[lodzinski]

(Original post by alasdair_R)
Which do your consider more important? Economic freedom or social freedom? (Incidentally, this isn't meant at all combatively, I'm just curious)

IMO the two are interlinked - you cannot be free socially without being in a free economic environment. being able to make free economic decisions is part of social freedom.

[Alasdair]

Okay, my question was probably a bit odd. I meant, like, would you rather a society where everybody's moral and religious and political actions were totally open, but they're economic actions were curtailed, or one where everything was run on a complete market basis, but the punishment for, say, wearing a red t-shirt was death?

[Vesta]

(Original post by DanGrover)
Also, prices for insurance would go down (or rather, diversify) due to everyone in the country wanting it, just like any other product.

I'm slightly concerned with his statement - correct me if I'm wrong Dan but surely the economic principle of Supply & Demand states that as demand for a product increases, so does the (equilibrium) price?

Edit: unless you're implying that with an increase in demand, there'll be an increase in supply so a surplus of the insurance on the market?

And my 'question' so to speak - who will you be voting for in the next elections, DG? Just out of curiosity

[lodzinski]

well, both of those are extremes which wouldn't really occur in a libertarian society. However in any society there needs to be laws governing people's actions, say to help curtail religious extremism, whereas we can allow the market to clear entirely. so To answer your question, economic liberty would be greater, but due to neccessity rather than preference.

[Jangrafess]

Another question from me: which party do the TSR Libertarians support in real life?

[lodzinski]

personally none of the main political parties fit my ideals, but if there were a general election tomorrow I would vote conservative, as not to throw way my vote.

[Kyalimers]

If I said I don't believe your views: How could you change this???

[Socrates]

(Original post by alasdair_R)
Okay, my question was probably a bit odd. I meant, like, would you rather a society where everybody's moral and religious and political actions were totally open, but they're economic actions were curtailed, or one where everything was run on a complete market basis, but the punishment for, say, wearing a red t-shirt was death?

The former for me.

I'd probably vote Lib Dem at the next election, but that would be because I'd be voting tactically.

[Baal]

(Original post by lodzinski)
Libertarianism has Liberty at its core. If non-white people cannot live in a society then the actions of the BNP are impinging upon the rights of certain people to live as equals in a country.

Hospitals would be privatised. People would need health insurance, and because taxes would be so much lower, they'd have that much more to pay it. Also, prices for insurance would go down (or rather, diversify) due to everyone in the country wanting it, just like any other product.

How can you claim that you're not impinging upon the rights of certain people (the impoverished) to live as equals in the United Kingdom when you propose the privatisation of hospitals?

I don't know very much about this 'kinda stuff, so if I appear flippant/volatile I apologise.

[FoeGeddaBowDeet]

Are the libertarians other than DanGrover happy he decided to initiate the parties 'ask a' thread with racism? Do you feel that's a good representation of lib. beliefs?

[DrunkHamster]

(Original post by Baal)
How can you claim that you're not impinging upon the rights of certain people (the impoverished) to live as equals in the United Kingdom when you propose the privatisation of hospitals?

Because nobody has a 'right' to forcibly appropriate the fruits of anybody else's labour.

(Original post by Jason Sparks)
My question: Libertarianism would revoke laws against discrimination I assume? How can this be fair?

It would revoke laws for a minimum wage? Can this honestly be productive for society?

There are two ways to answer your question about the fairness of revoking laws against discrimination. Firstly, I'd flip it around entirely and ask you if you really think it's fair to force people, at the threat of violence, to associate with people they don't want to associate with. Secondly, I'd argue that discrimination is likely to be less of a problem in a predominantly free market than one with heavy state intervention, all other things being equal. The main reason is pretty simple: incentives. Discrimination costs money - if you practice racist hiring policies, the average candidate you hire will not be as good and will have less marginal benefit; if you practice racist policies in serving customers, you wont have as many sales. Now the thing is, the free market actively selects businesses and businessmen to do well (or even survive) on the basis of their ability to make money. So racist businesses won't last that long. It's no coincidence that most of the well known examples of discrimination come from governments (Jim Crow laws anyone?), who have no such incentive structure in place.

Lastly, I don't have a clue by what you mean when you ask whether revoking a minimum wage would be 'productive for society' because I think the terms are meaningless. A policy can only benefit or harm individuals. And sure, getting rid of the minimum wage would probably harm the <2% of the population who are currently paid at that rate, and it would probably benefit anyone whose marginal productivity is less than the NMW and is thereby denied a job (primarily the young and uneducated - exactly the people the left wants to help). But I have no idea how to show you it would 'benefit society' or not.

