Most so called libertarians are of the slightly unpleasant allodial variety. The other alternative are Geoist parties, of which the Young People's Party UK is the only one of it's type.

Geoists believe that because our system of property rights are fundamentally wrong, we not only suffer from excessive inequality but economic dysfunction too.

In order to correct this produced wealth should remain private (untaxed) and the capitalised value from natural resources, mainly from land (location), shared equally.

By aligning incentives instead of distorting them, as are current economic system does, we can not only simplify our tax code, but Government departments like HMRC and DoWP could be virtually scrapped.

But, more importantly, by stopping the parasitic behaviour of bankers, landlords and the idle rich, we can have a real meritocracy, not some twisted version the main political parties seem to wish for.

Allodial title constitutes ownership of real property (land, buildings and fixtures) that is independent of any superior landlord. Allodial title is related to the concept of land held "in allodium", or land ownership by occupancy and defense of the land.

:smile:

Allodial .... Had to look that one up. But land could not be owned without the threat of violence. May have been 'acceptable' centuries ago ..... but we're educated now?
Is it unpleasant to use violence to enforce ownership of land that originally was owned by no-one? Of course, it could be argued that the threat of violent attack has become the custom of a 'civilised' society. ??

Reply 44

Original post by skeptical_john

Firstly I think it's unfair to categorize most people who want low state interference as unpleasant! If you wanted you could find any unpleasant people in any movement. Just look at Corbyn and all the anti -semites following him.

That's interesting on the Georgism, had not read about that before.

I certainly think we need strong regulations on banks etc if only to save themselves from each other. I think we need far less on smaller and medium business.

The goal of greater personal responsibility, and minimal State interference is laudable and shared by all libertarians.

Ironically though, because property in Land without compensating those excluded, is fundamentally unjust, we have a large State apparatus in order to mitigate the effects this injustice causes.

For example, this causes inequality and poverty. So, instead of addressing the root cause, we tax peoples private property and redistribute it as State spending. Thereby adding injustice upon injustice and distortion upon distortion.

These allodial Libertarians hate the thought of sharing this Earth as equals even more than they hate Socialism, The State and all the consequences that follow.

They believe that it is an individual's right to own anything and everything. In fact some of them think the abolition of slavery was an infringement of private property rights.

What Geoists believe is that we will never be free until we learn to share this Earth as equals, because the monopolisation of Land is economic slavery.

Reply 45

Original post by nixy49

Allodial title constitutes ownership of real property (land, buildings and fixtures) that is independent of any superior landlord. Allodial title is related to the concept of land held "in allodium", or land ownership by occupancy and defense of the land.

:smile:

Allodial .... Had to look that one up. But land could not be owned without the threat of violence. May have been 'acceptable' centuries ago ..... but we're educated now?
Is it unpleasant to use violence to enforce ownership of land that originally was owned by no-one? Of course, it could be argued that the threat of violent attack has become the custom of a 'civilised' society. ??

Almost without exception, wars have all been about Land.

For example, all the Founding Fathers got rich from land speculation. George Washington had interests west of the Ohio river. He scoped out the bits he wanted illegally against the proclamation made by the British in respect of the right of the aboriginal Indians.

This proclamation caused outrage, and if you read the letters of Washington el al, was the real reason for starting the war.

In fact the Germans Lebensraum was directly inspired by Manifest Destiny, the American justification for genocidal land grab.

We were all at it, and we will always be in conflict about Land until we evolve to a higher moral plain and learn to share it economically. Once we share the rents, physical ownership becomes irrelevant.

As soon as we do that, then peace, prosperity, sustainability and freedom follows on.

How many political parties in the UK have plan for that? They just want to tinker with the status quo.

Until we start asking deep moral questions then we will get the crap we deserve. That's the hard bit.

Actually changing things is operationally easy, and just involves our tax/benefits system.

People just have to get out and vote for Geoist political parties ie YPPUK.

Reply 46

anarchism101

17

Original post by nixy49

Quite so. but a market can have no intertwining.....

