[lol_wut]

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

no, you've just assumed that

[Skipper]

(Original post by DanGrover)
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.

Surely the racist person is only damaging their own business anyway. Much better for the victim to work somewhere where there boss isn't a racist...

[ThePants999]

Why did you chuck me out of the party just cos I also joined the MRLP? It's not like there's a conflict of interest I vote for all your bills anyway!

[SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian]

I believe TSR only allows you to join one party at a time. I don't think any of us with admin privaleges in the party (I believe that's RJA, Beek and myself) care enough to actually check if people are in more than one party.

And skipper: Quite!

[RJA]

The most difficult thing to find in real politics is a party that (genuinely) supports greater civil liberties AND economic liberty. It always tends to be one or the other. I would support the Tories, but their social policy is agreeing more and more with the current government. The Liberal Democrats are probably the closest thing you will get in the UK, as they have a culture of repealing legislation.

[Origami Bullets]

What about abortion? At what point does the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy start to impinge upon a baby's right to life?

I sometimes seem to intimidate old ladies (unintentionally!), which can largely be put down to the way I dress as my more "normal" friends don't seem to get the same sort of reaction. At what point does my right to dress as I like impinge upon an old lady's right not to feel intimindated?

At what point does a Muslim's wish to broadcast a call to prayer impinge on my right to sleep on a Friday morning?

[L i b]

(Original post by Helena in Bristol)
What about abortion? At what point does the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy start to impinge upon a baby's right to life?

The TSR Libertarian Party has no policy on abortion, to my knowledge. I, a former member, am entirely against it; I imagine others are very much for it. Defining personhood does not fit in with Libertarian philosophy, to my mind. I imagine the party would offer a free vote to its MPs if any such issue was to arise.

I sometimes seem to intimidate old ladies (unintentionally!), which can largely be put down to the way I dress as my more "normal" friends don't seem to get the same sort of reaction. At what point does my right to dress as I like impinge upon an old lady's right not to feel intimindated?

On your own property, dress as you like; on someone else's, dress as they like (or, rather, within the limits of what they deem acceptable), on public streets - should such things be retained - I would say that anything which does not cause a breach of the peace would be acceptable (that would be anything that would not cause alarm or distress to a reasonable person, where you have not taken reasonable measures to minimise such a reaction).

At what point does a Muslim's wish to broadcast a call to prayer impinge on my right to sleep on a Friday morning?

You are entitled in law to peaceful enjoyment of your property. I would say the modern law of nuisance would be where that line is drawn. Determining when your peaceful enjoyment is disrupted to a significant degree would be a matter for the courts.

[Overground]

What's the official party line on gun control and firearms legislation?

What is your view on grammar schools?

The Death Penalty?

Would you allow me to park my van on a public street, open the back so it is visible to the public, stand in the door and masturbate in broad daylight?

May I play music in my own house as loud as I like, even if my neighbours are getting annoyed?

What is your stance on unemployment and disability benefits? Should the willfully unemployed get any state handouts?

If I start a cult and fill a hall with 200 people, preaching and inciting death to all Birmingham City supporters, is the State justified in intervening?

[L i b]

Hopefully the Party will excuse my commenting on this; it is by no means an attempt to usurp the official party line, but simply a personal, Libertarian answer to some interesting questions.

(Original post by Overground)
What's the official party line on gun control and firearms legislation?

Like I say, I'm not commenting on behalf of the party, but I believe the general Libertarian answer is to liberalise it enormously.

What is your view on grammar schools?

Presumably, favourable in the short term. However, it is worth noting that a truly Libertarian ideal would prevent the state from taking any hand in the provision of education.

That does not essentially mean an end to school funding. However Socialism has never simply been about state funding of services, but also state provision - it is the latter to which Libertarians ought to most strenuously object.

The Death Penalty?

I would be enormously opposed, but there are Libertarian arguments to be made for it. I imagine the Party takes a similar line to myself.

Would you allow me to park my van on a public street, open the back so it is visible to the public, stand in the door and masturbate in broad daylight?

We don't believe in public streets!

Perhaps a more realistic short term objective would be to turn the administration of most streets and public over to residents' trusts, with an eventual view to making them self-funding. In these cases, what they decide within the limits of their Trust documents shall be what is permitted - much in the same way as many public parks are currently held in trust, with various representatives and interested parties holding position as trustees.

However it's worth noting that Libertarians are not entirely against the idea of public order offences: there is no reason a Libertarian cannot object to breaches of the peace and other acts designed to provoke alarm and distress and thus advocate their criminalisation.

