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

Liber Question Time - Ask a Libertarian

Announcements Posted on
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Most people want to get married in a church. If civil marriage was abolished then they would have to pay excessively for that privilege.

    Firstly, non-religious people like churches too. Secondly, it's the law that all citizens be allowed to marry in their local parish church, regardless of how religious they are. That's a good protection for the majority of people that want a church marriage without having to be all religious.
    Church of England churches would continued to be owned by the Church of England and follow their rules, which already includes paying them to use their room.

    How are non-conventional marriages illegal? They're not. Civil marriage doesn't prevent people from doing other kinds of marriage, your argument against it is entirely fake.

    Er, no it's not.
    There is only one form of marriage you are allowed: the one endorsed by the state. Most of the others are only legally unenforceable, but you surely remember we discussed other instances where it is actually criminal to claim to be married in a way the state doesn't approve of, as in the case of polygamy.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Jumping in here, I know against protocol but whatever, reply to me in the Liber thread. It doesn't. That's what the £25bn distributed by central government is there for - to smooth out those areas with a lower tax base.
    Does any bill specifially mention this £25bn? And, even so, the Chancellor is seeking to increase the amounts local authorities have to spend without increasing this figure (which I admit I had no idea existed. I can't find it mentioned in the Welfare Act - perhaps the Libers should break their bills down so that all their component parts can be properly scrutinised). The funny thing is, the Chancellor was fine with the local income tax even without knowing of the £25bn central funding. The fact that it exists suggests you lot disagree with his argument, which is reassuring.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    Church of England churches would continued to be owned by the Church of England and follow their rules, which already includes paying them to use their room.
    Haha. You think the CoE likes the current arrangement?

    There is only one form of marriage you are allowed: the one endorsed by the state. Most of the others are only legally unenforceable, but you surely remember we discussed other instances where it is actually criminal to claim to be married in a way the state doesn't approve of, as in the case of polygamy.
    Still no argument against state marriage here. You're arguing for private marriages, yes, I kind of got that ten posts ago. The two types aren't mutually exclusive so advocating one doesn't automatically diminish the other.

    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Would you support a referendum on EU membership for the UK?
    Is that a new MRLP policy or have you totally abandoned your manifesto?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Would you support a referendum on EU membership for the UK?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Does any bill specifially mention this £25bn? And, even so, the Chancellor is seeking to increase the amounts local authorities have to spend without increasing this figure (which I admit I had no idea existed. I can't find it mentioned in the Welfare Act - perhaps the Libers should break their bills down so that all their component parts can be properly scrutinised). The funny thing is, the Chancellor was fine with the local income tax even without knowing of the £25bn central funding. The fact that it exists suggests you lot disagree with his argument, which is reassuring.
    Well, the Act cut spending on local government by central government by £50bn - which is specified. It's £75bn in RL, which is where we were cutting it from, so it doesn't need to specify this £25bn, as long as we assume arithmetic is possible.

    EDIT: Actually I've gone and royally ****ed this up, getting all my numbers in a twist. The Act does say to cut £75bn, but it shouldn't, that was the amount needed to raise. Needless to say we'll be updating the Welfare Act soon with the 2012 research figures, and we'll correct this (my) cock-up. Thanks for (inadvertently) bringing this to my attention. I need a civil service.

    EDIT2: As for formatting - I try to set them out as clearly as possible. Perhaps we could do better. If you see anything that confuses you or that could be laid out better, don't hesitate to point it out in a reading.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Well, the Act cut spending on local government by central government by £50bn - which is specified. It's £75bn in RL, which is where we were cutting it from, so it doesn't need to specify this £25bn, as long as we assume arithmetic is possible.
    6 Local Income Tax
    (1) County Councils have the power to levy a local income tax in order to pay for services provided by local government.
    (2) Central Government grants to Local Authorities are reduced by £75bn.
    The Tax Act abolished Council Tax and raised CG spending by £25bn, so £100bn on local government in total. The Welfare Act then cut this by £75bn and introduced the LIT. Where's the £50bn amount come in? And the last sentence there really gives people grounds to think you guys are arrogant. Your bills are in themselves detailed, the problem is the Notes don't really explained what they do, especially in relation to local government. Arithmetic skill has nothing to do with knowing local government expenditure.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    The Tax Act abolished Council Tax and raised CG spending by £25bn, so £100bn on local government in total. The Welfare Act then cut this by £75bn and introduced the LIT. Where's the £50bn amount come in? And the last sentence there really gives people grounds to think you guys are arrogant. Your bills are in themselves detailed, the problem is the Notes don't really explained what they do, especially in relation to local government. Arithmetic skill has nothing to do with knowing local government expenditure.
    Sure, but if you are so keen to find out, in that you see a particular issue then Google exists. I don't think that's arrogant.