In theory, but not realistically. I don't just mean that the state won't be able to resist intervention, but rather than the state creates the conditions for a market-based economy to arise and exist in the first place. For example, a single monetary and currency system.

Anyway, just realised why there is no libertarian party..... They (we) have conviction.... a political 'party' implies government, and libertarians (and anarchists) do not see government as a force for good.

By that logic there would be no libertarian party anywhere and libertarians wouldn't run for political office at all, yet the US has a Libertarian party and many libertarians do run in elections.

Reply 47

scrotgrot

16

Original post by skeptical_john

Libertarianism does well in the US this despite the US being far more free than the UK already. Rand Paul is the sort of de facto leader of Libertarianism there though I'm personally not a big fan of his.

The sort of polices I'm thinking are:

Greater emphasis on civil liberties (reduce surveillance/ban stop and search/ frees speech)

legalisation of things like cannabis and prostitution, assisted dying etc

Much less state involvement in everyday life such as BBC /NHS (I know this is not going to be popular with everyone but you should be consistent)

No more foreign wars unless it's through UN/NATO

Now, all the major parties will have a couple of these policies but none have them all yet I think it could be quite popular with a small % of the electorate especially as you would pay a lot less tax.

I guess there is no market for it here. Otherwise, it would exist: the market spontaneously and efficiently provides for everything that is in demand.

In any case, your policy positions (which are all social rather than economic liberalism) are all or mostly covered by the Liberal Democrats, who are the closest thing we have to a libertarian party. I know they come across a bit wet rather than rude and uncompromising but that's rather beside the point.

Other libertarian policies are covered by the Thatcherite Tories (specifically, brutalising the weak/social Darwinism, unconditional worship of the magic free market, zealous rolling back of the state) and the Green Party (specifically, things like the universal basic income, land reform). Carswell of UKIP is a proud and true libertarian who even dared to talk about the private banking monopoly on money creation on a recent Question Time.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 48

scrotgrot

16

Original post by nixy49

Quite so. but a market can have no intertwining.....

Anyway, just realised why there is no libertarian party..... They (we) have conviction.... a political 'party' implies government, and libertarians (and anarchists) do not see government as a force for good.
..... but of course that does NOT mean they (we) advocate causing harm or loss to other people can go unpunished.

UKIP manage to have MEPs (and claim all their expenses etc) despite having a conviction that the European Parliament isn't a force for good.

Sinn Fein manage to have MPs in Northern Irish constituencies at Westminster (although they don't take their seats) despite having a conviction that the British government in NI is illegitimate.

To be pedantic, a political party doesn't imply government, as governments do not have to be comprised of political parties, and political parties are perfectly capable of existing without representation at any level of government. Constitutionally, political parties are just a shorthand for broad alliances of convenience between individual MPs.

I suppose to be a political party you must at least run for office, but Sinn Fein have already set the precedent: to signal that you don't recognise the legitimacy of the legislature you've been elected to, you run, but you don't take your seat.

Reply 49

Original post by BENJAMIN WEENEN

Almost without exception, wars have all been about Land.

Sorry to quote just one sentence, But perhaps that's the reason nothing changes. The whole debate become fragmented when the fundamentals are conveniently ignored..... (not meant as on accusation BTW)

I agree wars are party about land.... but that ignores the other vital ingredient of a war...... weaponry ......and the 'financing thereof. Bankers have a legal (but not necessarily lawful) mandate to fraudulently create credit 'money' from nothing, to buy stuff (gun bombs etc.) and charge it back to future generations without their consent.
This breaks a fundamental libertarian / anarchist maxim (or should be) ...cause no loss nor harm to other people.... So bankers, aided and abetted by their political friends, who, by printing credit money to cause loss of both life, and purchasing power would have been banged up years ago.

??

Reply 50

cole-slaw

5

Libertarianism has more of a tradition in the land of the frontier spirit, the gold rush and the American dream that is US than in the land of the social collective that is Europe.

I think if there were a libertarian party that focused on social issues rather than economic hobby horses like the idiotic bloody flat tax, it would do a lot better.