(Original post by FoeGeddaBowDeet)
Are the libertarians other than DanGrover happy he decided to initiate the parties 'ask a' thread with racism? Do you feel that's a good representation of lib. beliefs?

Nah. He's a bit of an idiot trying to get a rise out of people, and he's managed.

(Original post by Jangrafess)
But can you give an answer as to how you'd define the rights of people? It seems fairly broad to me, especially as people will have conflicting views. For example, the rights of people to take drugs. Is this a human right? Could it be said not to affect others? Or would you have to recategorise a lot of drugs?

The obvious libertarian answer to this is: people should be allowed to do anything that doesn't aggress on the person or legitimate property of another. By aggress, we usually mean use violence or the thread of violence. That's it - essentially the heart of libertarianism. So specifically regarding drugs - yes, people should be free to take whatever drugs they like, seeing as it's their own body. If they aggress against anyone as a result of that it's their own fault and they should be punished, but the actual drug taking itself doesn't actively harm others.

[L i b]

(Original post by Baal)
How can you claim that you're not impinging upon the rights of certain people (the impoverished) to live as equals in the United Kingdom when you propose the privatisation of hospitals?

If you had an absolute 'right to equality', then this would be a communist country... more a United Socialist Republic than a United Kingdom.

[L i b]

(Original post by FoeGeddaBowDeet)
Why are no(or relatively few...i'm unaware of any in the UK at least) prominent libertarian politicians in the UK?

Alan Duncan is probably the most significant.

[SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian]

It was a wee little joke, chaps. I was making a twist on the played-out joke of a middle class white boy pretending to be black by saying "sup brother" or "sup ******", by replacing the intended "chummy" word with a racial slur, with humour resulting. Or not, apparently, whatever.

(Original post by Jason Sparks)
My question: Libertarianism would revoke laws against discrimination I assume? How can this be fair?

Descriminating against people for arbitrary reasons like skin colour or gender isn't fair, and it's entirely abhorrent, but that doesn't mean we should ban it. People should be allowed to do what they want on their own property (again, so long as it does not impinge upon the rights of someone else where they have not surrendered their own rights - for example, by willingly and knowingly entering the smoking-BDSM-dungeon, you know you're going to breath in potentially hazardous smoke, and probably get whipped and called a naughty, naughty boy.). If I own a car, I don't [o]owe[/i] anyone a lift to work, and likewise if I own some property, be it a business or home, I don't owe anyone entry to that property. I should be allowed to ban people from entering for whatever reason I see fit, even if it is stupid and illogical. The free market will sort it out - if a shop refused to serve black people, and they also refused to hire them even if a black candidate was the best for the job, then that business is going to suffer and lose out to a business that doesn't discriminate. Likewise, I'd like to know if a business has racist tendencies so I can "vote with my wallet", as it were, and show my disdain for their practices by shopping elsewhere.

It would revoke laws for a minimum wage? Can this honestly be productive for society?

What's bizarre here is that you seem to be of the opinion that the minimum wage is undeniably productive for society. I don't see why this is the case, and nor why, even where it true, it is the governments responsibility to make sure people are productive for it. Why is the minimum wage productive? It gives extra money to people whose labour and abilities do not deserve it (if they did deserve it, then that's what they'd be getting paid anyway). In times of economic down turning, it also provides a disincentive for businesses to hire new staff, or keep their low paying ones. If they need to cut costs, something has to go, and if they're paying a worker more than they're worth, they're going to be sacked. So we end up in the situation whereby a business goes without an employee, and a potential worker goes without a job because, even if the person would be entirely willing to work for only £3 an hour and earn something, they cannot make this voluntary contract with the business because the government is swooping in, telling them they're being "exploited."

EDIT: Liber seems to give power to companies and less powers to those who do not already enjoy such benefits (i.e., financial power). Liber seems to be an attitude where the rich become richer, and the poor must accept their lot.

Can you give me an example of where people are "losing" their power?

(Original post by Jangrafess)
But can you give an answer as to how you'd define the rights of people? It seems fairly broad to me, especially as people will have conflicting views. For example, the rights of people to take drugs. Is this a human right? Could it be said not to affect others? Or would you have to recategorise a lot of drugs?

