What are your political beliefs?

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

It literally predates right wing libertarianism by more than 100 years.

You are right though. All those political groups are full of mass murderers that felt so threatened by a supposedly useless ideology they were all willing to join together to kill libertarians.

If you want to take Right wing Libertarianism forming from disillusioned classical liberals, you can argue that the core thinking of right libertarianism as much older. Indeed, the emphasis on more economic and social freedom has been a key school of thought both in the US and here (I mean British politics in the 19th century was essentially a duel between protectionism and liberalism) so it’s unfair to say that only in recent decades that this line of thought has come to be. Its coinage is inherently linked to the New Deal policies from the 30’s onwards and represents more of a new name to oppose the new usage of liberal in America

Reply 83

FlintofBavaria

13

Centre Right, because I like a working economy and less government intervention unless absolutely necessary but socially I don't care what you do as long as you are not intentionally harming others.

Reply 84

Original post by bitofaledge

Facts. Capitalism has pulled millions of people out of poverty. That is, if you work. Although I understand if you cannot work and thus why I do agree to an extent with a welfare state (not the U.K. version though, you can't have mass immigration and a welfare state at the same time). To those men that are physically and mentally fit to work, but do not bother, I don't really think they deserve anything. Natural selection can cater for leeches of society. But to those that do want to work, and work hard: capitalism will reward you like no other.

I used to be a conservative like you, but I found the ideology boils down to 'work hard, you shall be rewarded'.

However, Conservatism simply isn't realistic.

30% of the UK population has an IQ below 80.

Hundreds of thousands of people still can't use a computer properly.

Mechanisation is happeing and taking away jobs quickly.

In a competitive society, one which is becoming increasingly globalised and technological, what are we going to do with the people who are unlucky through birth? Too stupid to work? Or have the odds stacked against them through external factors?

Conservatives don't support basic safely nets. Many want to get rid of the benefits program and don't want to offer alternatives.

You claim mentally and physically fit. Define that? What is the conservative response to mechanisation taking away jobs from mentally and physically fit people?

Reply 85

Original post by DeBruyne18

Not to mention how free marketism always leads to corporatism in which a relatively small number of corporations and individuals and corporations become so powerful that they can boss governments around. Take a look at how our press is owned by such a small number of individuals.

Not true. Free markets lead to balance. In a free market with little to no regualtions, competition will always be there and monopolies are unheard of.

There has only been 1 monopoly in the entire history of the world that has arisen independently. EVERY SINGLE monopoly that contributes to 'corporatism' has arisen BECAUSE of government intervention in the form of lobbying, tax breaks or subsidies. Remove government intervention, and you will NOT see monopolies.

Furthermore, remove trade barriers and tarriffs, to further reduce monopolies. Once foreign companies make competition work, deomestic and international monopolies will cease to exist.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 86

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by bob072

Stop ruining threads with your sockpuppets.

I'm not researching for a thesis, nor do I spend my life researching minor historical movements.

Asking whether something is a contradiction gives you the opportunity to explain why not, rather than laughing at someone for being so ignorant. From what I can see the idea would collapse within weeks, as happened in Russia a century ago and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

It's not a minor historical movement. It's ****ing massive and has been involved in all the major political events and revolutions since the development of capitalism, and even proto versions from before hand with an example being the diggers during the english civil war. Albeit it does tend to get ignored by the mainstream discourse.Which ironically the libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky has a lot to say about with his theories of manufacturing consent.

Luckily for you though you live in the age of the internet and finding the springboard to learn more about this stuff is a click away. If it weren't for the internet I'd know nothing about this stuff.

This should get you started
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

This also gets you started on why it is largely absent from mainstream discourse. The Cold War era essentially eradicated this understanding and conception of socialism, along with the capitulation of the mainstream left to neoliberalist logic which killed of any notion of socialism at all after the fall of the Soviet Union and triumphalism of the new right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
https://chomsky.info/1986____/

The biggest practical attempt culminated in the epic death throw of Spanish anarchism during the fight against Fascism (and other so called progressive movements) during the Spanish Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 87

username3672344

14

Original post by HighOnGoofballs

Not true. Free markets lead to balance. In a free market with little to no regualtions, competition will always be there and monopolies are unheard of.

There has only been 1 monopoly in the entire history of the world that has arisen independently. EVERY SINGLE monopoly that contributes to 'corporatism' has arisen BECAUSE of government intervention in the form of lobbying, tax breaks or subsidies. Remove government intervention, and you will NOT see monopolies.