A lot of young people have vaguely libertarian leanings, but lack the stomach to really mercilessly **** over the poor in the way that a lot of libertarian economic policies would.

Reply 51

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by cole-slaw

A lot of young people have vaguely libertarian leanings, but lack the stomach to really mercilessly **** over the poor in the way that a lot of libertarian economic policies would.

People are pretty good at not seeing what they don't want to see. Or dehumanizing the people they trample all over.

Reply 52

United1892

12

Simply Libertarianism is not popular enough.
There is however a party. http://libertarianpartyuk.com

Reply 53

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

People are pretty good at not seeing what they don't want to see. Or dehumanizing the people they trample all over.

Imagine..... a few hundred years ago, when a few armed chancers threatened to attack peaceful people with violence if they didn't comply to their demands for land ownership..... land that previously belonged to no-one.

Imagine they (the peaceful types) did become armed, but agreed only to use their weaponry to defend themselves against and imprison the psychopathic attackers.

A tall thought experiment I know.... but what would life be like today, if all those who, centuries ago, threatened violence had been effectively dealt with by the peaceful.

Reply 54

illegaltobepoor

19

Original post by BENJAMIN WEENEN

Most so called libertarians are of the slightly unpleasant allodial variety. The other alternative are Geoist parties, of which the Young People's Party UK is the only one of it's type.

Geoists believe that because our system of property rights are fundamentally wrong, we not only suffer from excessive inequality but economic dysfunction too.

In order to correct this produced wealth should remain private (untaxed) and the capitalised value from natural resources, mainly from land (location), shared equally.

By aligning incentives instead of distorting them, as are current economic system does, we can not only simplify our tax code, but Government departments like HMRC and DoWP could be virtually scrapped.

But, more importantly, by stopping the parasitic behaviour of bankers, landlords and the idle rich, we can have a real meritocracy, not some twisted version the main political parties seem to wish for.

Agree. I am also a Geoist.

Reply 55

Original post by illegaltobepoor

Agree. I am also a Geoist.

Then you are miles in front of everyone else. If you've got an Android phone, you can get the YPPUK Tax APP from Google Play.

It shows the distributional effects of a LVT in the UK.

Anyone can enter a few fields about their income, marital status, children, value of homes owned.

From that we can work out your present tax bill, and your future YPPUK tax bill.

Under YPP manifesto, we'd start out with only a 20% flat tax on all income and a LVT. All other taxes, except some sin taxes/bank levy, are scrapped.

So, Tolleys tax guide reduced from 18,000 pages to less than 100.

The average UK household would be around £11,500 per year better off in their pocket every year.

Fair, flat, simple taxes are how we are going to change the World. The emphasis being the fair part, which you know is the key.

Have a look, see what you think.

Reply 56

Greenlaner

11

Original post by RayApparently

Brits (particularly the English) would rather be safe than free.

Nobody is safe without freedom.

Reply 57

RayApparently

21

Original post by Greenlaner

Nobody is safe without freedom.

Whilst that may sound profound freedom tends to be the antithesis of safety.

Reply 58

cole-slaw

5

Original post by BENJAMIN WEENEN

Then you are miles in front of everyone else. If you've got an Android phone, you can get the YPPUK Tax APP from Google Play.

It shows the distributional effects of a LVT in the UK.

Anyone can enter a few fields about their income, marital status, children, value of homes owned.

From that we can work out your present tax bill, and your future YPPUK tax bill.

Under YPP manifesto, we'd start out with only a 20% flat tax on all income and a LVT. All other taxes, except some sin taxes/bank levy, are scrapped.

So, Tolleys tax guide reduced from 18,000 pages to less than 100.

The average UK household would be around £11,500 per year better off in their pocket every year.

Fair, flat, simple taxes are how we are going to change the World. The emphasis being the fair part, which you know is the key.

Have a look, see what you think.

What is that going to do to public services exactly?

We'd all have to pay private companies to do what the government previously did, so although we'd pay £11k less in tax, we'd probably pay £20k more in additional expenses. It would be a complete disaster.

Reply 59