Lib can answer this far better than I can. I'll try and find one of his old posts on the subject.

(Original post by Mosquito)
QFT. So, why are you a liber again?

Well, for one thing - and as a member of the Socialist party, I'm sure you of all people would understand this - the fact that the electorate doesn't think something is a good idea, certainly doesn't mean it isn't. The electorate is also broadly in favour of killing paedophiles and, in the words of your friend and mine, Super-Hans, "People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people."

I don't really see what else there is to your question. My reasons for being Liber are because I believe it is the best political situation for this country to be in. That's got naught to do with what other people think, so I'm not sure the reason for this question. As for committing electoral suicide, no one reads this ****. They vote based on manifestos. If they didn't, the Socialists would never get a seat, having proven their inability to write passable bills by their track record vs terms in office. This isn't partisan punch-and-judy stuff, it's just a fact - The socialists hardly ever get their rare bills passed.

(Original post by Vesta)
I'm slightly concerned with his statement - correct me if I'm wrong Dan but surely the economic principle of Supply & Demand states that as demand for a product increases, so does the (equilibrium) price?

Edit: unless you're implying that with an increase in demand, there'll be an increase in supply so a surplus of the insurance on the market?

I mean that at the moment, health insurance has to be expensive. This is because we already have an NHS which, whilst slow and not that efficient, will usually get the job done. Private health care will always have to be better than nationalised health care, else no one would do it. So they're forced to offer grade-A health services in lovely hospitals with great staff etc, in order to tempt people away from the NHS, and this all costs money, which is why private health insurance, at the moment, is so expensive. Without an NHS, there's be a massive range of customers - from those that still want the grade A care they get now, to those who only want/can afford basic NHS-like service. Just like buying a car, you can get an awesome one or a crappy one, and they vary in price a lot. If everyone was given a fairly decent car by the government, though, only the expensive ones would exist for sale. Take away those government cars though, and a whole market opens up. This is why I put "or rather, diversify" in brackets after - the price of the top tier healthcare probably wouldnt change a lot from what it is now, but the cheapest would get much cheaper.

And my 'question' so to speak - who will you be voting for in the next elections, DG? Just out of curiosity

As with Lodz, probably conservatives, so as not to throw my vote away. Though, depending on where it is called, I'll be in different constituencies, so I'll see who's running near me!

Also, one last thing; People seem to think that we're cold hearted and must struggle to sleep at night because of how frugal we are. Firstly, it's very easy to be generous with other people's money. There's nothing morally righteous about taking 40% of everyone's money, then giving it back out to them in the form of broken services and welfare. Libertarians would improve people's quality of life - all that we ask in return is that people be a little more organised. The government won't be there running your healthcare, or giving you a pension, or paying your wages when you're ill. Instead, you'll have to sort it out - but by bypassing the monolithic government apparatus currently in operation, you'll either get the same services cheaper, or far better services for your money. We aren't cruel and confining poor people to the scrap heap - we're giving them a free market in which to work, and thus earn to their greatest potential.

In short, Libertarianism gives people much greater levels of freedom. What they choose to do with that freedom, and how well they manage it, will define how good their quality of life is. The bottom might be slightly lower than it is now (remember, the government's not going to just let people die on the streets, even under Libertarianism), but the ceiling will be so, so much higher too.

[Vesta]

(Original post by DanGrover)
I mean that at the moment, health insurance has to be expensive. This is because we already have an NHS which, whilst slow and not that efficient, will usually get the job done. Private health care will always have to be better than nationalised health care, else no one would do it. So they're forced to offer grade-A health services in lovely hospitals with great staff etc, in order to tempt people away from the NHS, and this all costs money, which is why private health insurance, at the moment, is so expensive. Without an NHS, there's be a massive range of customers - from those that still want the grade A care they get now, to those who only want/can afford basic NHS-like service. Just like buying a car, you can get an awesome one or a crappy one, and they vary in price a lot. If everyone was given a fairly decent car by the government, though, only the expensive ones would exist for sale. Take away those government cars though, and a whole market opens up. This is why I put "or rather, diversify" in brackets after - the price of the top tier healthcare probably wouldnt change a lot from what it is now, but the cheapest would get much cheaper.



As with Lodz, probably conservatives, so as not to throw my vote away. Though, depending on where it is called, I'll be in different constituencies, so I'll see who's running near me!