Furthermore, remove trade barriers and tarriffs, to further reduce monopolies. Once foreign companies make competition work, deomestic and international monopolies will cease to exist.

If we're going to have a realistic debate about economic systems then we need to drop this fantasy idea of any economic system, including free marketism, as being these perfect systems in which everyone wins and sunshine and rainbows.

Free marketism certainly has advantages but it also has clear disadvantages. Monopolies and corruption are inherent in a free market system. In a free market system it is very often a case of 'winner takes all'. Or if not, then price fixing between competitors.

In a free market system you end up with our press being controlled by a handful of individuals. You end up with companies becoming so powerful that they can basically buy legislation and politicians. Look at the gun lobbies and pharmaceuticals in the USA, for example.

Capitalism and Corporatism are two sides of the same coin. There's good and bad but the former always leads to some form of the latter.

Reply 88

bob072

12

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

It's not a minor historical movement. It's ****ing massive and has been involved in all the major political events and revolutions since the development of capitalism, and even proto versions from before hand with an example being the diggers during the english civil war. Albeit it does tend to get ignored by the mainstream discourse.Which ironically the libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky has a lot to say about with his theories of manufacturing consent.

Luckily for you though you live in the age of the internet and finding the springboard to learn more about this stuff is a click away. If it weren't for the internet I'd know nothing about this stuff.

This should get you started
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

This also gets you started on why it is largely absent from mainstream discourse. The Cold War era essentially eradicated this understanding and conception of socialism, along with the capitulation of the mainstream left to neoliberalist logic which killed of any notion of socialism at all after the fall of the Soviet Union and triumphalism of the new right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
https://chomsky.info/1986____/

The biggest practical attempt culminated in the epic death throw of Spanish anarchism during the fight against Fascism (and other so called progressive movements) during the Spanish Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

Only a fanatic blindly follows any ideology in all aspects, most would agree with most parts as the best solutions in the real world. And the fact you haven't explained what it would mean or why it's a good idea but only direct to wikipedia pages doesn't fill me with confidence.

So the basis is for workers to own the businesses/industry they work in? Sort of like the John Lewis Partnership (although there is even more of a hierachy and lower wages than capitalist competitors)?

That might have worked when 90% of the population were farm labourers, but today if I want to set up a technology start up, how would that work if anyone I want to employ has to share ownership and be equal straight away? And if we make a loss are the workers responsible for paying?

Frankly there would be no incentive to work hard or start businesses if you are no better off and simply wasting time.

Has this been tried anywhere previously?

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 89

Original post by DeBruyne18

If we're going to have a realistic debate about economic systems then we need to drop this fantasy idea of any economic system, including free marketism, as being these perfect systems in which everyone wins and sunshine and rainbows.

Free marketism certainly has advantages but it also has clear disadvantages. Monopolies and corruption are inherent in a free market system. In a free market system it is very often a case of 'winner takes all'. Or if not, then price fixing between competitors.

In a free market system you end up with our press being controlled by a handful of individuals. You end up with companies becoming so powerful that they can basically buy legislation and politicians. Look at the gun lobbies and pharmaceuticals in the USA, for example.

Capitalism and Corporatism are two sides of the same coin. There's good and bad but the former always leads to some form of the latter.

Name me a single company or private institution that has held a monopoly without government assistance.

Free markets actually deter monopolies in my opinion. Government regulations and intervention is 99.9% of the time the root cause to why monopolies exist.

Seriously, I urge you. Name me a SINGLE company in the past 50 years that has held a long withstanding monopoly that has NOT received government assistance.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 90

Original post by HighOnGoofballs

Name me a single company or private institution that has held a monopoly without government assistance.

Free markets actually deter monopolies in my opinion. Government regulations and intervention is 99.9% of the time the root cause to why monopolies exist.

Seriously, I urge you. Name me a SINGLE company in the past 50 years that has held a long withstanding monopoly that has NOT received government assistance.

i'm a libertarian, but just to play devil's advocate i think you are wrong on this.

microsoft (now a duopoly with apple), amazon...

Reply 91

Original post by CollectiveSoul

i'm a libertarian, but just to play devil's advocate i think you are wrong on this.

microsoft (now a duopoly with apple), amazon...

Microsoft, Apple and Amazon all have recieved state subsidies among other assistance from the state.

What inherently do you think is wrong about what I said if you don't mind me asking?

For example, Amazon earns more in government grants than it pays corporation tax!

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 92

Original post by HighOnGoofballs

Microsoft, Apple and Amazon all have recieved state subsidies among other assistance from the state.