May I play music in my own house as loud as I like, even if my neighbours are getting annoyed?

No. A person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his property. Therefore the state has a role to play in preventing the violation of private property in extreme cases; however I'd personally prefer more minor cases to be dealt with in a civil fashion - in Scotland, we have the delict of nuisance, I imagine a similar tort exists in English law.

What is your stance on unemployment and disability benefits? Should the willfully unemployed get any state handouts?

Presumably. The state should be a very last resort for the extremely needy. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest we do not attach conditions to such support: work, if someone is able; or paying any money given back if and when the person in question becomes able.

If I start a cult and fill a hall with 200 people, preaching and inciting death to all Birmingham City supporters, is the State justified in intervening?

Yes. However if you walked into a hall of Birmingham City supporters and preached something the exact same thing, I can see how that could well be justifiably considered a criminal act in much the same way as the ******* matter above.

[SirJimothy]

I find the 'Competing Schools' policy horrible. There was nothing worse when I was in school then when the head teacher but pull out a load of graphs comparing our SATS and GCSE results with neighbouring schools, it only encourages teaching to meet targets rather then teaching to actually teach.

[L i b]

(Original post by SirJimothy)
I find the 'Competing Schools' policy horrible. There was nothing worse when I was in school then when the head teacher but pull out a load of graphs comparing our SATS and GCSE results with neighbouring schools, it only encourages teaching to meet targets rather then teaching to actually teach.

Nope. I think parents realise what is and is not a good school regardless of results-chasing. I believe they are rather more intuitive than to simply read the league tables in the Sunday Times and pick the best.

[Grape190190]

1. Isn't it hollow? Doesn't the emphasis on the selfish rights of the individual make you feel lonely?

2. What about the people's rights to form a socialist community - indeed, what about our rights to scale up the government if we so choose? The dogma of libertarianism seems, to me, based on the flawed assumption that nobody wants the government to take an active part in their lives.

Since you can hardly deny a person's right to form their own co-operative communities (and set rules, allocate resources, etc within that community), why is the state any different, except that it's a community of thw whole?

[DrunkHamster]

(Original post by Grape190190)
2. What about the people's rights to form a socialist community - indeed, what about our rights to scale up the government if we so choose? The dogma of libertarianism seems, to me, based on the flawed assumption that nobody wants the government to take an active part in their lives.

Since you can hardly deny a person's right to form their own co-operative communities (and set rules, allocate resources, etc within that community), why is the state any different, except that it's a community of thw whole?

I think you have a serious misunderstanding about what exactly it is that libertarians are saying. If you want to set up a socialist commune, be my guest! All we ask is that you use your own property to do so, and you don't force us to join. Libertarians are generally in favour of people living in any social arrangement they damn well please, provided that it's voluntary. Of course, if your commune decides that it wants to take my privately owned land, or that it wants to force me to work for its benefit against my will, then we have a problem. But apart from that, if you live somewhere of your own accord and you refrain from aggressing against anyone else, it's none of my business how you live (and I wish you well.)

The reason why the state is different, of course, is that it relies inherently on coercion. I never voluntarily consented to be bound by any of its wishes, unlike your hypothetical commune.

[davireland]

Is there any instance when the Libs believe government interference is a neccessary evil?

[Grape190190]

(Original post by DrunkHamster)
I think you have a serious misunderstanding about what exactly it is that libertarians are saying. If you want to set up a socialist commune, be my guest! All we ask is that you use your own property to do so, and you don't force us to join. Libertarians are generally in favour of people living in any social arrangement they damn well please, provided that it's voluntary. Of course, if your commune decides that it wants to take my privately owned land, or that it wants to force me to work for its benefit against my will, then we have a problem. But apart from that, if you live somewhere of your own accord and you refrain from aggressing against anyone else, it's none of my business how you live (and I wish you well.)

The reason why the state is different, of course, is that it relies inherently on coercion. I never voluntarily consented to be bound by any of its wishes, unlike your hypothetical commune.

My problem with that answer is that for it to be consistent you have to equate libertarianism with anarchism. Since we all subscribe to the need for a state in some sense - to distribute things that we under produce: defence, the police, street-lighting and so on - there is an implicit acceptance that the community must exist in one form or another.

Now, if I was part of a private community, I couldn't very well say that I want to abstain on some elements of that communty's protocol or rules. If you want in (as, in the absence of anarchism, we can assume you do), you must abide by the community's rules. If in the community I run, there is a rule that everyone must pay 40% of their earnings or face the community's penalties, that's up to me. They have to pay it or unsubscribe.