Fair enough, if that's the case then I misunderstood your initial statement.
I'm in agreement with you, I personally support the privatisation of health care. The current mediocre state of the NHS - while it may be acceptable for some people - simply isn't to the desire of many others who want - and rightly so - better healthcare.

[lol_wut]

The main reason is pretty simple: incentives. Discrimination costs money - if you practice racist hiring policies, the average candidate you hire will not be as good and will have less marginal benefit; if you practice racist policies in serving customers, you wont have as many sales. Now the thing is, the free market actively selects businesses and businessmen to do well (or even survive) on the basis of their ability to make money. So racist businesses won't last that long.

What if there is a market for companies that racially discriminate? How do you know that the consequences of racist hiring policies (note that there are other possible forms of racial discrimination within the company itself) will be significant enough to have a notable impact on company performance? Can you really assume that the market will work so quickly and efficiently that your conclusion will actually hold? the success of a company is probably more dependant on strategic decisions about financing, pricing, marketing etc. than something like the refusal to employ members of what could be a very small ethnic minority.

[SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian]

(Original post by lol_wut)
What if there is a market for companies that racially discriminate? How do you know that the consequences of racist hiring policies (note that there are other possible forms of racial discrimination within the company itself) will be significant enough to have a notable impact on company performance? Can you really assume that the market will work so quickly and efficiently that your conclusion will actually hold? the success of a company is probably more dependant on strategic decisions about financing, pricing, marketing etc. than something like the refusal to employ members of what could be a very small ethnic minority.

Then... so what? No one, including ethnic minorities, is owed a job at another persons business, so why should the government enforce it so they are given one? Besides, if the market is free, they can start their own businesses.

[DrunkHamster]

(Original post by lol_wut)
What if there is a market for companies that racially discriminate?

Yeah, I'm not going to lie - if there's a big enough market for companies that racially discriminate, and enough people willing to buy goods at a higher price because of this, they'll survive. But this doesn't bother me as a libertarian for two reasons: firstly, I think people care more about getting cheaper products than the racial make-up of the people producing them. If you think about it, secondly, you'll realise that the problem is by no means confined to the free market - what do you think happens in a democracy when there is a critical mass of people who advocate racial discrimination? Here's a hint, it's not pretty. If racists take over part of a market, the worst thing they can do is refuse to associate with people of a particular race. If racists take over a government, on the other hand...?

How do you know that the consequences of racist hiring policies (note that there are other possible forms of racial discrimination within the company itself) will be significant enough to have a notable impact on company performance? Can you really assume that the market will work so quickly and efficiently that your conclusion will actually hold? the success of a company is probably more dependant on strategic decisions about financing, pricing, marketing etc. than something like the refusal to employ members of what could be a very small ethnic minority.

I disagree that the effect of hiring the best person for the job each time is negligible: it might be true in lower positions, but when you're hiring for executive jobs you want to make damn sure you're getting the best you can. Yeah, strategic decisions are fairly crucial to the success of a company, but who do you think makes those decisions? At any rate even if it gave companies a small edge to hire equally, the fact is that successful firms don't get to be successful in a competitive market by passing up profitable actions. If all discrimination laws were repealed tomorrow, I'd bet that not a single major company would change their hiring policies.

[Ossie1701]

The issue at heart is not that companies may have racist policies in place, this is clearly ridiculous as they are profit maximising, as has been said, and will hire whoever is best for the job, irrespective of race, sexuality or otherwise. The legislation is there to stop structural unemployment based on race, which still does exist. That is, a computer does not select you for promotion, it is likely to be an in-house committee/interview by human beings who may well be as racist as Adolf Hitler, and that is all well and good if they keep it within their narrow minds, but it is likely to bias them when choosing candidates.

To believe we have come to a point in societal development that we are all colour blind is simply ridiculous, even some of the most intelligent minds still manage to come up with some fantastically ridiculous statements that wouldn't look out of place in a 1935 Nazi Rally, i.e. a certain Nobel Prize winning Dr. Watson. And so to say the legislation does not serve a purpose is rather naive.

[SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian]

I don't think anyone's suggested the world (or Britain) is (are) colourblind, have they? I know there are racist people out there, some of whom, yes, probably are in a position to give or take jobs. So? Then minorities can work somewhere else, where they do hire the best person for the job. It's the racist person's business, why shouldn't they be able to run it however they like.