What inherently do you think is wrong about what I said if you don't mind me asking?

For example, Amazon earns more in government grants than it pays corporation tax!

For example, Amazon earns more in government grants than it pays corporation tax!

Sauce?

Reply 93

Original post by CollectiveSoul

For example, Amazon earns more in government grants than it pays corporation tax!

Sauce?

Sure.
http://www.independent.co.uk/money/tax/revealed-amazon-earns-more-through-government-grants-than-it-pays-in-tax-8617919.html?amp

It's the same story for practically every single monopoly to exist. Government always has their hands somewhere in their growth.

Dya still disagree :biggrin:

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 94

Original post by HighOnGoofballs

Sure.
http://www.independent.co.uk/money/tax/revealed-amazon-earns-more-through-government-grants-than-it-pays-in-tax-8617919.html?amp

It's the same story for practically every single monopoly to exist. Government always has their hands somewhere in their growth.

Dya still disagree :biggrin:

interesting that Amazon receives government grants. But you can't blame government grants on Amazon's monopoly status which was achieved through merit and merit alone

Reply 95

Original post by CollectiveSoul

interesting that Amazon receives government grants. But you can't blame government grants on Amazon's monopoly status which was achieved through merit and merit alone

I'm not denying that Amazon wouldnt be a big company if government hadn't helped out.

What I'm saying is that it wouldn't have been a monopoly if government had stayed away and if foreign markets were allowed to strike more competition.

People really underestimate how government grants, tax break, subsidies and lobbying can propell a company to untouchable, monopoly status.

So, in my opinion, you're entitled to disagree, but I feel like my point still stands.

At the end of the day, governments always have a hand in monopolies, and I believe if you remove government they won't be around anymore, or atleast if were being conservative, not around AS MUCH.

Surely you can agree on that.

Reply 96

Reue

Original post by HighOnGoofballs

Name me a single company or private institution that has held a monopoly without government assistance.

Yellow Pages

Reply 97

Original post by HighOnGoofballs

I'm not denying that Amazon wouldnt be a big company if government hadn't helped out.

What I'm saying is that it wouldn't have been a monopoly if government had stayed away and if foreign markets were allowed to strike more competition.

People really underestimate how government grants, tax break, subsidies and lobbying can propell a company to untouchable, monopoly status.

So, in my opinion, you're entitled to disagree, but I feel like my point still stands.

At the end of the day, governments always have a hand in monopolies, and I believe if you remove government they won't be around anymore, or atleast if were being conservative, not around AS MUCH.

Surely you can agree on that.

many monopolies have been created by governments indeed. but there wasnt an issue with government preventing foreign competition to amazon. infact amazon has bought-out many small competitors, which government anti-trust regulation can rule again. even if government got out the way it's simply not the case that foreign competition would have produced the innovations that amazon have.

amazon have become a monopoly by producing what people want at the price they are willing to pay = creating a monopoly

Reply 98

Original post by CollectiveSoul

many monopolies have been created by governments indeed. but there wasnt an issue with government preventing foreign competition to amazon. infact amazon has bought-out many small competitors, which government anti-trust regulation can rule again. even if government got out the way it's simply not the case that foreign competition would have produced the innovations that amazon have.

amazon have become a monopoly by producing what people want at the price they are willing to pay = creating a monopoly

How do you think it was able to get big enough to buy out competition?

You realise lobbying effectively allowed companies to create laws that will benefit them. One had to look no further than when the train industry effectively lobbying against the truck industry which was taking away revenue, and how the train industry was able to lobby and introduce laws to regulate the trucking industry so heavily that they earned their revenue back.

In the case of Amazon, I'm think - no I'm sure, you can find a similar history. Same with Microsoft. Same with Apple. All these companies lobbied. All these countries got legislation through governments which allowed them to succeed and their competition to somehow fail. All these companies then proceeded to use government grants, tax breaks and subsidies to get massive. And then all these companies used their massive wealth to buy competition. Government causes almost all monopolies. Period.

If foreign companies were allowed to compete with Amazon when it was first starting out, who knows if it would still be here today? Another company couldn't have offered better prices. It's hard to say.

But you can bet your ass that Amazon would have had a tougher time with no government help and foreign competition, and certainly wouldnt have been as big. Same with Microsoft. Same with Apple.

Dude, look. At the end of the day, it's unlikely either of us are gonna convince the other on some random internet forum. I'll go away and do some further research on the topic. I urge you to do the same.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 99