Currently, we govern that community by a system of democracy, in which anyone over the age 18 may vote. Therefore, the state - the community of the whole - takes whatever form the democratic consensus decides upon. If that happens to be a socialist form, you'll pay it large proportions of your earnings; if it's a conservative one, you won't pay so much.

So, in my view, if libertarians aren't going to revolt against the very premise of a state, they should stop whinging just because the community has democratically decided to re-divide possessions a little. Leave the club.

[Collingwood]

(Original post by Grape190190)
So, in my view, if libertarians aren't going to revolt against the very premise of a state, they should stop whinging just because the community has democratically decided to re-divide possessions a little. Leave the club.

Presently it is illegal to seceed from the United Kingdom. If it weren't, I'm sure most libs would agree that it is an acceptable private commune and not a coercive state.

[Grape190190]

(Original post by Collingwood)
Presently it is illegal to seceed from the United Kingdom. If it weren't, I'm sure most libs would agree that it is an acceptable private commune and not a coercive state.

To accept the rule of law (and thus the concept of illegality) is to legitimise it. It is a rather circular point that you've made:
"I don't think the state should interfere in our lives by making laws."
"Why do you obey them, then?"
"Because it's the law."


A more succinct way to put my argument is this: you can't accept the right of the state to tell you what to do by defining legality, you can't take merit goods like security from the state, you can't legitimise it by voting... and then turn around and say, "The state doing anything else in our lives is a fundamental violation of freedom and 100% evil." without any need for debate of the pros/cons. Either you play or you do not. This dogmatic approach to freedom is just plain hypocritical.

[Bagration]

Ok, my question:

Do you not find the title of Libertarian assosciates you with a number of nutjobs? Personally I prefer Classical Liberal, just Liberal, or even Minarchist, to Libertarian.

(Original post by Grape190190)
1. Isn't it hollow? Doesn't the emphasis on the selfish rights of the individual make you feel lonely?

...Er, this kind of assumes that individuals won't voluntarily form 'non-selfish' groups. The Family Unit is voluntary to a degree, yet people still form it voluntarily. The point in Libertarianism is that you and others can do what you like (as long as it doesn't directly negatively affect anyone else) without being coerced to do so.

[Collingwood]

(Original post by Grape190190)
To accept the rule of law (and thus the concept of illegality) is to legitimise the club.

A more succinct way to put my argument is this: you can't accept the right of the state to tell you what to do by defining legality, you can't take merit goods like security from the state, you can't legitimise it by voting... and then turn around and say, "The state doing anything else in our lives is a fundamental violation of freedom and 100% evil." without any need for debate of the pros/cons. Either you play or you do not. This dogmatic approach to freedom is just plain hypocritical.

Why not? That's like saying that if you accept food from a kidnapper, you are legitimising the kidnapping. Did the Jews, by not rebelling when they were banned from certain professions, somehow legitimise the holocaust?

EDIT:

To reply to this other bit you added later, because it rather neatly explains the difference in viewpoint between us -

To accept the rule of law (and thus the concept of illegality) is to legitimise it. It is a rather circular point that you've made:
"I don't think the state should interfere in our lives by making laws."
"Why do you obey them, then?"
"Because it's the law."

Libertarians don't obey unjust laws because they believe the law (regardless of its content) is sacrosanct, they obey it because, as self-interested individuals, it is more in their interest to obey the unjust law than to incurr the wrath of the state. You would not, for instance, see someone hand over their wallet to a mugger and conclude, "ah! they think that the mugger had a just claim on their wallet, therefore any claim to believe in property rights is hypocrisy!" you would conclude that they valued the contents of the wallet less than their safety, which they believed to be in danger.

[Grape190190]

(Original post by Bagration)

...Er, this kind of assumes that individuals won't voluntarily form 'non-selfish' groups. The Family Unit is voluntary to a degree, yet people still form it voluntarily. The point in Libertarianism is that you and others can do what you like (as long as it doesn't directly negatively affect anyone else) without being coerced to do so.

But is that the most efficient way to be selfless? If people are free to vote as they please, doesn't it make sense that we could use the state in an unselfish and cooperative way?

Yes. It's true. You could be a libertarian philanphropist who wants to do good in the world - and there may be others like you. But if you are, what's the problem with doing good through the state, and why can't your vote be used in a selfless way. It's rather hard to argue that dismantling the welfare state would be good for the poor, so why not be charitable and not vote for a libertarian?