    As noted before your reply, I've realised there's a cock up here.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Still no argument against state marriage here. You're arguing for private marriages, yes, I kind of got that ten posts ago. The two types aren't mutually exclusive so advocating one doesn't automatically diminish the other.
    Except you made precisely the opposite argument when it was suggested that that means there's no need for state recognition for gay marriage.

    Bottom line seems to be that you personally want gays to get married, so they belong in the privileged circle, but you don't care about Mormons or people who want to be married for temporary terms, or have different divorce procedures, so **** 'em. The only alternative that includes everyone is to let people set their own marriage terms.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Would you support a referendum on EU membership for the UK?
    Aye!
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)

    Is that a new MRLP policy or have you totally abandoned your manifesto?
    No I have not abandoned my manifesto. Just thinking of democracy and not keen on a confrontation with the EU by just stopping charging of a tax in defiance, rather an honourable exit or remaining in on the current basis. We'd still keep the pound (and ounce, furlong, yard etc) regardless.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Just thinking of democracy and not keen on a confrontation with the EU by just stopping charging of a tax in defiance, rather an honourable exit or remaining in on the current basis.
    What is the obsession with democracy? It seems to appear in every single EU debate but I completely fail to see how the EU would be any better if it was democratic.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    What is the obsession with democracy? It seems to appear in every single EU debate but I completely fail to see how the EU would be any better if it was democratic.
    Us (the UK) being democratic- we vote to leave or stay in the EU via a referendum instead of just stopping having VAT in defiance.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Us (the UK) being democratic- we vote to leave or stay in the EU via a referendum instead of just stopping having VAT in defiance.
    Why?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    What is the obsession with democracy? It seems to appear in every single EU debate but I completely fail to see how the EU would be any better if it was democratic.
    We wouldn't be in it, which sounds like an improvement to me.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    We wouldn't be in it, which sounds like an improvement to me.
    I wouldn't be so sure, people are far too happy with the status quo.

    And if we democratically voted to stay in the EU we'd be in the disastrous position of giving Brussels any sort of legitimacy.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    I wouldn't be so sure, people are far too happy with the status quo.

    And if we democratically voted to stay in the EU we'd be in the disastrous position of giving Brussels any sort of legitimacy.
    Yes, damned democracy.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Yes, damned democracy.
    See, he gets it!

    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    I wouldn't be so sure, people are far too happy with the status quo.

    And if we democratically voted to stay in the EU we'd be in the disastrous position of giving Brussels any sort of legitimacy.
    We have democratically voted to stay in the EU, we had a referendum
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    We have democratically voted to stay in the EU, we had a referendum
    We did not. The referendum in the 70s was about entry into the European Economic Community - which was essentially an agreement between member states not to install tariffs within the 'community'. There have been no referendums on subsequent treaties because there is no requirement in UK law for there to be a referendum for constitutional changes. Which is why the Blair government could simply push through the very controversial Lisbon Treaty despite the fact that every other European country had a referendum for it.
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    We did not. The referendum in the 70s was about entry into the European Economic Community - which was essentially an agreement between member states not to install tariffs within the 'community'. There have been no referendums on subsequent treaties because there is no requirement in UK law for there to be a referendum for constitutional changes. Which is why the Blair government could simply push through the very controversial Lisbon Treaty despite the fact that every other European country had a referendum for it.
    Oh, it thought you were talking about on TSR, which we have :p:

    A referendum on the EU would be a bit daft, most people do not even understand the implications of membership. Hell, i consider myself politically aware and i admittedly know little about its ramifications. That is, at the end of the day, what the principal of representative democracy is founded on.
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Would you support a referendum on EU membership for the UK?
    Why would I want to turn over a complex political and economic decision like this to the general public? We have elected a government to do these things for us. As one of the least centralised political organisations in history that has done a lot to guarantee economic freedom for parts of Europe, I'm not entirely opposed to the EU.

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: July 26, 2014
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

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